CPAC organizer vehemently denies stage was designed to look like Nazi symbol.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
By Daniel PolitiFeb 27, 20218:07 PM 
(L-R) Matt Schlapp, Moderator, American Conservative Union Chairman, Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), House Minority Leader, and Rep. Jim Banks (R-IN), participate in a discussion during the Conservative Political Action Conference held in the Hyatt Regency on February 27, 2021 in Orlando, Florida. Joe Raedle/Getty Images
Matt Schlapp, the head of the American Conservative Union who organizes the Conservative Political Action Conference, is pushing back against those who said that the stage for the event that is taking place in Orlando is eerily reminiscent to a Nazi symbol. "Stage design conspiracies are outrageous and slanderous," Schlapp tweeted. He went on to say that "CPAC proudly stands with our Jewish allies."
The fact that Schlapp felt the need to comment on the issue illustrates just how pervasive the comparisons had become on social media as many pointed out that the shape of the stage looked like a Nazi symbol. Specifically, many said the stage looked like a version of the Odal rune, also referred to as the Othala rune. The symbol dates back centuries but was also used by some Nazi SS divisions during World War II. The symbol was emblazoned on uniforms of some Nazis.
Some social media users shared photos that compared the CPAC stage to the old uniforms, illustrating the resemblance. The Anti-Defamation League has pointed out that after World War II the symbol became commonly used among white supremacistsand Neo-Nazis in both Europe and North America.
Tags
Who is online
219 visitors
Now of course the GOP counts Nazis and the KKK among its prime supporters, I am just not seeing the Nazi symbol here.
It is never good to have to deny you're being Nazis.
For real though, I studied German history and the early 20th century specifically and I am just not seeing what is being gone for here.
Ohhhkay, got it now, granted I have been our of school for a little bit.
Yeah looks the same once I see them side by side.
But is that what the cpac was REALLY going for (i wouldn't even be slightly amazed if it was) or did they just do like so many do these days, and use a symbol, idea or whatever in the wrong place at the wrong time?
I can't imagine a reason to build a stage in that shape, other than to convey a message.
Look at the diamonds on his other collar, throw away all your playing cards. The fact is the Nazi's co-opted lots of ancient symbols and it's a damn shame. Even the swastika was stolen and it was a very popular symbol and religious icon in many cultures and it meant divinity, spirituality, and good luck depending on where you were. Most of these ancient symbols are basic designs similar to geometric designs that look good in repeatable patterns and they were part of the earliest types of written language. Because of they're basic simplicity they are often replicated unknowingly. Did you know if you fold the flaps closed on a square cardboard box you can inadvertently create a swastika with the exposed edges of the flaps so make sure you fold your box flaps down so you end up with a Left facing swastika instead of the right facing "Nazi" swastika. Damn Nazi's trying to indoctrinate Us with their Fascist Cardboard Boxes.
Yes, I'm aware the swastika was appropriated. However, it is now associated with the Nazi Party. Those who use it now know this. The odal rune has been used by white supremacist groups since WWII.
The most generous interpretation is that somebody at CPAC got artistic when designing the stage, and nobody noticed that "Oh, hey, we've got a white supremacist symbol going on here. Maybe we should rethink this design, considering our reputation." If their best defense is ignorance, well, that doesn't exactly inspire confidence.
trumpsters getting back to their roots.
Same as the confederate flag. It may have meant one thing at one time yet we all know what it means now.
Can you ever post an original thought, or is that to much to ask...
Reading right wing hate sites isn't healthy...
Haha. When you have already admitted you want everyone to die just to usher in the second coming of Christ, we all know where you stand.
And it is not with anyone but other dominionists...
Here are photos of Nazi officers with odal rune emblems
I found this photo , which is evidently of a visit by an SS official to a Nazi outpost in Serbia, and when I did a search for the photo I was taken to a site called 16chan where the photo was being used as an avatar by a vicious anti-semite.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Well, the dope you quoted is right about one thing.
Becker and Trending Politics are right on about this lame ass weak minded conspiracy theory advanced by the seeded article. It’s pure bs.
Deny, deny, deny....
Yeah, Nazis promoted a heritage of Aryan purity and anti-semitism and racism, that is why they flouted emblems of Slavic heritage.
I thought the same thing. Someone did that on purpose.
Tried reading some of that guy's blog. Like reading a Rube Goldberg device of religious reasoning.
Helps when the correct image is shown. I couldn't figure out what they were talking about, either.
Your ability to discern the truth is in question.
Was Biden legitimately elected president of the United States of America?
Your answer will be very telling.
The Nazi symbol is there, clear as can be C4P.
Can you please tell us again how the holocaust never happened too?
Nope don't see the similarity and it would be a stretch for anyone to even think of that, but we can always depend on our friends on the left to try. Experts that they are on military insignias!
The elements of the stage design that are noted look exactly like the odal rune design. Exactly. It seems to me that it is disingenuous to say otherwise.
You know what is disingenuous? - For anyone to even claim they even knew about the Odal Rune design before this silly narrative was hatched!
It's quite obvious how that stage was designed.
Of course you don't, Vic. That is what is expected. See no Evil, Hear No Evil..... But the symbol is definitely there, whether it was intentional or not. Plausible deniability goes a long way, too far it would seem these days.
I'll ignore the personal stuff. When did you learn about that symbol?
who cares? That is an irrelevant question.
immaterial
No, It goes to the heart of an attempt to smear millions of people based on zero.
The purpose of using a symbol like this, if in fact it was used as a symbol, would be to speak to those who did know of the symbol and the connotations based thereon.
I am not a member of that particular audience, but there are those who are, and presumably it would resonate with them. To deny seeing the symbol in the stage setup is disingenuous.
The swastika is too well known for them to rally behind it, as you stated, the odal rune is less well known ( giving them a source of deniability ), but well known amongst their followers.
This is the equivalent of having someone stand on stage flashing white supremacist hand signs.
Hate Symbols Database
Just because it could be German doesn't mean it's Nazi. If that association is going to be made then Nancy Pelosi must be Fascist because her parents immigrated from Italy.
Legally?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS IS.
EXACTLY!
Another words it was a bullshit narrative. Got it.
Being offended by a plastic potato is legal.
CPAC, Hate groups are big on smybols, that expains why they are poor communicators. Everything is on a secret, childish level with these "lame-brains."
I mean that is the kindest way.
Vic: Have you ever attempted to see people with opinions, views and politics as humans, too?
No one is right on everything, even Right Wingers who have convenienced themselves that they know it all.
Ozz, I looked at the Hate Symbols Database. Some of those symbols are legitimate ASL and how does one distinguish an okay sign as hate speech or literally as "okay"? I'm not being facetious. I think the hate symbols are appalling. I actually find it completely distasteful for hate groups to use anything that could be used in ASL as something innocuous.
I am not an expert, I merely provided the link for those who are interested in some of the most common hand gestures for white supremacy.
Might I suggest you direct the question to the authors of the linked article.
No surprise there.
Who ever made such a claim, Nerm?
No, Vic. Even closeted bigots can know of its use.
Another personal attack?
Well, I suppose it is uncomfortable to tell our readers that you looked at that ceiling and immediately thought of the Odal Rune insignia!
Oh Thomas, don't say such a thing about progressives. There must be some good ones.
Yep, just like Mexicans
You know, Vic, if you say something about your views, and I agree that those are likely your views, it's really hard to see how you can call that a personal attack.
The ceiling is close, but not precise.
The stage is much more accurate to the most popular version of the odal rune.
Twice in one piece of architecture?
Priceless.
You know, Sandy, when you speak of a persons views in the manner you usually do - it is a personal attack.
You get the same question: What did you know about the odal rune before somebody concocted this ridiculous narrative?
Has nothing to do with it, absolutely, WHATSOEVER.
Lol...and the same question to you - what did you know about odal rune before this bs story?
You know, Vic, if you say something about your views, and I agree that those are likely your views, it's really hard to see how you can call that a personal attack.
So you are going to repeat the same statement to do what? Make it somehow meaningful? Shall I do the same? Then I suppose the one who quits first forfeits the game?
Interesting.
BTW, don't you work in the mornings?
I have a few minutes before I have to be a professional diva.
Oh, then you did listen to the entire statement.
Then I'm honored that you devoted those few minutes to me.
It was rhetorical. I wasn't really expecting you to answer that question. And I'm curious as to know why it seems as though you thought I was somehow being negative. I know... it's difficult to imagine me agreeing, but that does happen occasionally. I mean, we agreed in my gun article.
Sorry, but cannot help what you read into a comment. Care to point out which words I used that made you feel that way?
Some people will see whatever they want to see.
And some people are blind as a bat, because they do not want to see.
I simply voiced a personal opinion. If somebody wants a urinating contest, find somebody else.
Probably a wise move. I have heard bad things can happen from crossing streams.
Yep.
Obviously the GQP knows what to do to get the attention of their supporters.
It is in the stage floor, the cube on an angle was an SS Symbol. Very inside stuff.
[removed] Or so I am told by my "sauces," Steve Bunions who was booted from the White House, under #45 for not wearing shoes.
Don't believe me. It in the Bible, somewhere.
Um huh! I am sure that any resemblance the CPAC imagery had with Nazi symbolism was incidental...
Sure it was. How else could this ever be explained?
Hint - The rightwing is practically in love with Nazis.
What with his ruling by decree and being enabled and supported by the Democrat Schutzstaffel, it would appear that Biden is trying to emulate the Fuehrer.
I guess you never tire of being wrong, but also of being factually incorrect....all the time.
That was just abjectly stupid
Greg, T-Rump, (I will NEVER say, or, write his name again) uses the same tactic as Hitler did, deny, deny, deny! Then, accuses his opponents of the exact same dispecable breach of humanity that Adolf and the damnable, ruthless murderers. were gleefully doing.
At some point, one must turn off Fox TV Nutwork News and engage one's mind, again. Following TV Talk Show Host and mimicking their "Talking Point" is NOT research.
Trout Giggles, in my esteemed analyzes of everything in the Universe, I have discovered that sound folks are just bent. G. Jones just might be a salty pretzel.
Prior to WWII, Conservatives were enamered of NAZI ideology, especially the whole White is Righteous thing that Adolf sold to his followers.
Accidents happen ?
So do freudian slips !
I really am just not seeing what the author or this seed is suggesting. Am I stupid? I mean I know I am but on this thing, am I really just missing something?
Sometimes these hidden symbols especially when slightly altered are hard to spot, We see them everyday.
I see lots of right angles, but little else
Because its only about half of the whole symbol its kinda hidden. So the problem you may be having could be the mental filter you are using. It may need adjusted.
No stevie...after examining it closely, it still doesn't resemble anything relevant...except in your imagination, perhaps
Sorry to hear that Gregy,
Maybe someday you'll see it, seems most people do.
The stage is the same as an upside down odal rune.
look again...
Really impossible not to see.
Lol, really? Oh, the old Odal Rune! First thing that came to mind wen I saw it!/s
It is impossible NOT TO SEE THAT.
I guess you aren't as up to speed on old Norse runes as you thought you were! /s
A lot of the White Nationalists are Pagans who worship the old Scandinavian gods like Thor.
And Toilet Bowls, or, so, I am told!
If one does not look for the "Truth," that one will become two, then, three until their are 63 million killed by Neo-Nazis.
It's in the Bible, somewhere. Or, in Nostril DumbBottom's pronostications, on sale at all Hustler Magazine for Twisted Folks.
Greg, I am curious about your hard, unbending opinions. Would you tell us about yourself so we might understand where you are coming from. I have never met a true "Space Cadet."
Who knew? lol...
"Who knew? lol..."
Really! Learn something new every day.
And that's why I depend on you / s
I don't have a problem with Pagans or anyone in their faith. I just thought that our Conservative Christian Brethren should know who they are embracing
Exactly!
When you look at the stage itself, not the back drop, it does look like an upsidedown Odal rune. Not well versed on Nazi symbols but I think that is why people are saying what they are saying.
Yep it's really quite sad.
shakin head
To see some in this country stoop so low .... SUCKS !
Bad imagery. Can't comment on the intent one way or the other, but yeah, bad imagery.
But the two bottom/back points are connected creating a triangle so No. Adding a line changes everything, A I becomes a T by adding a line, An I becomes an L by adding a line.
They both want to do it and deny that they did it. That's pretty much the story of the Trump era.
Why must the gop keep denying they're Nazis?
GOPers have idolized the nazis since 1933 ...
Reagan was a "B" movie actor, who supportered the Witch Hunt for "Commies" during the McCarthy Era.
Today's gqp
It is upside down, so, only the upside down folks might see it.
Even the ceiling panel mimics the stage design with the rune more reflective of the stage.
Birtherism is evolving. It is brazen now. "Hang Pence," remember?
As far as the stage. Maybe a coincidence or maybe not. At this point it does not matter. The lines are drawn.
I think they copied this design from my local Strip Club. It's just missing the Pole, it was designed to maximize front row seating.
how dare you bro g something rational to debunk the beyond sheer idiocy that is the seeded article.
Designed for Nazi strippers in Nazi strip joints?
No. The Diamond shape maximized front row seating and moved the attendees closer to the speaker while maintaining social distancing. Getting the most socially distanced attendees as close to the speaker as possible in a hotel ballroom seems to be the obvious reason for the design.
Yeah, OK
LMAO
Yeah because a room full of people sitting side by side and maskless who booed a young female speaker
for requesting them to wear masked at the insistence of the host/hotel really cared about social distancing.
No one believes the bs that is the seeded article. Pure conspiracy theory lunacy.
swastika = cross with feet
Yeah, OK
LMAO
Well, Cabaret was time placed in Nazi Germany....
What, you don't trust your eyes either......
While your at it tell us again how it wasn't the Trump supporters that attacked and killed police on 6JAN21 in an attempt to overthrow our republic?
Rational?
No
My "sauces" say that is where Nazis meet at night.
... only when there isn't a church youth group or boy scout troop function.
How so?
Well, if the hotel is using Nazi symbols it should be booed!
Booed?
How about boycotted?
Even Mike Lindell was "cancelled" for making religious remarks and remarks about the vaccines after agreeing not to ar CPAC.
I'm not sure that's what Fusion GPS or Mother Jones intended. Look what it's done for NT! Somebody claims there is an obscure Nazi symbol in the ceiling and we have tons of interest!
Right, an attempt to overthrow our Republic- with no weapons to speak of; a few thousand royally stupid people w/o a plan; who didn't secure any strategic locations; didn't bother to make any plans to remove the DC Police or Security; didn't do anything to secure and hold what little territory they temporarily took; and didn't secure any important hostages to negotiate terms with or make examples out of.
It was a riot; it was preplanned well before Trump gave his speech; it had Antifa agitators that participated in it; but an attempt to overthrow our Republic? Get a clue and do some research into what a real coup, and attempt to overthrow the government, looks like. If you need a reference try something recent like the Obama backed coup in the Ukraine. Or the Houthi coup in Yemen. Try Syria, Libya, Iraq, or any number of other countries.
The DC far right alt rioters were dumb enough to pose for selfies clearly marking who they were and that they had illegally entered a federal building. They wouldn't have had time to do dumb shit like that if they were attempting to overthrow the government.
Hyperbole from the left never ceases to amaze me. No wonder AOC is so popular; she is the queen of hyperbolic dysfunction on social media.
Bullshit!
No evidence U.S. Capitol rioters belong to antifa movement, FBI chief Wray testifies
No evidence U.S. Capitol rioters belong to antifa movement, FBI chief Wray testifies (msn.com)
If you can't get your facts straight, or want to continue to promulgate right wing propaganda, then to hell with you.
"Even Mike Lindell was "cancelled" for making religious remarks and remarks about the vaccines after agreeing not to ar CPAC."
Yeah and I thought pimp Don, Jr.'s ho Guillfoyle was the epitome of batshit craziness at CPAC
Why do you continue to repeat these lies?
They are this was just a fluke.
Pssst - he forgot to mention the 'leftist brown shirts' this time.
He's repeating those lies everywhere.
LOL!
It seems pretty impossible that this was not intentional. It’s too ridiculous of a shape for a stage for it not to have been done on purpose.
You see what you want to see
Not true. What I’m really wanting to see is a Republican Party that shuns white nationalism, racism, and bigotry in general. It’s no longer anywhere to be found, unfortunately.
I’m trying to imagine a conversation between the CPAC organizer and the stage designer. “Make it zigzag around so that speakers need to walk towards then away then towards to crowd, and need to pay close attention so they don’t fall off. Yeah, that sounds really functional.”
You shut your eyes any tighter to the truth Greg, [deleted]
Bingo!
You see what you want to see
And you don't think the inverse can't be applied Ed? The inverted symbol is there, as plain as the nose on your face.
You would think that the party that is trying to prove it isn't home to white supremacists' would be working hard do so.
I see "Right-Wing, tatoo covered Neo-Nazis with loaded weapons popping up everywhere like rotting weeds!
Hey hey... it's not just hateful bigots that are tattooed, I'll have you know.
The fact that you weren't aware that the nazi's were actually fascists hiding behind a socialist moniker doesn't surprise me in the least.
I think MAGA forgets that the Nazi's abhorred communism
Too funny that Mike Lindell was "canceled" during an interview at CPAC.
No one apparently wanted to hear about Revelations or his anti vaccine opinions.
He is completely nuts, we'll see what happens in the lawsuit filed by Dominion.
He should get together with Goya and they could mix beans and pillows.
Like Socialists and Communists get along so well./S
I think he's about to go back on the crack pipe
I doubt many conservatives would be able to explain the night and day differences between communism, socialism and fascism as many on the right use them interchangeably in their pointless rhetorical attacks on liberals and progressives. To them they're just dirty words and offensive names to call their opponents, no understanding of them required much like a 3rd grade bully repeating bad words they heard from their grandpa that they have no clue as to the meaning other than their grandpa uses them towards people he hates.
I’ve never been aware of the symbol before. Guess I haven’t been keeping up on my nazi symbology.
The conspiracy theory doesn’t really pass the common sense smell test, though. Granted, the stage certainly looks like the symbol (upside down I guess - does that still count?) but why would they do this on purpose? What would be the point? What would it accomplish? Obviously it would lead to this kind of coverage in the media and I can’t imagine that being desirable. And if they still did it, understanding what the reaction would be, then they would be owning it, wouldn’t they?
What doesn’t pass the smell test is a stage that looks like it’s designed to make speakers fall off of it. I wonder if they’re making the presenters sign a waiver.
Agreed. I have seen this thing quite a lot actually, and I often scratch my head over it. People walk out on these stages in high heels or slick dress shoes, with bright lights shining in their eyes. It’s a miracle more of them don’t break bones stepping into an abyss they can’t see.
Obviously it would lead to this kind of coverage in the media and I can’t imagine that being desirable
So would attacking the capitol but that happened as well.
trump and his followers think they are smarter that the rest of Americans. Symbols are useful to convey a message. This message is trump is here to stay, needed for his followers to keep following the republican party.
IMO: The republican party is scared shitless that trump's followers won't support them if they don't follow and support trump themselves.
Sadly in may cases they are probably correct.
I think it’s reasonable to assume a different process in development of the two events.
I think you are right, I do think both have the same results in sight though.
No, that would be a non Trump-like thing to do. Kind of in the "He was just joking" , (im)plausible deniability vein.
Just sayin'.... not to mention the complete lack of an American flag anywhere on that stage...
Lenin's mausoleum even? I mean why stop with Godwin's Law?
For a group that insists that they are great patriots, it does seem strange.
Indeed!
Some people show their patriotism through their actions, while others only have symbols and rhetoric.
I don't see a problem like you're trying to point out Freewill. We don't have to dress in the flag or hump the flag or have a million of them on view to show that we're patriotic. I see no comparison between the Nazi imagery that the gqp freely use and the Democratis not being surrounded by flags. No comparison whatsoever.
Well of course not Tessylo. But not a single US flag at the outset of the DNC? They are in the business of nominating a potential leader of the USA and not a single US flag on the stage initially, until after they took some flack for it even from their own constituents? What sort of message do you think that sends?
Anyway, that was secondary to my tongue in cheek point that the 2016 DNC stage sure looks a lot like the Nazi Parteiadler Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (Emblem of the National Socialist German Worker's Party 1933–1945), especially if one were to view it from above. A silly game that can be played by just about anyone.
No one gives a shit how many flags were or weren't at the DNC except supporters of the former occupant of the White House it appears.
Well since a few flags were ultimately delivered to the stage for the next couple days, clearly somebody other than Trump or his supporters gave a shit. Unless... you don't think.... noooo! Did Trump supporters put those flags on the DNC stage for days 2 and 3? Probably the same ones who designed that DNC stage to look like the emblem of the Nazi Party..... Hurry... let's run over to the Daily Kos and see what they've uncovered. (-:
How stupid. You can have the last word . . . for now.
Indeed!
You go to incredible lengths to prove NOTHING. Again, how stupid.
Another fake quote...
It doesn't matter how many times it gets pointed out as fake, it will pop right back up.
It would be really nice if memes weren't the primary source of education for some people.
It's not a quote? Wow!
Are you going to claim the pictures are fake also?
t's not a quote? Wow!
Why do you post fake quotes? Do you think attributing them to the wrong people makes you look smart? Do you even know who Sinclair Lewis is? Are you afraid your little pictures will seem trite without attributing them to someone else?
You haven't shown it is fake.
Make up your mind. Is the quote fake, or is it just attributed to the wrong person?
Do you?
Do you actually think it is my picture? LOL!
Quote is accurate no matter who made it, and Trump's pictures match it to a tee.
You haven't shown it is fake
It's your quote. Prove Upton Sinclair wrote it. Upton Sinclair is an author, just so you know.
Is the quote fake
Yes. Upton Sinclair never said it. You should apologize for misleading people. But you won't.
you actually think it is my picture? LOL!
Of course not. The creator knows who is Sinclair is. The creator attaches his fake quote to pictures because he knows his audience of low information liberals would be gulled into passing it on probably would ignore it with out pictures attached. Memes are his audiences speed and good propagandist that he is, he speaks to his audience.
You just have no clue how things work, do you. You made the claim that it is fake, that means you need to prove your claim.
And yet you have not provided any evidence of that.
Then why did you state it was my picture?
Name the creator then.
Name him.
And, like I said before, it doesn't matter who made the quote, it is still accurate and fits Trump the the tee.
Never expect truth or facts from Sean. NEVER.
Y ou just have no clue how things work, do yo
You obviously don't. If you quote someone, you cite. Yet, you rrefuse. (Because the quote was made up to fool the gullible into believing a famous author said it)
at means you need to prove your claim
Because I am kind and can't stand to see people misled with propaganda, I did.
You should apologize for misleading the site with your fake quote.
Whoops! Tough look, again.
You should apologize for not reading your own link to your evidence. From your own link:
Did he make the quote? Nobody apparently knows.
Also, you again are claiming it is MY quote. And again, I point out no it isn't.
Also, also, as I have said more than once, and you can quote me:
It doesn't matter who made the quote, it is still accurate and fits Trump the the tee.
Did he make the quote? Nobody apparently knows.
Wow! You somehow managed to make this worse.
Of course we know. There's no record of him saying it. Do you know how this works? You don't attribute a quote to somebody because there's no record of him saying it.
Also, you again are claiming it is MY quote
You are the one who cited it remember? In your little argument by picture. Or do you think using pictures makes it okay to lie?
It doesn't matter who made the quote,
This is your dumbest, most dishonest argument, yet. OF course it matters, that why the guy who made it up lied and attributed it to a famous author, so it would gain credibility. It's why false attribution is a logical fallacy. IF it doesn't matter who said something, then you are fine with attributing anything Hitler said to Joe Biden.
How bout "sex with little boys should be legal" - Joe Biden (no record of him saying it, but who cares?)
After all what difference does it make if you lie about who said something, right?
Imagine a grown adult saying accuracy in attributing statements doesn't matter. Can't say I ever thought I'd see that.
Have to love NT, the pro-lying club isn't even embarrassed about it, they celebrate it and refuse to ever admit they are wrong.
I just watched a few minutes of Trump's angry rant on Fox. They showed the crowd and it looks like only about 300-400 people are there. At one point it sounded like they were shouting "Heil Trump!" and some were giving the right arm Nazi salute.
Not sure what you were watching, but the real world saw better than a thousand people there, and that is only because that is full capacity of the venue.
Of course, your imagination played a large part about the "Heil Trump" bullshit and the salute. Must have been one of those dog whistles only liberals can hear.
"We won the presidential election in a landslide."
One of those lies only Trumpist fascists believe.
Only in the gqp world can 7 million more votes for Joe Biden be a landslide win for the former occupant of the White House!
Hmmm. Is this the salute that’s being referred to?
Not the same at all.
BINGO!
Context Jane, context.
BINGO!
He leads a party that includes those who seem to be far worse.
Right back at ya!
Now Vic thinks that cancel culture and "socialist" Democrats are "far worse" than neo Nazis and white supremacists. ("He leads a party that includes those who seem to be far worse.") Yikes.
If you take a snap shot of any person waving at a crowd you can always get one with their arm extended. Virtually every parade will have shots of dozens of people caught mid-wave in what would look like a Nazi salute when frozen in time.
This woman is waving to a crowd, just like Joe Biden in the above photo.
These Trump supporters are clearly not waving nor raising their hands to answer a question, they are saluting and pledging their loyalty to who they see as their Dear Leader like good little Nazi's do.
Context is king, and snapshots taken out of context is dishonest and slimy, but then again those doing it clearly have no shame or morals left to care.
Maybe this one?
NO!
That's all they got
Fingers spread, waving at a celebrity, or even a president, certainly no Democrat would ever do such a thing right? Did you ask them their motive DP? Did you ask them if their "salute" was any different than the identical sort of wave you depicted in the photo above it? If those people are really Nazi's DP, what do you think we should do about that?
That is correct, calling either of your pictures an example of Nazi salutes is dishonest and slimy and at least there are some here with the morals to call it out by posting similar waves to show how ridiculous and shameful such characterizations are.
Did I say something to you ?
Bravo, that’s exactly the point I was going for. Now some seem to think that every Republican that waves in a crowd is somehow a racist nazi who is sending out secret signals. I on the other hand have enough functioning brain cells to realize that is just partisan bull. The same way I know that every Democrat isn’t a freeloader, baby killer that supports riots under the guise of peaceful protest. All that is also partisan BS people use to try and justify their own hate.
You don't wave to a crowd.
You throw beads...
When will people learn...
That's right! Anyone who has been to New Orleans in February knows this...
Even this fuckin' Nazi....
The hate blinds them to any objectivity. So sad to go through life like that.
And there is no surprise there.
To be fair, this started with an observation from someone watching the CPAC conference that said "At one point it sounded like they were shouting "Heil Trump!" and some were giving the right arm Nazi salute". There was no accusation of Trump or anyone else on stage returning the "sieg Heil" Nazi victory salute.
Then, you post a pic of Biden obviously just waving to a crowd. That is common as pointed out and has nothing to do with those in the CPAC crowd who appeared to be both giving the Nazi arm salute and chanting "Heil Trump!". Obviously these are two very different issues and to downplay the fact that there appear to be some neo-Nazi's among Trumps supporters who mingle with the confederate flag waving white supremacists who are also among his supporters is a rather misleading attempt to defend Nazi's and white supremacists and is shameful. Not all Trump supporters are white supremacists or Nazi's, but virtually all blatant white supremacists and Nazi's in America appear to be Trump supporters. One might think that someone with functioning brain cells would wonder why that phenomenon exists instead of trying to rush to their defense and posting misleading photos attempting to claim some sort of what-about-ism. Perhaps they would even address the reasons why white supremacists seem so attracted to Trump and his brand of governance.
Not to pick, but isn't he waving?
That is the very point several here have tried to make. If you agree, then why did you show a picture of general Trump supporters waving and say, "...they are saluting and pledging their loyalty to who they see as their Dear Leader like good little Nazi's do."?
Who here has rushed to the defense of any blatant white supremacists or Nazis? The photos being posted here were to show that many people wave or cheer in such a manner that looks like a Nazi salute, but that, nor the candidate whom you think they may have voted for, makes them a Nazi or a Nazi supporter. So why post things like those that have been posted here, as if every conservative or Republican or every Trump supporter is a Nazi following their fascist leader who many here claim is the equivalent of Hitler? I don't like the guy either, but I sure as hell don't think he is Hitler, THAT is irrational.
For the record, as many should know here by now, I am not a Trump supporter, nor have I ever voted for him. Until one NT member made the claim above that, "At one point it sounded like they were shouting "Heil Trump!" and some were giving the right arm Nazi salute", I had no intention of watching his CPAC speech as I am done listening to his non-sensical ramblings. But I took it upon myself to suffer through the whole thing just to see for myself that the accusation that there were folks there shouting, "Heil Trump!" and some were giving the right arm Nazi salute", was a bunch of crap designed to malign a much larger group than just blatant white supremacists or Nazis.
Because Trump trumpets a populist/nationalist view that appeals to many middle class/ working class Americans, but unfortunately he appeals to white supremacists or Nazis as well who wish for much more extreme nationalist views, even though Trump has publicly denounced them on several occasions. I think we can all agree that such people should be denounced. Trump is a pompous self-centered ass who doesn’t care who he has to run over to get what he wants. It isn't so much his brand of governance as it is his attitude and lack of empathy for other people that I think appeals to blatant white supremacists or Nazis. Anyway, my two cents...
Should Democrats have to explain why socialists, communists, and anarchists are drawn to them? Should they have to explain why terrorists fear them less than Republicans?
I mean, we can all examine the impressions we put out and consider who is encouraged by us, but when you have a binary choice, you have to pick one. You're bound disagree on some issue with whomever you vote for. And you're bound to agree with some awful people on at least one issue they care about.
Are you really equating support for a political and economic system that promotes equality with white supremacy? I mean, it seems to me that most people can recognize that one (white supremacy) is evil, and the other is just an opinion on how best to govern for the good of all. One is rooted in hate and suppression, and the other seeks to minimize suppression of the majority by the minority. I don't see how anybody could say that socialism is just as negative as white supremacy, and nobody should say anything that appeals to socialists. I can see why nobody should like to be associated with white supremacists.
And anarchists don't really tend to align with Democrats any more than Republicans. Anarchists don't want regulations; Republicans (many of them) run on a platform of deregulation. "Don't tread on me" and all that jazz.
Attempting to gaslight those who recognize the white supremacist symbols by denying their existence is a defense of white supremacists. It's right in line with the defenses of Trump's more outrageous statements over the last 5 years - "He didn't say that, and if he did, he didn't mean it. He was joking. You took it wrong. You're a snowflake to be bothered by it. It wasn't that bad."
Trump/CPAC says or does something outrageous, like using a white supremacist symbol as a motif in their decor, and when called on it, deny, downplay, deflect, and project. After all, it's a strategy that's worked for many over the past 5 years. Why not keep it up?
I didn’t watch or listen to CPAC so to be FAIR I googled that observation. Not one result! Even you have to admit if it were even remotely true it would have been blasted on every news source, in every state, city and small town. Unless of course you believe the picture you posted ( which has been on the internet since at least 2017 ) somehow proves that people were chanting heil Trump and giving the nazi salute at CPAC. Do you? I’m sorry but I’ll have to pass on that theory.
Exactly why I posted mine. To prove a photo, just like an opinion can be deceitful. You just posted a photo to give a negative opinion on a group of people you don’t like.
One more thing. I get that you were trying to imply that I’m a nazi sympathizer and white supremacy supporter simply because I don’t think or see things the same as you. I could say a lot of things in response to that opinion but I will just go with this.
If you knew anything about me, my life, or my family dynamic, you would even tell yourself what an ignorant, unjust, uneducated pile of steaming horse manure those comments were!
Anyway, I’m pretty sure this back and forth is over. Too much negative energy coming from you. Carry on!
IMO, yes he is.
What’s you opinion in the photo posted at 9.1.12 of the group of people? Waving or giving the nazi salute?
You make them sound so rational....Lol
They've been on a violent rampage all summer and here they are seeing Nazi symbols in the roof. Just another day for the left.
"but unfortunately he appeals to white supremacists or Nazis as well who wish for much more extreme nationalist views, even though Trump has publicly denounced them on several occasions."
He appeals to and courts them
The former occupant of the White House NEVER DENOUNCED WHITE SUPREMACISTS/NATIONALISTS!
HE SAID THAT THEY WERE FINE PEOPLE, THAT THEY WERE VERY SPECIAL. THAT HE LOVED THEM VERY MUCH!
HE TOLD THEM TO STAND BACK AND STAND BY!
[deleted]
You know I don't.
I don’t know Kathleen, I think some know their wrong. They just like the tingle they get when they post BS and their friends come by to clap like seals more than they like being objective and honest.
nobody would want that coming at them adorned in walmart lingerie
That's 'they're'
I'd say he's a fuckin' Nazi! An 'incredible worm'. A spineless weasel.
Did you hear him at the CPAC 'convention'? Sounded very much like a little Nazi there.
Look, I get it. Trump is an asshole and people hate him. But lies are lies and fabrications are fabrications, and pointing them out does not indicate support for an asshole, it indicates support for the truth and reason.
Here is the truth:
Trump did in fact denounce white supremacist groups and nazis in the strongest of terms on several occassions. I’m truly sorry if it is difficult for some to accept, but it is what it is. And when the same folks who won’t accept it repeat lies or misinformation as you did here, or conger up theories rooted in those lies or misinformation to create additional political animus, and widen the circle of those targeted by such animus, you can’t possibly be surprised when some rational and reasonable people might be skeptical of such theories or see them as merely political games. The same sort of demonization games that are played by partisan pundits on both sides of the aisle.
Wow - didn't realize you were such an expert on the Nazi's or folks who might resemble you thoughts of what a Nazi is or should be.
Nope, the former occupant of the White House NEVER DENOUNCED THE BOOGALOO BOYS OR ANY OF THOSE IDIOT WHITE SUPREMACIST SUPPORTERS BECAUSE THEY ARE HIS BASE. THEY SUPPORT HIM.
HE NEVER EVER DENOUNCED THEM NEVER
I am not reporting misinformation/lies. It's the truth. Truth is not a smear.
It's not a 'both sides of the aisle' issue.
I hope he doesn't bare his breasts for beads....
You think communism promotes equality? Do you know how many millions of people have been imprisoned or murdered by communist regimes? And I'm talking about their own people.
Yeah Stalin used to like to say that he was doing it for the good of all. I'm sure the Uighurs in China hear all about the "good of all."
Barf!
As usual in these discussions, people have different meanings for common terms. You are using an entirely different meaning for socialism/communism than Sandy.
Sandy was obviously not referring to Stalinism or Maoism but rather to the abstract notion of reduced class disparity such as social democracy (which is what most of the Ds are actually talking about when they say 'socialism').
IMO if one thinks a poster is in favor of the system of Stalin or Zedong then they almost assuredly have misunderstood what the poster wrote.
(I'm so glad we have you here to explain other people's words. /s)
Ok then: What is the difference between that and assuming that everyone on the other end of the spectrum is trying be a Hitler-style nazi? Trump's populism and nationalism has been characterized as Nazi-esque from Day 1. And therefore anyone who supports Trump - even a little, even on one policy point - is a wannabe Nazi ready to fill the concentration camps and fire up the ovens.
It's all well and good - and disingenuously academic - to claim that socialism or communism is about this or that in the abstract, but the reality in the real world has been just as I described it.
Well then maybe you should explain to Sandy that I have been misunderstood. Why aren't you pointing out how ridiculous it is to suggest that I either "equate" anything to or "support" white supremacy? How come you don't rush to explain the obvious to Sandy?
Were those regimes actually following the beliefs they said they were?
Was fascism?
The fact is that some ideas about government and economics lead inexorably to injustice because they can't function without oppression. We have seen it in real world application multiple times. It is now silly to suggest that someone is just doing communism or fascism incorrectly.
Of course none of this has anything to do with what I wrote @9.1.28. It's a rabbit hole and a different discussion.
For crying out loud Tessylo! Did you even read the factcheck.org article to which I linked? All the proof is there and it is well cited:
Come on now. This whole Trump/CPAC are Nazi's, or are signaling the hate groups, shit is rooted in the lies and misinformation that allege that Trump and CPAC actively support white supremacist and Nazi groups and have NEVER EVER DENOUNCED THEM NEVER . Why base an argument on such emotional and baseless lies and accusations? If you can show us an email or letter from Trump or CPAC directing the contractors who designed/built the stage to design it purposefully in the shape of an Odal Rune to signal their friends on the far-right fringe (to what end?, who knows), then fine, story is over, they did it, guilty as charged. Otherwise it is just a bunch of politically motivated conjecture based on baseless allegations and aimed at sullying (or affixing the "fascist" label to) not only Trump or his supporters, but all conservatives and Republicans in general. It is bullshit and both sides engage in this demonization game, and you know it. So who will step up and break that cycle? If you aren't willing to, then how can you expect others to?
You clearly misunderstood her.
Assuming everyone on one end of the spectrum a Nazi is as silly as assuming everyone on the other end a Communist per Stalin or Zedong. Do you disagree?
I find it surprising that people stubbornly continue to ONLY look at the labels used by Stalin and Zedong and REFUSE to look at the underlying meaning of those labels as defined by Marx. That, Tacos!, is disingenuous.
We all know that Stalin and Zedong were murderous dictators and their respective systems were oppressive, authoritarian, single-party rule. Why is it that so many want to let Stalin and Zedong redefine what Marx defined? And why would anyone assume that a rational human being would be in favor of such systems??
Nowhere in the regimes of Stalin or Zedong do we see any hint that they were trying to give their people democratic control over the productive resources of the economy. Quite the opposite. But that is the essence of Marxism: the people are in control.
And it matters not if someone thinks Marx was right or wrong, what matters is not being blind to etymology of terms like socialism and communism. Don't just accept what Stalin and Zedong claim as the meaning of these words. Go back before them to one of the most definitive sources (who they claim to be following) and see what he actually wrote. I guarantee you Marx was not in favor of the workers of the planet being oppressed, murdered and starved while the productive resources of their economy were controlled by an authoritarian minority.
Seems to be far worse.
News to you Vic...... right now, according to the FBI, there isn't anything more dangerous to the republic than domestic right wing militias.... ALL of which are fascist Trump supporters!!!!!
Get back to me when you can post a video or picture of a left wing, body armored mob invading the US Capitol beating police officers with Biden flags...
The politicized FBI.
If I did, then she can say so. No one needs you to go around NT "splaining" other people's comments. It's not welcome, particularly from me, and you'd think you would understand that by now.
Look back over your exchange with me. Do you think your contribution added value? I don't. I think that tactic has only served to antagonize. The results speak for themselves.
You're applying the word incorrectly. And non one cares about your defense of Marx or anything related to it. The conversation was never about that.
It was not a defense of Marx, it was an explanation of the difference between Marxism and Stalinism (and Maoism) and that was in response to your implication that they are equivalent to Marxism (i.e. communism per Stalin is equivalent to communism per Marx).
My comment @9.1.53 was cordial and informative but you apparently are upset because I noted you misunderstood Sandy and put forth the effort to explain why:
Lighten up Francis.
Who has denied the symbol's existence? The stage certainly looks like an Odal Rune, the question is was that on purpose? That requires proof beyond the unsupported insistence that Trump, his followers and conservatives are all fascists and that they would have any reason to so blatantly "signal" groups that they had emphatically denounced. I pointed out that the stage at the DNC also looks a lot like the Nazi Parteiadler, and clearly we know that wasn't on purpose. That is not gas-lighting, it is an observation that perhaps such shapes could be accidental.
When someone shows a photo of supporters clearly waving at their favored candidate or leader, as people of every political stripe have done in the past, and then insists that it wasn't waving, it was a nazi salute by a bunch "good little nazis" without a shred of evidence, isn't that gas-lighting? When someone claims that they watched 3 or 4 minutes of Trump's speech at the CPAC and heard people shouting, "Heil Trump" and brandishing nazi salutes, when in fact an examination of the entire speech proves that to be a total fabrication, who in that scenario has engaged in gas-lighting? When someone insists that Trump NEVER, EVER NEVER in bold letters denounced such hate groups, white supremacists, nazis and it is abundantly clear that he most certainly did, how is pointing that out gas-lighting? Pointing out such misinformation and fabrication certainly cannot be considered "gas-lighting" nor any other "strategy" other than telling the truth.
Now if there were evidence like an email or a letter showing that Trump or the CPAC directed the stage to be built like that to send some sort of message to these extreme fringe groups, and that they had never clearly denounced such groups, then it would make sense to insist that it was done on purpose. But it has been clearly shown that Trump emphatically denounced such groups several times in the past (see 9.1.57 below), and there is no evidence that the CPAC stage was shaped like the Rune on purpose, anymore than there is evidence that the DNC stage was shaped like the Parteiadler on purpose. If pointing out facts and reality is "gas-lighting", then what is making accusations about even larger groups of people being fascists on the level of nazis, while ignoring their, or their favored leader's, actual emphatic denunciation of such blatant white supremacist groups and nazi's?
I'm glad, no sarcasm, because his explanation corrected your misconception.
This comment supports the "plausible deniability" on which they depend. And they haven't denounced them all that emphatically. Trump in particular has repeatedly had to be coaxed to denounce them.
OF COURSE IT WAS ON PURPOSE
Twist, twist, twist, twist . . . . . .
Doesn't it mean,"You're Number One!"
Plausible deniability for speculation or accusations made but in no way proven? What ever happened to the concept of innocent until proven guilty? When did mere speculation rise to the level of something that needs to be denied, plausibly or otherwise? And when the speculation and the basis or root for it is questioned or challenged, it automatically becomes a case of plausible deniability?
I made several observations about the things that were said in the support of (or at the root of) these allegations (and about the people who were drawn into the target of the allegations) and indicated where each was misinformation or pure fabrication. What are your thoughts on the second paragraph of my comment at 9.1.63? Do you support the methods used in those examples from this very thread, or really believe that refuting them with evidence and reasoned analysis is akin to gas-lighting?
Hmmm. So in your comment 9.1.30 you lamented what you felt were people who "defend" Trump saying things like, "He didn't say that, and if he did, he didn't mean it." Don't you think that perhaps you and others here have just used that same tactic?
Coaxed (or asked repeatedly even after already answered), or not, the words were clear and emphatic and repeated on multiple occasions. That is in fact the only real evidence that either of us have in this matter. And based on that evidence there is no reason to believe that Trump or CPAC would want to 'signal" these hateful groups. Now if real evidence is provided counter to that, then I am all ears. I don't have a horse in this race other than to comment on the level and condition of the track.
So the only person you believe is Trump.... is that it? Or someone at Newsmax by chance?
Here's the real deal Vic...
If you can't agree to those FACTS... there isn't a reason to take anything else you or any other Trump supporter has to say as meaningful.
Excellent! And your proof is where? Perhaps it's in the same drawer as your proof that Trump NEVER EVER DENOUNCED THEM NEVER?
LOL... Oh the irony....
Why must it be "proven"? This is not a court of law. Nobody is going to jail. I can't prove that anything anybody says is their true intention. Neither can you. What I can do is watch their behavior, listen to what they say, stay informed of the context surrounding their behavior and comments, and come to a conclusion. We've watched Trump mock a disabled reporter, and seen his supporters defend him. We've seen him lie repeatedly about the election results, to accolades. We've seen him denounce Pence at a time of extreme political tension, encouraging his supporters to endanger Pence's life.
We've seen avowed white supremacists and neo-nazis among his supporters.
How much "proof" do we need. Do we deny what our eyes and ears are telling us, and believe the supporters of the most dishonest and corrupt president this nation has seen? I think it would be foolish to listen to a liar and those who support his lies over the evidence I can see for myself.
Yes, Trump denounced "all sides". IOW, he denounced the white supremacists, but he also denounced those opposing those same white sumpremacists.
And yes, coaxed. He really has a hard time just saying "yes, I denounce all white supremacists."
So, when he has to be coaxed to say it, and can't seem to do so without deflecting, I'm going to doubt the sincerity of his "emphatic" words. Doubting the sincerity of Trump's words is an entirely reasonable attitude to take, given his obvious dishonesty.
Look, I said it sounded like some people were shouting "Heil Trump" (maybe it was "Hail Trump"), and it certainly did. At the same time I heard what sounded like "Heil Trump", it's a fact that some people had their right arms raised. We've seen that before. Are you familiar with the tape of the neo-Nazi, Richard Spencer, shouting out "Hail Trump" from the stage with people in the audience unquestionably giving a Nazi salute. It's from the 2016 election and you can see it on YouTube, if you care to make yourself nauseous. You claim that you watched Trump's CPAC speech. What did you hear people shouting, without being able to specify the exact moment I was watching?
Note: I should have written "You said", not "You claim" in comment 9.1.74.
Yes I did on C-Span HERE . Needed aspirin and a drink afterward. I heard a lot of USA chants, "we love you", "you won", and other cringey cheers, much clapping, standing O's, and waving, but saw no "heil" or "hail" Trump chants or anything resembling Nazi salutes. There were actually some parts where the audience looked bored as hell.
Yeah that guy is a fucking idiot and does make me nauseous, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that he represents the bulk of Trump supporters, conservatives, or Republicans, or even those attending the CPAC. Would you?
No worries, and I apologize as well as you did say it "sounded like" what you thought you heard and saw, not that it was definitely what you heard and saw. That is why I watched the whole thing to see if it was true.
Fair point. "Proven" was probably not the best word, perhaps a weighing of evidence to support such speculation would have been a better way to put it. Maybe Trump wasn't sincere when he repeatedly said, " Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans ." or " I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally ", but he did say it, contrary to what some have insisted upon here.
Agreed. But how does that translate to CPAC also being white supremacists and neo-nazis or wanting to "signal" them or support them in any way? Why would they do that? They are in the business of collecting votes, not repelling them. There is no logical reason why CPAC, most conservatives or most Republicans would want to purposefully and publicly do that, especially since most will or have publicly denounced such groups. There have been plenty of headlines reporting things like:
Republican National Committee condemns white supremacy
The Republican National Committee unanimously approved a resolution Friday condemning white supremacy
Republicans to Trump: Condemn white supremacy now
I hope that you don't think this is more gas-lighting, but the latest news is that the design company that was hired to design and setup the stage has taken full responsibility for the design and insists that it wasn't in any way deliberate. See HERE .
I know people are going to doubt this story too, but I see no reason why Design Foundry would take responsibility for this and say that it wasn't deliberate in any way if they could just as easily say that their client provided the outline design, if that were true. Maybe time will tell, but for now this looks like more evidence that it was not intentional, and it does not rely on any statements made by Trump or CPAC who many here insist are Nazis right out of the gate.
Perhaps we don't need "proof" for speculation or accusations that are of this magnitude, but evidence would be nice, and not ignoring other evidence even nicer. You will note that many comments here (not yours mind you) have served to widen the target of the accusations of being or supporting Nazi's from Trump, to CPAC, to most/all Trump supporters, to most/all conservatives and most/all Republicans. So it is some pretty heavy speculation to throw out there just because some don't like or don't trust any of these groups to begin with. Unsupported accusations or speculation can do real damage (look at Trump's stupid "Stop the Steal" gambit), and the more it becomes the norm in our political discourse the more likely it will damage all of us at some point.
There is a fracture within the Republican Party. CPAC represents the far right members of the party - the ones who support Trump, who voted to overturn the election, and who stood against legislators who voted to hold Trump accountable for inciting the insurrection on January 6th. These are the Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the Tom Cottons, the Lauren Boeberts, etc. - the ones hold extreme views when it comes to politics and very forgiving views when it comes to honesty (with regards to their own party, of course).
They know their audience. They're not looking to appeal to all of the Republican party. They're looking to appeal to the Trump base, and hope to force the party's hand, as was done in 2016. There were plenty of Republicans who didn't want Trump back then, but they were overruled and dragged along. Now, even though Trump's popularity has waned, is supporters are trying the same tactic with 2024 in view. Their audience includes white supremacists.
On purpose by the left wing event organizer that designed and built the stage?
Was it a setup by this company to try and make Republicans look bad?
If it was....it failed.
The problem isn't the definition of communism or socialism. The problem is in the execution. Historically speaking, the execution of the aforementioned has only benefitted those that have executed it while many others suffer. The problem lies in the executor of such governments. The problem is that man [generically speaking] has ego; ego desires power and power is derived from greed. Again, this is not every case, but historically speaking, what else does one reference to decide what kind of government works, or is good for the people?
As I recall , the people at the Trump rally had their arms up or extended because Donald Trump asked them to pledge loyalty to him. In the process of doing so, some of them looked like they were giving a Nazi salute.
The disturbing thing is that after Trump learned that some of them looked like they were doing a Nazi salute he didnt end the cultish practice at his rallies, he continued to have his followers do it. Who's worse, Trump for asking them to do it, or the cult for doing it?
What makes an 'event organizing company' 'left wing'?
Also, who gave this 'left wing' 'event organizing company' the design that they wanted for this stage? Obviously the RNC gave them the design that they wanted.
I mean, this 'left wing organizing company' couldn't have come up with this idea on their own and would have gotten final approval from whoever designed this dog whistle to the former occupant of the White House's mob don't you think? Whoever paid this 'left wing' 'organizing company' to design this stage wouldn't have paid this 'left wing' 'organizing company' anything for the finished job if they didn't approve, don't you think?
Why do you keep defending the indefensible? Do you actually think I'm going to read your lengthy posts and links? Why do you keep wasting your time? You're not changing my mind. You keep defending the indefensible.
I am not telling baseless lies. I am making no unfounded accusations.
Stop mocking me right now.
Enough.
Executing a single-party authoritarian rule where the people are oppressed, starved and murdered and simply labeling this 'socialism' / 'communism' is redefining the meaning of those labels. Socialism, per Marx, means the people have democratic control over their economy; the people are in control and explicitly the minority who used to control the economy are NOT in control. For Stalin to label what he did 'socialism' (per Marx) is like Trump claiming he never lies: the words blatantly contradict the deeds. Brutal authoritarian state rule (a minority that is oppressing and controlling the people) is the polar opposite of democratic control by the people.
I understand the definitions TiG. That's why I formed my statement like I did.
When and where has communism or socialism worked as defined?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Where have they ever been tried as defined?
Depends on how you define it. If one uses the concept defined by Marx then it has never existed. For Marx' socialism to be in effect, the workers (the people) will have taken control over industry and are now running the economy themselves in a democratic fashion. This is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat (the workers control the economy).
By definition, an authoritarian state is the exact opposite of democratic control by the people. It is definitionally impossible to be 'trying' Marxism with authoritarian rule. If the people are not in democratic control of the economy then Marxist socialism is not, by its very definition, in effect. Also, Marxist communism is a utopic situation that marks the end of the socialism stage. At this point, per Marx, the people have such an effective system in place that they no longer have need for a state of any kind. That is to say, Marx envisioned as his utopia the absence of state.
It hasn't and that's kind of my point. What do we [as society] have to reference? Why would those ideologies become different, because a different country or government tries it? I have my doubts.
Exactly.
With how our society is currently, do you really think that the US could ever become such a "utopia"? In my opinion, there's NO WAY!
IMO, the utopia is unlikely even in the far future. Indeed, Marx’ vision of socialism itself is very unlikely to come to pass. If socialism ever exists as Marx defined it, it will be the result of a very long socio-economic/political evolution. Nobody alive now is likely to ever see this.
So... we're in agreement.
I think so. Unlike most, you are open-minded.
People routinely do not seem to comprehend my point when I speak of the utter confusion surrounding the terms 'socialism' and 'communism'. My guess is that it is based on such a deep-rooted emotional tie to these words that what I write literally does not register. My words do not penetrate the confirmation bias barriers.
It is strange (and funny). First clue is when my interlocutor suggests that I am defending socialism (or communism) or Marx. That shows they simply do not comprehend what I am saying. Second clue is when they insist that Stalin, Zedong, et. al. implemented socialism. That shows they do not comprehend the most fundamental point that these dictators used the labels from Marx as propaganda to hide behind while they were in fact implementing an authoritarian state. Nowadays most people think that the meaning of 'socialism' and 'communism' correlates with the acts of the former USSR. They have, in effect, adopted Stalin's propaganda and have flat out ignored the fact that what Stalin did his entire career as dictator was the exact opposite of what Marx defined as socialism. And I suspect this is due to the fact that they have never seriously researched Marx.
I have engaged in these discussions for years and have been surprised at how stubbornly confident people are that they understand these concepts. Given I am not a socialist myself, I do not take it personally and largely am amused (and dismayed) by the stubborn ignorance about these concepts replete in our nation. I know socialists who have grown so disgusted with the stubborn refusal to do anything but repeat superficial understanding that they do not even engage people anymore. Even when explained in detail, when questions are answered, the response is typically nuh'uh and mere repeating of their preconceived notions. Complete refusal to budge from a slogan-level understanding of these concepts. Refusal to spend a moment investigating what Marx actually wrote. Stubborn determination to remain ignorant on this subject.
And not only do many people think that socialism means 'the system of the former USSR', but they have other entirely incompatible definitions as well. Some think socialism means government redistributing wealth — literally confiscating wealth and giving it to less-wealthy people. Similarly they think socialism means expropriating private property such as the state taking control over private industry (most recently seen in Venezuela). Others think socialism means the public services such as the USPS, the military, public utilities, social security, etc. Then we have those, like Sanders and the other 'socialists' in the D party, who relabel European social democracy (as in the Nordic nations) as socialism. Of course there are even stranger beliefs such as socialism means a purely egalitarian system where everyone is forced to be equal. People are all over the map. It is embarrassing and each of these views entirely misses the boat. Worse, these views contradict even a basic dictionary definition of socialism. So not only are the wrong in terms of the actual content of Marx' writings, they are wrong at the onset ... at the most basic definition of the word.
Fundamentally, socialism is defined by Marx as the next evolutionary stage after the stage of capitalism has run its course. So when people speak of systems based on capitalism (e.g. social democracy) or the state capitalism of places like Venezuela, the former USSR, etc. they totally miss the mark. And, worse, when people speak of authoritarian states and label these 'socialism' they truly do not understand the concept of dictatorship of the proletariat and what it means for the workers (the people) to be in democratic control over their economy. It does not work: authoritarian rule is the exact opposite of democratic rule.
If someone wants to understand what socialism might be, then the closest thing they will find today are workplace democracies. This is where the workers (the people) collectively own their enterprise. This is a microcosm of socialism limited within an organization (it is not the economic system itself), but it illustrates the idea of democratic, shared ownership in a market economy where there are unequal results but more equal opportunity.
When I first read about socialism and communism, the basis of the actual definition sounded grand, but as I got older, I realized that there's no way that either would function as defined.
My understanding is, this is how unions in Japan function. I actually think that Japan unions are pretty awesome as far as the employees actually have to care / take pride, because they "own" part of that business. From what I've read, there's very little turn-over in companies like that. Maybe that's why I like the company I work for ultimately... while there's still a hierarchy, people like me, in IT, are still treated like we are part of a whole team [company]. I could easily email the CIO and receive a respectful reply... I've shaken his hand... he was wearing jeans and a button-down. The very few times I've heard anyone complain about unfairness, it's either because they suck as an employee, or it's an isolated incident in which the manager and employee clashed. I didn't feel very valued by my previous supervisor in quality, but I was able to go to a different department and it's a completely different "feel" so to speak. When I was in quality, I felt more comfortable going to the global director of quality than I was my immediate supervisor. It's the individual, not how the company operates. I could definitely see myself retiring from the company I work for now... I could never say that before.
I agree with most everything you said in that post. But how does it serve as evidence that the stage was purposefully designed in that shape? THAT is the core question here. It is still just speculation, albeit based on the fact that their audience includes some white supremacists. That does not mean conclusively that they were intentionally signaling that subset of their "base".
By contrast, as I pointed out above with link to a reputable source, there is actual evidence that the company who designed the stage has taken responsibility for it and insists that it was completely unintentional. Again, I see no reason why Design Foundry would take responsibility for this and say that it wasn't deliberate in any way if they could just as easily say that their client provided the concept or outline of the design, if that were true. Maybe time will tell, but for now this looks like more evidence that it was not intentional, and it does not rely on any statements made by Trump or CPAC who many here insist are all Nazis right out of the gate. If they find evidence that CPAC did indeed create that conceptual design and insist on it, then I will agree with everything you have suggested up to this point.
Thank you for the level-headed conversation Sandy.
Please stop gaslighting people.
People interested in Stalin and Mao should take the time to familiarize themselves with the actual subject and not rely on dime store propaganda. But if that's impossible, at least understand that no expert takes the nonsene above seriously. This paragraph summary of Princeton Professor Stephen Kotkin's work on Stalin will tell you all you need to know if actual experts think Stalin was a socialist:
"The standard story says the grain procurements crisis of 1927 made it necessary for the Bolsheviks to take radical action. But this argument has always had the weakness of not explaining why collectivisation was the radical action necessary, and Kotkin will have none of it. On the contrary, he says, collectivisation was a wild gamble – a move arising out of Stalin’s conviction that Russia could not achieve socialism without doing away with small-scale peasant farming. Nor was there anything necessary about sticking to all-out collectivisation through thick and thin. That happened because “right through mass rebellion, mass starvation, cannibalism, the destruction of the country’s livestock, and unprecedented political destabilisation, Stalin did not flinch. Feints in the form of tactical retreats notwithstanding, he would keep going even when told to his face by officials in the inner regime that a catastrophe was unfolding – full speed ahead to socialism.”
Now finally we see the crux of Kotkin’s interpretation: Stalin was a man acting out of deeply held ideological convictions whose actions are only understandable in these terms, not in terms of maximisation of personal power. "
Apologists for socialism deny reality to hoodwink the ignorant. It's sad.
I think Ms Aubrey is the judge on this. She and I were having a discussion. If you do not like the discussion then you can skip on to the next comment. Learn the meaning of terms like 'gaslighting' before you use them.
Does this mean that you are now gaslighting?
Yes, people should indeed go beyond a slogan level understanding of the subject matter. That is my main point.
You continue to fail to understand that it does not matter if Stalin thought he was a 'socialist' or if experts think he thought he was a socialist. It does not matter what someone says or thinks, what matters is what they do. I have repeated this to you probably ½ dozen times now and you still ignore what was actually done and rely instead on labels.
Sean I find it incredible that you quote the above without understanding that the author has equated Stalinism with 'socialism'. "Full speed ahead to socialism" clearly states that what Stalin did was, in the author's opinion, 'socialism'. Single-party authoritarian rule by one of the worst mass-murderers in history = 'socialism'. Clueless.
Yeah and some experts will claim that Trump really, truly, deeply believed the election was rigged against him.
Here you go again with this nutty spin of a brutal dictator. Last time you did this you concocted some wild bullshit that argued, in effect, that Stalin really, truly was trying to give his people democratic control over the economy and that his brutal authoritarian regime was simply his way of achieving it. That is truly one hell of a bullshit story.
My purpose is to counter the hoodwinking that has taken place. Your labeling me an apologist for socialism shows that you continue to not understand what I have written. Your argument is an apologist argument for Stalin. It is disgusting. You actually hold that this murderous thug who spent his life murdering his enemies, starving and working his people to death, controlling every aspect of their lives was actually, really, honestly trying to give democratic control over the economy to his people.
What ridiculous bullshit Sean. Buy a vowel. Go by what Stalin did and forget about the labels he used.
Show me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy. That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
No.
If I look it up, your posts on socialism appear.
Does this mean that you are now gaslighting?
Talk about gasligting... I give you the authoritative analysis of Stalin and you call that gaslighting. For shame.
I have repeated this to you probably ½ dozen times now and you still ignore what was actually done and rely instead on labels.
For the half dozen time, stop lying about what I've written. My whole argument, and that of every other educated person I've come across, is based on WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, which was to try and implement a socialist society
"Full speed ahead to socialism" clearly states that what Stalin did was, in the author's opinion, 'socialism'. Single-party authoritarian rule by one of the worst mass-murderers in history = 'socialism'. Clueless.
What book have you written? You make these simplistic pronouncements and never make any attempt to support them. It's just argument by declaration, as if you were some authority whose opinion that Dr. Kotkin's statement is "clueless" carries some weight. Guess what? this isn't the sandbox. Your simple declaration that water is not wet does not, in fact, make it so.
Here you go again with this nutty spin of a brutal dictator.
Great, you can call Dr. Kotkin's argument nutty. So can a two year old. The trick is putting on your big boy pants and making an actual arugment that doesn't rely on simple declarations and rewriting history. Try that.
Your argument is an apologist argument for Stalin. It is disgusting.
No, that is truly disgusting. What a wildly disgusting spin to put on what I've written about Stalin. He's one of the worst monsters in human history. He was also a socialist. Only you would think that labeling him what he was, a socialist, is an "apology" for him. I, unlike you, deal in the reality of the world. I have no need to lie about Stalin to protect an agenda to promote socialism. It's obvious what you are doing, i hope no one here is gullible enough to fall for it.
how me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy.
You claim to be familiar with Marx. Why are you making an argument that is ham handed and transparently disingenuous. Anyone the least bit familiar with Marx knows he didn't believe that the transition to the end state of socialism would occur instanteosly. Yet, you premise your argument that Stalin can't be a socialist because he didn't skip right to the end stage. That's such a dishonest corruption of Marx that you should be ashamed.
Professor Kotkin already pointed this out, the whole point of the brutal, genocidal collectivization process was to enable the soviet people to move towards socialism. It
This whole thing started because Tacos asked if Dems should have to explain their appeal to socialists/communists like Trump should have to explain his appeal to white supremacists. It was a false equivalence using an incorrect definition of socialism. He paints socialism as being just as evil as racial bigotry because he accepts an incorrect characterization of it.
For one, the shape itself, and its repetition are evidence. Second - the whole "space-saving" explanation doesn't hold water. Those cuts in the stage right behind the diamond, separating it from the "tails" - they render a large amount of space unusable by both those on stage and the audience. They're empty space, without room to be anything else. They pretty much do the opposite of maximizing space usage, which is the explanation they're expecting everyone to buy. If they were looking to maximize front-row seating, either chairs would be placed in that space (they aren't), or the stage would be a diamond shape with straight sides.
IMO, a denial from the designers lacks credibility, especially when their explanation (space maximization) can be so easily dismissed.
I have to explain everything to you, eh? You called my discussion with Ms. Aubrey 'gaslighting' on my part yet you then chime in on the very same subject matter. So if you deem my mere discussion of socialism 'gaslighting' then yours is 'gaslighting' as well.
See?
Yes and given our multi-week discussion has been about socialism as per Marx then your statement above is demonstrably false. Here, I will illustrate it for you:
"WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, which was to try and implement a socialist society ..." as Marx defined a socialist society.
The part in blue adds specificity to your statement. You have been claiming that Stalin was trying to implement Marxism. So you are claiming that Stalin was trying to implement a society wherein the workers (the people) have democratic control over their economy. That is what Marx defined as the distinction between capitalism and socialism/communism. Socialism is an interim stage where the workers mature their control over the economy. Socialism ends with communism (simplistically speaking) which is a steady state environment where there is an abundance of supply to satisfy needs and people are free to pursue personal ambitions (rather than work to live). It is an idealized, utopic scenario that will likely never occur, but that is what Marx described.
So, again, I ask you to:
Show me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy. That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
And I am aware that you never will do this because it is flat out impossible to do so.
All you can do is state that Stalin tried to implement what he labeled 'socialism'. He tried to implement 'Stalinism'. But you cannot (nobody can) reconcile a single-party, authoritarian regime that brutalizes and oppresses its population with a society in which the workers (the people) have democratic control over their economy.
You do not know what you are talking about.
Argumentum ad Verecundiam What books have you read? Certainly not those of Marx.
I have made it clear that I am reflecting what Marx wrote. Read Das Kapital. Read "Critique of the Gotha Programme" Read "Marx’s Concept of Socialism". Read something other than cherry-picked authors (confirmation bias). Go to the source and get educated.
Then show me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy. That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
I explained this last week. The 'end state of socialism' is communism (technically, per Marx, socialism is communism ... just interim). The beginning of socialism is the end of capitalism. It is the point, per Marx, where the proletariat (the working class) takes control over the productive resources of the economy.
Your delivered another strawman. I have never written or even implied that the 'end state of socialism' would occur instantaneously.
Kotkin is not Marx. Read the source. Then explain how brutal, genocidal authoritarian rule where the people are worked to death, starved and oppressed enables them to move towards socialism as Marx defined it (per the concepts of Marx).
( Further, if they were only 'moving towards socialism' then they were not actually 'in' socialism. )
You do not know what you are talking about. Answer my challenge in blue. If you cannot (and I know you cannot) then you have no argument.
Yeah... I wouldn't call our conversation gaslighting whatsoever. It was a nice adult exchange.
I called your attempt toc categorically exclude authoritarianism from socialism, gaslighting because it is. Unfortunately for you, words have meanings and you don't get to rewrite hem to fit your personal agenda. Your argument is a textbook definition of gaslighting.
Socialism is an interim stage where the workers mature their control over the economy.
No shit! You finally recognize that Marx explicitly recognized that the transition from a pre industrial society to the communist end state occurs in stages! Congrats! Now put on your thinking hat and figure out what stage Russian was in in 1917,when the socialists took over? IF you knew the first think about Russian history you'd know that the obsessed socialists who led the revolution spent the rest oft heir lives trying to move the pre-industrial state that barely had a proleteratiat, into an industrial society that would create the sufficient goods to make the actual transition to socialism .
Guess what ? That's what socialists do, they try and move their society towards the mythical socialist end state! IS that really that hard for you to grasp? Apparently!
All you can do is state that Stalin tried to implement what he labeled 'socialism'.
Yes. because he was an obsessed socialist. Spare the no-true Scotsman fallacy. which is all your bad faith arguing amounts to.
B ut you cannot (nobody can) reconcile a single-party, authoritarian regime that brutalizes and oppresses its population with a society in which the workers (the people) have democratic control over their economy.
Of course I can. That's been the obvious criticism of Marxism since before Stalin was even born. As Bukanin wrote about a socialist state would by necessity be "the most aristocratic, despotic, arrogant, and contemptuous of all regimes." That was written in 1872!
Revolutionary terror, if you know your Marx, is Marx's proscription for how a state would move towards socialism, by purging the remnants of a capitalist society from the "people."
"https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/mf-state/ch03.htm .
That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
Start with devoting his life to socialist revolution and then look at each step he took thereafter. I'll quote Professor Kotkin again," On the contrary, he says, collectivization was a wild gamble – a move arising out of Stalin’s conviction that Russia could not achieve socialism without doing away with small-scale peasant farming. Nor was there anything necessary about sticking to all-out collectivisation through thick and thin. That happened because “right through mass rebellion, mass starvation, cannibalism, the destruction of the country’s livestock, and unprecedented political destabilization, Stalin did not flinch. Feints in the form of tactical retreats notwithstanding, he would keep going even when told to his face by officials in the inner regime that a catastrophe was unfolding – full speed ahead to socialism. ”
You seem to think terror, murder and authoritarianism is a bug of Marxism, when it's a feature. Marx's revolutionary Terror was supposed to help create the conditions to advance the society through the Marxist stages so socialism/communism could be possible. .
Maybe this time you can come with a better response them dismissing one of the worlds foremost experts on Stalin as "clueless." That's how 8 year olds argue.
Definition of gaslighting:
Whom do you believe felt confused, anxious, and unable to trust themselves? I didn't question my sanity or perception of reality or my memories.
Claiming that socialists aren't socialists is an attempt to alter your perception of reality. It's manipulative, whether you recognize it or not.
One would have to disagree with the definition to feel manipulated, yes?
This has been a surreal argument. It's like arguing with someone who define a Christian by whether they drink alcohol. They ignore everything in the bible but one verse, and use that as the defining litmus test for "true Christianity." Thus, they will argue that an avowed, obnoxious atheist who despises the idea of the divinity of Jesus Christ and openly ridicules believers as the True Christian, because by not drinking alcohol, his actions are those of a pure Christian as defined only by this individual. While the genuine believer who truly believes in Christ's divinity, believes in the resurrection etc.. and tries his best to live up to the precepts of Christ as he understands them, isn't a real Christian because he drinks alcohol occasionally, is a heretic and if a Christian leader dares call the occasional drinker a Christian, he "clueless" about real Christianity, which is best exemplified by a proselyting atheist. .
That's about how nuts this discussion has become. It's Obama declaring those engaged in jihad aren't "real" Muslims level of mendacity..
So, you believe that you can tell me that I'm somehow being gaslighted and I should just accept that? I don't feel abused or manipulated; therefore, not gaslighted. You're absurd for believing you have that right.
If you disagree, then you, yourself, weren't manipulated. But this is a public forum and the audience for anyone's remarks go beyond anyone one person.
So... let's ask...
Does anyone feel gaslighted by the conversation between TiG and myself?
You are absurd for ignoring what I wrote. I have as much "right" to criticize arguing in bad faith as you do to criticize me.
[deleted]
So... you're trying to say that people here are too dumb to know when they're being psychologically abused. Nice to know.
You posted that TiG was gaslighting... he was replying directly to me. Not anyone else. That suggests that you somehow believed that I was the one being gaslighted. So, what right do you have in telling me how I should feel?
See how some cannot disagree without personal insults? You know I'm not referring to you MsAubrey.
'Absurd' 'too dumb to know'
Drop the pointless meta.
I have been telling you this since the beginning. Did you blot from your memory my point that Lenin violated the principles of Marxism right at the start by attempting to move pre-industrial Russia into socialism and bypass the necessary step of establishing a mature industrial society based on a capitalist economy? I further informed you that Lenin, two years before his death, finally realized that he had to build an industrial society by establishing a capitalist economy before he had any chance of moving Russia (now the USSR) into a socialist economy (democratic control by the people over the economy).
You ignore this and pretend that I am the one lacking an understanding of what took place in Russia and the outline of the evolution of society established by Marx.
Blatant intellectual dishonesty.
It is amusing (and pathetic) watching you mine comments made by others instead of going to the source (Marx). You refuse to do any research on Marx but instead run to his opponents (like Bakunin) and quote his words as sound-bites. That is like going to Trump to understand Biden's true positions. My position from the beginning has been that Stalin did the opposite of what Marx wrote. You are spending plenty of time looking for other's who opine on Marx but you refuse to read what Marx actually wrote . Here is one of the sources where Marx writes about Marxism. Right off the bat in Critique of the Gotha Programme you will find this:
Here Marx states his objection to a minority control over the productive resources of an economy. The minority (the bourgeois) control the majority … the workers … (the proletariat). He is against such control. Logically he would also be against a brutal authoritarian oppressive rule. He is against the very idea of human beings like Stalin controlling the lives of other human beings. Certainly he would be appalled at the scale of oppression by Stalin and, worse, at the brutality and murders committed by Stalin. Marx spent his life being critical of capitalism, breaking it down into components and pointing out the flaws. His big concern with capitalism is that the owners (bourgeois) exerted control over the workers (proletariat). Imagine his reaction if he could have seen the authoritarian regime and brutal oppression of the people of the former USSR. Yet you, inexplicably, argue that Stalin really was implementing Marxism. One can only say that, honestly, if one has no clue about what Marx actually wrote.
Marx did indeed think that revolution by the people was how capitalism would finally come to an end. This is one of several areas where I think he is wrong. But you, as usual, twist this into a bizarre meaning. Nowhere does Marx ever call for the people to NOT be in control. He is always calling for the people to be the ones calling the shots. Buy a fucking vowel. Stalin ≠ 'the people'. Stalin is the exact opposite of 'the people'. Think.
It does not matter what Stalin thought (as if you knew) and it does not matter what other analysts presume Stalin thought. What matters is what Stalin actually did compared to what Marx called for. Hello? You continue to hold on to the fact that because Stalin labeled his actions as 'socialism' that must mean that he was actually implementing what Marx described. That is incorrect. It is ignorance of Marx. To correct this, read what Marx wrote.
Again, where do you find Marx calling for the people to be oppressed? How can anyone be so ignorant of Marx to not understand that Marx' fundamental purpose in life was to encourage the people (proletariat) to have the freedom of democratic control over their economy?
Frankly, Sean, I am disgusted with the level of intellectual dishonesty in your comments. And it is just getting worse. You simply repeat the same confused crap, ignore my challenge to show where Stalin actually worked to give democratic control over the economy to the people and refuse to read what Marx actually wrote.
Show me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy. That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
Our conversation was an example of the rare situations where two people can agree and disagree without getting nasty. What is taking place now with Sean is a continuation of a prior debate. It shows the more common situation where there is no attempt to understand and all energy is focused on arguing an emotional 'feeling' about what is true. That is why I keep telling him to actually read what Marx wrote.
If someone believes that Marx would endorse oppressive, brutal, murderous, authoritarian control over the people then they should go to Marx and show where he writes of this. In reality, if one were to actually read Marx, they would find that Marx sought, in his own somewhat misguided way, the freedom of the people (the workers) (the majority) from being economic slaves to the capitalists (the owners) (the minority). There is simply no writings of Marx where he endorses the complete opposite of the fundamental theme of his collective works. Marx, if anything, was (at least in his mind) championing the cause of the workers (the majority)(the people)(the proletariat). He certainly got plenty wrong, but it is clear that he was the enemy of oppression of the majority by a minority.
Do you not comprehend that the term 'socialist' is overloaded? That it consists of many contradictory usages? I have explained this to you and you ignore it, but that is why I focused on 'Socialism per Marx' and not on 'socialism'. 'Socialism per Marx' is defined with written authoritative sources. 'Socialism' in general is so overloaded as to be virtually meaningless.
Stalin added a new usage to the meaning of 'socialism'. By labeling his actions 'socialism' he extended the meaning of the word via a new usage. So you can operate out of ignorance and just hold that all usages of 'socialism' are equivalent or you can recognize that a 'socialist' as labeled by Stalin does not mean the same thing as a 'socialist' as socialism is defined per Marx.
Again, I repeat that having knowledge based solely on labels and slogans is superficial. It is typically emotionally-based and wrong. My whole point is to challenge this lazy, emotional 'thinking' and encourage people to do real research. So if you are going to deem Stalin a socialist per Marx then unless you have studied Marx you have no ground to stand on.
And, clearly, you have not studied what Marx wrote.
Read what Marx actually wrote and then address the challenge I have repeatedly made:
Show me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy. That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
Until you do that, you have no ground to stand on. (And I know you cannot do this because Stalin did the exact opposite of giving control to the people of the former USSR yet democratic control by the people themselves is exactly what Marx called for in his works.)
I have been telling you this since the beginning.
Yet your argument is premised on the fact tht Stalin was not able to implement socialism, not understanding that no Marxist would claim Russia was at that stage.
further informed you that Lenin, two years before his death, finally realized that he had to build an industrial society by establishing a capitalist economy before he had any chance of moving Russia (now the USSR) into a socialist econom
Where do you get this from? Lenin made a temporary concession to reality in order to save the state. He was opposed by Trotsky, the guy you claim might have been a socialist.
have you ever read Marx? You reference like he's Hari Seldon from the Foundation series who wrote some intricate step by step instructions that future followers must take at specific times to save the world. The reality is Marx is a theorist who wrote in broad strokes that left pretty much everything up to interpretation. Which is why hardly any socialists ever agree on anything. The real world isn't the simple world of theory, it's messy. Steps forward are followed by step back. Survival dictates changing strategies. All of this is understood by adults who've studied this. You demand adherence to your own interpretation of how socialism should be achieved and like a fundamentalist preacher, condemn as heretics all those who try different means to reach the same goal.
[deleted]
Ah...apparently that is what got him confused.
Again you ignore what I write. I stated at the beginning of this debate in another article that even Lenin did not implement socialism per Marx because socialism is defined by Marx as the point where an extant industrial economy based on capitalism has collapsed under its own weight. Per Marx, socialism is the stage after capitalism has matured and has ended.
I would ask how many times I have to repeat this until it sinks in but I know the answer is that you will never recognize anything I write that rebuts your claims.
History. Read up on Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP).
Yes! That is how I know that you have not.
Well that is you spinning bullshit again. I have never stated that Marx laid out detailed plans for socialism. Rather I have consistently stated how Marx defined socialism. In particular, if a nation does not have a mature industrial base (a society where the vast majority of the workers are well-experienced in industry and thus familiar enough with it to assume control) then a) it will not have the fundamental mechanisms to sustain itself when socialism begins and b) the workers would not be able to actually run things. In short, Marx defined socialism as that which will occur once a mature capitalist economy grows so successful that it collapses under its own weight as a result of class disparity.
Now, assuming you understand what I wrote, this means (as I noted upfront) that Lenin was not implementing socialism per Marx. He could not, it was definitionally impossible because a) the peasants of Russia were wholly unprepared to take on a national industrial base and b) there was no national industrial base in Russia at the time (it was just emerging from a pre-industrial society and was way behind its European counterparts).
In short, you again totally misrepresented what I have written. Try to get it right next time.
That is not the debate. Moving of goalposts rejected. Further, in our prior encounter I told you that Stalin and Zedong were influenced by Marxism. It is pretty obvious based on how they adopted the promises and the labels while implementing a direct contradiction to what Marx described.
What I have offered are explanations that summarize a shitload of Marx material. I have also told you repeatedly to go to Marx. Marx' key work is Das Kapital. How many times have I suggested that? Are you capable of working Google? What you have provided are 'experts' whose quotes are convenient for you. What I have suggested, consistently, is for you to go to what Marx actually wrote. I have also suggested that you ignore what Stalin claimed and instead look at what he actually did.
You refuse to read Marx and continue to argue from ignorance.
Melodrama. And a lie.
I thought by delivering an opening quote and even explaining it for you that something might sink in.
Another strawman. Nowhere have I suggested that Marx was against the state administering the means of production. What I have told you is that Marx was absolutely against having a minority control the majority. The state would exist throughout socialism until it, per Marx, finally becomes unnecessary (communism). Crucially, though, the state is simply administering the democratic control of the people. Nowhere will you find Marx suggesting that a minority of the population running the state should own and control the productive resources of the economy. That ownership and control was, by the very definition of socialism/communism, that of the people (the workers)(the proletariat).
I also find it funny that you seem to think that 70 years is 'temporary control'. You should be embarrassed at the level of spin and nonsense you are spewing.
More spin. I have stated that socialism, per Marx, cannot exist except as the next stage after a mature capitalist industrial economy has failed. That is how the man defined socialism. If you do not like that then do not refer to what took place in Russia as socialism per Marx. It is, by definition, not.
Further, I pointed out an area where I see Marx being wrong and you call that dumping on Marx? You do not comprehend how one can analyze Marx and find things wrong? You do not comprehend how someone can explain Marx yet not support Marx? Get a clue.
LOL. Such a level of projection.
Show me what Stalin did to enable the people of the former USSR to take democratic control over their economy. That is to say, show me where Stalin actually tried to implement socialism per Marx.
Noting again that you still have failed to address this. ⇡ You are all over the map with allegations, deflection, etc. but you never address the fundamental issue of this 'debate'.
And it is obvious why.
I'm sure they were!
That's what Hawley did - one of the former occupant of the White House and his mob's - enablers - just before that insurrectionist Storm the Capitol! It's a Revolution! on 1/6/21.
Cool! - Here is the full video on C-SPAN , feel free to show us where, since you are so sure and all.
[deleted]
CPAC - Certain People Are Crazy
Fucking around with font size looks just plain stupid.
Better to bold, italicize, or underline
[Deleted]
I fuckin hate that when it happens !
Also, I didn't fuck with anything. I copied and pasted it from Facebook.
I do appreciate that the left doesn't ever wait for more than few days to remind you just how batshit crazy they are. It makes it easy to steer clear of them, like a crazy homeless man standing on the corner screaming about the world ending tonight. Their obsession with secret Nazi codes that only they notice is just the latest example. They'll insult Republicans for believing in stolen elections and then turn around and make these batshit crazy allegations. No sane person looks at the stage and sees secret Nazi symbology. The overwhelming response among normal people to laugh at this hysteria.
The scary thing isn't the stage. The scary thing is Hyatt bowing to the mob and calling it abhorrent (despite participating in the design and approving it). As Noah Milman wrote, "This isn’t something a publicly traded company’s public relations team honestly believes, but it’s also something they’re not sure they can say they don’t believe in the current climate. And that’s scarier than if they were all genuinely mad."
We are in the midst of a cultural meltdown, and hysterical claims of Nazi stages is only the latest sign.
finding nazis and killing them is part of american culture, looks like we missed a few. right wing leaders have a history of denouncing distasteful members of the their fragile coalition of racists in public, while paying homage with a wink and a nod in not so hidden symbolism or messaging at their events.
So which is it, a few, or the whole of CPAC, all Trump supporters, all conservatives, all Republicans? You think we got enough bullets?
[deleted]
Why would any sane clear-headed person want to identify with a party that worships a golden idol of a failed reality TV star?
Same thing I thought when Trump won the nomination in 2016 and several who opposed him in the primaries just jumped right on board. I parted ways with that party even before this guy did.
Sure you did!
I find that quite hard to believe when you support him and his insurrectionist mob and defend every racist scummy lie.
Too damn bad. It is already clear to folks reading this exchange that you find many things that are clear facts hard to believe. Not my problem, that's yours to own.
I have already explained the difference between supporting an asshole and supporting the truth. It isn't my fault if you can't wrap your head around that concept. I have never supported him, nor the insurrectionist mob, nor certainly every racist scummy lie. But you knew that already and still threw it out there to see if it would stick. I can't even agree with you without you insulting me or putting words in my mouth. You don't like to be challenged with facts and evidence. That much is clear. We all know your game Tessy, and every time you write something like that you discard another piece of your waning credibility.
Ain't that the truth.
When have you provided facts and evidence? Only your opinions.
I don't care what you think of me or my credibility.
Who is 'we all'?
Speak for yourself.
What! Another MAGA with the 'we' thing.
Comparing Freewill to MAGA makes my head explode. Freewill is a long time friend and I assure you there is no comparison.
Glad to hear that TiG. The only thing I was referring to is the use of 'we', not to his otherwise persona or to insult him. I guess I should have worded my comment much better. And I truly apologize for insinuating that Freewill is anything like MAGA in any other way.
Only a Trumpster can be so compared to MAGA.
You are correct Tessy, as is Raven. I should not have said "we" in that sentence. My apologies.
The truth could not have been stated any better. And there are those GOP'ers that are choosing not to run again for re-election due to the bottomless swamp the GOP has become with giving their total devotion to the Devil's right hand.
The once Grand Old Party of Abraham Lincoln has been reduced to defending their Nazi iconography.
Their arguments, if any, are lost explaining away the legitimate charges of racism lodged against them!
They're now the gqp.
I thought they were now the party of Trump. They have given him their party, and their souls, lock stock and barrel.
The company that designed the stage is owned by a liberal, works for Biden’s charity and publicly celebrated Biden’s win.
But the loons will keep seeing nazis and Nazi “symbols” every time they open their eyes.
I guess we can put this one to bed:
"An online conspiracy theory that the stage at last weekend's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) was designed in the shape of a Nazi symbol has been disproved by the political affiliations of the company that built it.
Over the past several days, social media users sought to disparage the conference by comparing the design of the main stage to an obscure Nazi symbol known as the Odal rune.
Design Foundry told the Jewish newspaper The Forward on Tuesday that the design was "intended to provide the best use of space, given the constraints of the ballroom and social distancing requirements" and was approved by the American Conservative Union, CPAC's organizers.
The firm added it was "saddened and horrified at the accusations that this was a deliberate act. Design Foundry denounces all hate speech and acts of racism, prejudice, or bigotry in all forms."
We'll see. But sadly I suspect that the evidence and the truth won't matter.
How is this "evidence"?
The evidence is that the RNC did not design the stage, but a left wing event organizing company did.
Left wing loons claiming otherwise were wrong....again.
How is this "evidence"?
It's not.
And where's the "truth"?
What makes an 'organizing company' 'left wing'?
Also, who gave this 'left wing' 'organizing company' the design that they wanted for this stage? Obviously the RNC gave them the design that they wanted.
I mean, this 'left wing organizing company' couldn't have come up with this idea on their own and would have gotten final approval from whoever designed this dog whistle to the former occupant of the White House's mob don't you think? Whoever paid this 'left wing' 'organizing company' to design this stage wouldn't have paid this 'left wing' 'organizing company' anything for the finished job if they didn't approve, don't you think?
THEY made the designs themselves and CPAC chose the one that was used. CPAC only gave feedback on the designs that were submitted. Design Foundry designed them on their own.
"The company also said that the stage was designed with the "best use of space" and social distancing in mind. It said that it had provided CPAC with several designs to choose from, in a process that involved ongoing feedback from the committee."
You like to use Yahoo as your "source" on some of your seeds. Do you believe them or is Yahoo now a far right site?
I have already covered this. Please see my comments at 9.1.79 and 9.1.101.
You have never proven that this is a 'left wing organizing company'.
I know you never will, because there is no such thing.
You are correct, there is no such thing as a left-wing or a right-wing company, so let's not insist on that here or in the future.
But the CEO of the company is most definitely a Biden supporter as was reported by a well respected journalist Ali Yashar of New York Magazine and a HuffPo contributor who knows the company well .
He reports that many of the employees there are liberals as well. As is he. While that does not mean they operate as a "left-wing entity", it does beg the question as to why they would accept responsibility for this design if it was indeed CPAC who gave it to them or insisted on it? Why would they not be shouting that at the top of their lungs if it were true? Also, why would they put their name on something like that if they or CPAC really created that shape on purpose?
Ali's words:
Just trying to understand the logic for continuing to push the idea that this was intentional when this company has admitted that they had provided the designs.
If the design had come from CPAC why wouldn't Design Foundry be the first to say so?
"SWwwwwwssshw! 'ere.. (muffled coughing)... Hey! I know what! Lets throw in a Nazi symbol and see if they take that..(Giggles)"..... That's my rumor and I am starting it here.....
Not saying that isn't possible. But if it were true, why would Design Foundry not be saying that is what happened loud and clear now in retrospect?
Well, they did say that they presented CPAC wioth different designs, as is standard practice. CPAC picked the one that they wanted, and it had the symbol in it. Story over. Done deal. They bought it, so they own it.
[deleted]
I'm waiting to see how long it takes!
So Fox 'news' is your source to disprove this?
LOL!