military coup in the USA wanted

[Stevicus]

Those "istic" words have nothing to do with the economic
system we call "communism". It's about "the people" (ie,
the government) owning/controlling all property.
A dictionary would help you.

Do you ever consult any other books besides the dictionary? Does everything you know about the world come from the dictionary and nothing else?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The same basic faction has been around for longer than I've been alive. They were the McCarthyites and militant anti-communists during the Cold War era. They've gone by other names, such as John Birch Society, American Conservative Union, Moral Majority - among others. As for how they make America look to the outside world, that seems to vary, depending on the eye of the beholder.

No, I think QAnon is different from all of those.

You can certainly find other groups who are similar to QAnon in terms of values, but QAnon has more in common with Flat Earthers, moon landing deniers, and "lizard people" conspiracy theorists in terms of denial of basic facts about reality.

... and all these people have been around before too. Everyone probably knows at least one person who considers the Weekly World News to be a reliable news source; these people just weren't in charge of whole branches of the government before.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well Stalin’s Russia probably looked a lot like Nazi Germany in many ways.

There's not much difference between socialism and fascism in regards to an end to a means.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Because we demand justice for African American brothers and sisters? **** that.

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you ever consult any other books besides the dictionary? Does everything you know about the world come from the dictionary and nothing else?

Many times. But imagining that communism is some
utopia over & above (& generally in conflict with its
historical record) the basic definition is a fanciful construct.
Would you object if I defined capitalism as everyone
working industriously, cooperating, playing fair, &
earning wonderful success?
No.
Why?
Because that vision of capitalism, & your vision of
communism are imaginings....not a reality based upon
accepted definitions.

 

[exchemist]

Historically, the military and other obsessive patriotic types have been at the center of "this ****" most of the time. That's why they can never be really trusted. They've raised whole generations to be paranoid, anti-communist xenophobes (and even many Democrats went along with this), and no one stopped to consider what the long-term consequences might be.

Sure, this bunch is quite a bit more overamped and full of zeal than much of the military, but they're different only by degrees. It really doesn't take much to turn an "ordinary patriot" into a full-on ultra-nationalist crazoid.

We are discussing the likelihood of a military coup. This, on the evidence, is a non-starter.

 

[Stevicus]

Many times. But imagining that communism is some
utopia over & above (& generally in conflict with its
historical record) the basic definition is a fanciful construct.
Would you object if I defined capitalism as everyone
working industriously, cooperating, playing fair, &
earning wonderful success?
No.
Why?
Because that vision of capitalism, & your vision of
communism are imaginings....not a reality based upon
accepted definitions.

But that's not even what we're discussing in this thread. You claimed that "communism requires fascism," which has absolutely nothing to do with the dictionary definitions of either. All I stated was that communism is internationalistic, while fascism is nationalistic. My point is that nationalism and internationalism are incompatible with each other. Therefore, there is no possible way that "communism requires fascism."

 

[Revoltingest]

But that's not even what we're discussing in this thread. You claimed that "communism requires fascism," which has absolutely nothing to do with the dictionary definitions of either.

Fascism is not part of the definition of communism, but it is
an emergent property of imposing communism on a populace.
This is just as the Ideal Gas Law is not part of the definition
of "gas", but it too is an emergent property of gasses.

All I stated was that communism is internationalistic, while fascism is nationalistic.

And that is simply unsupported, unlike command economies
having a history of always being authoritarian, ie, fascist.
Ref....
fascism define at DuckDuckGo

My point is that nationalism and internationalism are incompatible with each other. Therefore, there is no possible way that "communism requires fascism."

Command economies have all been very nationalistic.
Ref...
nationalism define at DuckDuckGo

 

[Stevicus]

No, I think QAnon is different from all of those.

You can certainly find other groups who are similar to QAnon in terms of values, but QAnon has more in common with Flat Earthers, moon landing deniers, and "lizard people" conspiracy theorists in terms of denial of basic facts about reality.

... and all these people have been around before too. Everyone probably knows at least one person who considers the Weekly World News to be a reliable news source; these people just weren't in charge of whole branches of the government before.

I'm not convinced that very many people actually believe the really crazy stuff, but they're very much cut from the same piece of cloth as the anti-communists and other ultra-patriot types that I've seen all my life. Most may not believe in lizard people, but they're still racists, patriots, nationalists, and crypto-fascists. I don't care if people think the world is flat, but it's their more malignant intentions (which they have in common with the military) that makes it more worrisome.

 

[RestlessSoul]

There's not much difference between socialism and fascism in regards to an end to a means.

There’s a world of difference between socialism, and both fascism and communism imo.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There’s a world of difference between socialism, and both fascism and communism imo.

True but the end result is always destruction.

 

[Stevicus]

Fascism is not part of the definition of communism, but it is
an emergent property of imposing communism on a populace.
This is just as the Ideal Gas Law is not part of the definition
of "gas", but it too is an emergent property of gasses.

How do you support the claim that fascism is "an emergent property of imposing communism on a populace"? That seems quite a leap, unsupported by the definitions of either term.

And that is simply unsupported, unlike command economies
having a history of always being authoritarian, ie, fascist.
Ref....
fascism define at DuckDuckGo

The definition you linked specifically mentions that fascism has a capitalist economy.

The internationalist scope of communism is well-known and well-supported (Communist International - Wikipedia) (World communism - Wikipedia). In fact, that's the entire reason the capitalists of the West had such a fear of communism, precisely because of their call for a worldwide proletarian revolution. ("Workers of the world - unite" was the rallying cry of communists everywhere.)

If not for that, then the communist governments of the world would have been ignored or not viewed as any kind of threat to the West. But since the West was in a decades-long paranoid obsession about communism, that in and of itself, supports the argument I'm making.

Command economies have all been very nationalistic.
Ref...
nationalism define at DuckDuckGo

If this was true, then the Soviet Union never would have disbanded. There never would have been a "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" or a "Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" or anything like that at all. The Soviet Union stressed the cultural and lingual independence of the semi-autonomous territories within the country, unlike the mandatory Russification which took place under the Tsarist Imperial government that Russia previously had. When I visited Soviet Georgia, there were bilingual signs, in Russian and Georgian. It was the same in Estonia. Russian was still a required language and maintained official status, but they allowed bilingualism in the non-Russian territories. They even had the right to secede from the USSR, a right which they exercised in 1991, leading to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

If they were in any way nationalistic, they would not have had such policies at all.

 

[Stevicus]

We are discussing the likelihood of a military coup. This, on the evidence, is a non-starter.

I was addressing the point you made about the military not wanting to have anything to do with that stuff. My point is that they and their ilk are the ones who started all that crazy talk to begin with - at least historically speaking. They needed to scare an otherwise isolationist, insular populace about all the dangers of the outside world in order to generate support for US militarism. If they created a monster in the process, then that's too bad, but it's still on the military for originating all this BS to begin with.

 

[Revoltingest]

How do you support the claim that fascism is "an emergent property of imposing communism on a populace"? That seems quite a leap, unsupported by the definitions of either term.

Rather than a claim based upon the definition, it's based
upon empiricism, ie, history of socialist regimes.
Communism is just socialism on steroids.
All have been without exception authoritarian.

The definition you linked specifically mentions that fascism has a capitalist economy.

I know. But it fits so well.
Normally, I use the broader, less baggage laden,
"authoritarianism". But in the context of your post,
I took a wee bit'o license. Consider the term,
"red fascism".

The internationalist scope of communism is well-known and well-supported (Communist International - Wikipedia) (World communism - Wikipedia). In fact, that's the entire reason the capitalists of the West had such a fear of communism, precisely because of their call for a worldwide proletarian revolution. ("Workers of the world - unite" was the rallying cry of communists everywhere.)

Socialist / communist countries have all nonetheless
been quite nationalistic. Commies have indeed been
very predatory, but then, so have non-socialist &
non-communist countries, eg, USA, Belgium, England.

If not for that, then the communist governments of the world would have been ignored or not viewed as any kind of threat to the West. But since the West was in a decades-long paranoid obsession about communism, that in and of itself, supports the argument I'm making.

Capitalist...socialist....communist....all have been the system of
countries that have sought international expansion by violent
means. "Internationalist" seems a useless term for them.
"Predatory expansionist"? "Conquering thugs"?

If this was true, then the Soviet Union never would have disbanded. There never would have been a "Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic" or a "Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic" or anything like that at all. The Soviet Union stressed the cultural and lingual independence of the semi-autonomous territories within the country, unlike the mandatory Russification which took place under the Tsarist Imperial government that Russia previously had. When I visited Soviet Georgia, there were bilingual signs, in Russian and Georgian. It was the same in Estonia. Russian was still a required language and maintained official status, but they allowed bilingualism in the non-Russian territories. They even had the right to secede from the USSR, a right which they exercised in 1991, leading to the breakup of the Soviet Union.

The USSR simply collapsed under the weight of its own
system trying to compete with Ameristan. It was their
system's failure. Good for them.

If they were in any way nationalistic, they would not have had such policies at all.

Their culture was still very nationalistic....great pride in country,
culture, & achievements in space, arts, athletics, & military.

 

[Valjean]

But that's not even what we're discussing in this thread. You claimed that "communism requires fascism," which has absolutely nothing to do with the dictionary definitions of either. All I stated was that communism is internationalistic, while fascism is nationalistic. My point is that nationalism and internationalism are incompatible with each other. Therefore, there is no possible way that "communism requires fascism."

It's all definitions.
The Nazis claimed to be Socialist, The Soviets claimed to be Communist, China claimed to be both Communist and a people's republic, and N. Korea still claims to be Communist.
None of these politico-economic systems were/are what they claim to be. Most arose from hijacked revolutions. They're totalitarian, not communal.

You can call a pig a peacock, but that doesn't make it one.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's all definitions.
The Nazis claimed to be Socialist, The Soviets claimed to be Communist, China claimed to be both Communist and a people's republic, and N. Korea still claims to be Communist.
None of these politico-economic systems were/are what they claim to be. Most arose from hijacked revolutions. They're totalitarian, not communal.

You can call a pig a peacock, but that doesn't make it one.

Totalitarianism is not at odds with socialism & communism
or capitalism. It arises where it arises. There's nothing
in the definitions of those systems that specifies how
liberal/oppressive the government is. But command
economies have all been authoritarian (because it's
needed in order to prevent all free economic activity).

 

[Valjean]

Totalitarianism is not at odds with socialism & communism
or capitalism. It arises where it arises. There's nothing
in the definitions of those systems that specifies how
liberal/oppressive the government is. But command
economies have all been authoritarian (because it's
needed in order to prevent all free economic activity).

If the government is the people, if leadership is shared and decisions made by those affected by them, how authoritarian could a system be?
Do you see Mondragon as authoritarian?

 

[Jose Fly]

This is the present of a few but could become real given where the right has been going over the past few years. It was at a QAnon gathering:

“I wanna know why what happened in Myanmar can’t happen here?” an unidentified member of the audience asked Flynn, though he pronounced the nation as “Minnimar.”


“No reason,” Flynn responded to wild screams of approval. “It should happen.”

Trump's Ex-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn Calls For Myanmar-Type Coup In U.S. | HuffPost

IMO the threat isn't likely to be from a military coup. The threat will be when Trump starts having his rallies again this summer, where he will assuredly rile up the crowds with the big lie of the "stolen election". Given Trump's history, I'd bet his rhetoric on that will be more extreme than most of us are expecting.

Then the question becomes....which of his followers will try to actually do something? Because I'm figuring that some of them will.

 

[Revoltingest]

If the government is the people, if leadership is shared and decisions made by those affected by them, how authoritarian could a system be?

Looking at all countries that have tried socialism/communism,
authoritarianism is what arises. This bespeaks a systemic
tendency towards that.

Do you see Mondragon as authoritarian?

It is not a socialist country, which is the thing I'm addressing.
One can work for or deal with that company, or not.
That choice isn't available to people living under a
socialist country with the typical government it has.

Perhaps you've forgotten, but I advocate anyone who
wants to forming their own such coops within our
capitalist system. Coops are no threat to capitalism.

 

[Kooky]

Do you ever consult any other books besides the dictionary? Does everything you know about the world come from the dictionary and nothing else?

That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?