• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

military coup in the USA wanted

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Flynn and Lindell both tried to convince Trump to use the military to stop the election counts.

This is insurrection, pure and simple. Why they have not been charged is beyond me.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
None of these politico-economic systems were/are what they claim to be. Most arose from hijacked revolutions. They're totalitarian, not communal.

if people become too communal, it seems like the problem is that they naturally become conduits that lock in powers. Where is the room in that, if it becomes that efficient, for individuality?
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

Interesting that you allow yourself claims based upon empiricism, while insisting that everyone else follow the dictionary definition to the letter.

Here's a tip: Dictionaries are woefully insufficient in defining or clarifying any word ending in "-ism."

Also, defining terms like "authoritarian" can be problematic. You seem to be making it into a synonym for "fascism," but the two are not synonymous with each other. "Authoritarian" relates to a style or attitude of or towards government, not any specific ideology or set of policies.

Authoritarian is a matter of degree. All governments are authoritarian to some degree. They have to be, or else they wouldn't be governments. Even the U.S. government could be considered authoritarian, at least at certain times in our history. But not all the time. The same could be said for the socialist countries you might mention. They had their good times and bad times, just as we have had. They've had their successes and failures, just as we have had.

I guess that makes us all human, doesn't it?

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".

Okay, just as long as you don't get cross with me if I ever take "a wee bit'o license."

Nationalism is truly the core component of fascism. Without nationalism, then fascism would be generic authoritarianism (which can happen under any form of government, even a democratic one). "Fascism" is really just a term that Mussolini coined anyway, when it would be more accurately called "malignant nationalism," at least to differentiate it from forms of nationalism which may be more benign or defensive in nature. National Socialism could be said to be a vulgar distortion of German nationalism.

I would also suggest that imperialism is another offshoot of nationalism, and it shares many commonalities with fascism.

Another point I would make here is that Nazism, Fascism, or their various offshoots are/were decidedly anti-internationalist, which is why they strongly opposed the Comintern - which the Communists supported.

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.

I never really got that impression from them. Sure, they were patriotic for the Soviet Union, just in the same way Americans are patriotic for America - so I couldn't really hold that against them. For the most part, their focus seemed to be on defensive strategies. After all, they were not only dealing with the U.S. and NATO, but also China, which was considered an enemy. Frankly, they seemed more worried about China than they were about us.

Officially, all nationalities and all citizens were considered equal under Soviet law. They were operating under the expectation that socialist revolutions would arise in other countries (just like it had in 1848), so to press an overtly nationalistic ideology would be counterproductive to that goal. They supported the German Communists attempting to gain power in Germany - and openly fighting Nazis in the streets. They didn't care about a person's race or nation of origin, as long as they were Communists. That's not nationalism; it may ideological internationalism of a sort.

Nationalism is a completely different kettle of fish.

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"?

Well, as I said, they sought world revolution, believing that the working classes would overthrow their capitalist overlords and form a Communist state. Not because they were being forced to do so by an outside power, but by popular revolts among the masses within the country. Ultimately, their goal was a world socialist government, where all people would be considered equal. Of course, this would require a level of selflessness, collective thinking, and cooperation that some have argued go against human nature, which tends to be selfish, individualistic, and competitive more than cooperative.

Capitalism can also be internationalist, as there are those who talk about the global economy, which would still suggest a unified world government, only capitalist instead of socialist. I remember when NAFTA was a hot topic, some of its advocates were suggesting it could eventually become AFTA, where all of the Americas would be a single economic zone, similar to the EU. They thought the currency could be the "Amero" instead of dollars or pesos. Think of something like that on a world scale. Do you think it could work? It would still be capitalist, democratic, and with the same guaranteed rights as we currently have.

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.

They were competing with China, too. We always leave that part out in our chest-thumping over how "we won the Cold War." Just like "we" won WW2 - all by ourselves.

But nevertheless, the fact remained that the any of the 15 Soviet Republics had the right to secede from the USSR at any time. Maybe they didn't dare to try prior to the time they did, but the government in Moscow appeared to be more tolerant of the idea. Likewise for the countries of the Warsaw Pact, who also felt the easing of Soviet hegemony over their countries and governments. There was no longer any need for it, as the war with Germany had long passed. They withdrew their troops not out of defeat or collapse, but because they no longer had any need to be there. They did the right thing.

Apart from a disorganized attempted coup in 1991, all these processes transpired relatively peacefully and in keeping with the laws and the Constitution they had established.

It wasn't like they just woke up one morning and said "Oh no, our system just collapsed."

Granted, it didn't go quite as smoothly in Romania with Ceausescu. And Yugoslavia fell apart into disarray rather quickly. Now that was a true collapse, but then again, that whole region has had a long and complicated history.

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

When I was there, WW2 was still in living memory, so I think that monumental struggle they went through may have contributed to a certain quasi-nationalistic sentiment. As a nation, they do have a lot to be proud of, so I'll give them that. They seem to be even more nationalistic, now that they're capitalist.

Nationalism just seems pretty toxic overall. Even in its benign form, it can always grow into something malignant, especially by crafty politicians who know just the right things to say to manipulate public opinion.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

I agree; they called themselves whatever they wanted. The Nazis also claimed that they would make Germany great again, with the people enamored with Hitler's grandiose visions and dreams about a Thousand Year Reich. Whether it was actually socialist or even that they called themselves that, that was of minor importance, as it was all about the resurgence of the "German Volk." In fact, with ultra-nationalist regimes (or in racist societies in general), the rules of any economic or political "system" can change depending on the nationality or race (sometimes religion) of the individual(s) involved.

The Soviets didn't claim to be Communists, although they saw that as the ultimate goal they were working towards. The Soviets claimed to be Soviets, though. That's where things went south from the very beginning. Lenin said "all power to the Soviets." "Soviet" is the word for "council," and the idea was that the local councils of workers and peasants would take control of their own regions and govern themselves - or at least have some degree of autonomy. On its face, that didn't seem so bad, especially for those who had lived under the thumb of tsarist autocracy, corrupt bureaucrats, incompetent officials, and aristocratic owners. To finally have a voice and some kind of say in governing their affairs. But it didn't turn out that way. The Soviets didn't really have any power at all, so the term itself is probably a bit of a sham.

It's interesting to note that all of these systems are all justified by a stated devotion to "the people" and an implied mandate to do what they must "for the good of the people." Even our own government has enshrined the words "We The People" as a national creed. Not for any God or King - but for the people and only the people. Or at least, that's what all of these governments would say.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Looking at all countries that have tried socialism/communism,
authoritarianism is what arises. This bespeaks a systemic
tendency towards that.
Now this is a different take on socialist/communist ideology; socialism not as an evil in itself, but as an overly fragile ideology prone to deteriorate into totalitarianism.

I'd have to think about this. Why did the totalitarian usurpation occur? In most cases it looks like a socialist/communist state never established itself in the first place, post revolution. The leaders of the revolutions went on to assume authoritarian leadership while maintaining the socialist fiction. Nothing was even usurped. Soldiers make poor leaders.

I do see right-wing usurpation in capitalism, though.
Corporate deregulation leads to income inequality and a growing impoverished class. A crash (business cycle), war, revolution or disaster (Klein Shock) occurs, and regulatory safeguards and social reforms are adopted. Things go well for a while but the power elite eventually chips away at regulations and "big government" protections to reëstablish an authoritarian, corporate state.
And the cycle repeats. No overt revolution needed.

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.
But capitalism is, by its nature, exploitative. Own the tools or factory -- the "means of production" -- and you can take the lion's share of the wealth from the people who are actually producing it -- just because they're using your tools.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
if people become too communal, it seems like the problem is that they naturally become conduits that lock in powers. Where is the room in that, if it becomes that efficient, for individuality?
Not sure I'm following. "...lock in powers?" What powers? What's locked in? Locked into what/who? o_O
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I agree; they called themselves whatever they wanted. The Nazis also claimed that they would make Germany great again, with the people enamored with Hitler's grandiose visions and dreams about a Thousand Year Reich. Whether it was actually socialist or even that they called themselves that, that was of minor importance, as it was all about the resurgence of the "German Volk." In fact, with ultra-nationalist regimes (or in racist societies in general), the rules of any economic or political "system" can change depending on the nationality or race (sometimes religion) of the individual(s) involved.
And Nazism worked -- for a while. Full employment, a booming economy, growing infrastructure.... it was only later that the people realized the price of all this was 60 hour weeks, low wages, thought control and tyranny. No coup or revolution was required. It was all baby steps -- frogs in a saucepan.

The Soviets didn't claim to be Communists, although they saw that as the ultimate goal they were working towards. The Soviets claimed to be Soviets, though. That's where things went south from the very beginning. Lenin said "all power to the Soviets." "Soviet" is the word for "council," and the idea was that the local councils of workers and peasants would take control of their own regions and govern themselves - or at least have some degree of autonomy. On its face, that didn't seem so bad, especially for those who had lived under the thumb of tsarist autocracy, corrupt bureaucrats, incompetent officials, and aristocratic owners. To finally have a voice and some kind of say in governing their affairs. But it didn't turn out that way. The Soviets didn't really have any power at all, so the term itself is probably a bit of a sham.

It's interesting to note that all of these systems are all justified by a stated devotion to "the people" and an implied mandate to do what they must "for the good of the people." Even our own government has enshrined the words "We The People" as a national creed. Not for any God or King - but for the people and only the people. Or at least, that's what all of these governments would say.
Good points. Don't be fooled by bumper stickers and political slogans; flags and anthems. Labels and symbols can be deceptive.
 
Last edited:

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Interesting that you allow yourself claims based upon empiricism, while insisting that everyone else follow the dictionary definition to the letter.
There is no conflict with using dictionary definitions
of words, & using words to express reasoning.
Here's a tip: Dictionaries are woefully insufficient in defining or clarifying any word ending in "-ism."
A better tip:
Don't use personal definitions of words that
conflict with commonly accepted definitions.
Also, defining terms like "authoritarian" can be problematic.....
Descending into a very long post wrangling
over the meaning of "is" won't happen.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Now this is a different take on socialist/communist ideology; socialism not as an evil in itself, but as an overly fragile ideology prone to deteriorate into totalitarianism.
This is the take I've been pushing here for many years.
But the word "socialism" has much emotional baggage
with its fans & its foes. This makes it difficult to discuss.
I'd have to think about this. Why did the totalitarian usurpation occur? In most cases it looks like a socialist/communist state never established itself in the first place, post revolution. The leaders of the revolutions went on to assume authoritarian leadership while maintaining the socialist fiction. Nothing was even usurped. Soldiers make poor leaders.
Socialism & communism are fundamentally different
from capitalism in that they require more governmental
power in a couple ways. They must prevent free economic
association, & "the people" (ie, government) must run
the economy. This is extensive power over people, &
what government can resist expanding it?
We see even our own government continually trying to gain
more power over us. This must be continually resisted.
I do see right-wing usurpation in capitalism, though.
Corporate deregulation leads to income inequality and a growing impoverished class.
What deregulation do you think led to income disparity?
A crash (business cycle), war, revolution or disaster (Klein Shock) occurs, and regulatory safeguards and social reforms are adopted. Things go well for a while but the power elite eventually chips away at regulations and "big government" protections to reëstablish an authoritarian, corporate state.
And the cycle repeats. No overt revolution needed.

But capitalism is, by its nature, exploitative. Own the tools or factory -- the "means of production" -- and you can take the lion's share of the wealth from the people who are actually producing it -- just because they're using your tools.
Socialism & communism also exploit the workers.
One cannot just decide to not work, & still expect
largess from the state.
The issue shouldn't be what labels we attach to
economic systems, eg, "evil", "exploitative", "godless".
It should be about which offers the greatest potential
to achieve goals. Examining systems tried throughout
history yields winners & losers.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
There is no conflict with using dictionary definitions
of words, & using words to express reasoning.

But it's not the final word on things. An encyclopedia article might have more depth.

A better tip:
Don't use personal definitions of words that
conflict with commonly accepted definitions.

I never do such things. You're talking about yourself.

Descending into a very long post wrangling
over the meaning of "is" won't happen.

Perhaps, but when you try to gloss over complicated subjects with meaningless quips and platitudes, it requires that you be given a longer explanation. Otherwise, how do you expect to learn?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Flynn and Lindell both tried to convince Trump to use the military to stop the election counts.

This is insurrection, pure and simple. Why they have not been charged is beyond me.
Their calls weren't specific enuf, nor did they take actual steps
to foment a coup. There is much leeway in political speech.
Still...we may criticize them as dangerous people, & work
to prevent their ever having political power.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Not sure I'm following. "...lock in powers?" What powers? What's locked in? Locked into what/who? o_O

I mean, it's easier for a leader or power to become an autocrat, I thought. Getting the public to really become efficiently communal probably would prune out a lot of dissent, be it good or bad. Human systems aren't happy systems when it gets to the point where you making them do things, it's better if they all agree to them. And so the only far left system that would work, would be one where any individual had the right to become a capitalist at the very moment that they wished, otherwise they are being compelled
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
Communism requires fascism.
(It's a top down system.)
But fascism can happen under other systems,
eg, communism, socialism, capitalism.

I think in reality, the modern world only supports hard and soft statism. It can only be that way, since the exponential increase in human development has really overdriven the individual's administrative capacity. More things are filed as number-code stock that ever before. More ideas, and ways of expressing them, have been expressed than ever before, and will continue to be. More synergies, more people, more game theory in economics and war, more meanings for each word in the dictionary. From wood spears, to nuclear spears, from shakespeare to A.I. code.. I don't see how the individual can catch all of that without locuses of control, even be they abstract ones, such that the past hadn't seen. Unless computers meld more with individuals, and give them the capacities they probably will need
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
Funny thing that...I was thinking the same of your posts.
But I generally avoid being so dramatic.
So I'll spare you my opinions of your thinking process.

I don't gloss over anything. I try to cover all the main points in detail, which is why my posts can be very long. They're much longer than yours.

Just because you don't care to read them nor make even the slightest attempt to understand the issues at hand - that's not because I haven't tried.

You just seem set in your ways and unwilling to listen to anyone else's viewpoint.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
socialism not as an evil in itself, but as an overly fragile ideology prone to deteriorate into totalitarianism.
This largely depends on how one may define "socialism". I have found that many are actually referring to "Marxism", which is only one form of socialism.

Also, all countries today are at least partially socialistic = "mixed economies".

But capitalism is, by its nature, exploitative.
Such as being a major cause of the expanse of slavery worldwide. The English at first didn't want to get into it but were getting their butts kicked economically by the Dutch and Spanish especially, so they ended up "caving".

Also, part of the cause of our Revolutionary War was to kick the English out because they were banning slavery in their colonies.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
...you don't care to read them nor make even the slightest attempt to understand the issues at hand....
R14cc6123ce675df6333130cfd03b8d4b


Now.that.we've.each.diagnosed.the.other's.sins,
let's.get.back.to.the.topic.
 
Top