Aug 162017
 

The fallout from the National Socialists Vs. Socialist Socialists kerfuffle in Virginia continues. One event was a group of people pulled down a 90+ year old statue of a Confederate soldier in Durham, North Carolina. This is one of those “yeah, but on the other hand” sort of things.

Arrests Begin Following Durham Confederate Statue Toppling

On the one hand, monuments to the Confederates are akin to the Germans setting up monuments to their wartime military. The Confederates were losers in every sense of the word… they were fighting for an immoral and fundamentally doomed cause and they were fighting a bigger, richer, more powerful and industrialized neighbor who effectively surrounded them. Even had they won their independence the CSA is unlikely to have long survived as their cultural basis was weak at best and they now had no way to retain states that decided to go their own way. And, of course, they were losers because they *lost.* Waving Confederate flags proudly always struck me as being on the same level as proudly displaying your straight-F report cards, or the arrest record of your idiot grandfather who was a drunkard and an incompetent bootlegger.

On the other hand… tearing down statues that YOU DON’T OWN is necessarily criminal. If you were to do this and get away with it – and if you read the article, there are people DEMANDING that those arrested be given amnesty – then if the statue is replaced by something you *do* approve of, then someone else can come along and tear *that* down.

But here’s the real head-scratcher – the name of the person arrested: Taqiyah Thompson.

Taqiyah?

That’s, ummm… a little strange. I’m not sure if it’s ironic or on the nose to be named after the Islamic principle that it’s ok to lie to non-Muslims for religious purposes (some claim that it’s only ok to do so when they are in immanent danger of bodily harm, but then they also claim that “Jihad” is only about a spiritual struggle within yourself, not blowing yourself and a whole bunch of innocent bystanders to bits).

Also, who is Taqiyah associated with? Why, the Workers World Party, of course! These folks aren’t “Socialist,” they are all about Marxist-Leninist Communism. Of Course they are. How adorable to complain about the evils of the Confederacy while supporting the evils of Communism, a system that enslaved and murdered many more millions than the CSA ever dreamed of.

I’ve heard a lot of hysterical screeching since January that the US today is “a lot like 1930’s Germany.” Yeah, but it’s not. A far closer analogy would be *1920’s* Germany, which saw the rise of Fascism as a response to the Communists, with street battles between national socialists and outright communists. *THAT* seems like about where we are these days. So, congrats, Workers World Party and fellow travelers: like your ancestors of 90 years ago, your idiocy has helped foster an equally idiot fascist response.

 Posted by at 8:41 am
  • Allen Ury

    Scott: Please don’t conflate socialism with communism. Sure, they have some elements in common (state owned property and service providers), but so do capitalism and fascism (e.g., the dominance of large corporations/military-industrial complex), and I wouldn’t conflate those two, either. Communism, as manifested in the USSR, The People’s Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba and Cambodia, has been responsible for deaths of tens of millions. Socialism, as practiced in much of Scandinavia and Europe, has not. They ain’t the same.

    • Fascism:”everything in the state, nothing against the State, nothing outside the state.”
      Communism: “Ditto”
      Socialism: “There are numerous cut-outs for individual expression unless you like things the state doesn’t like or the state/party doesn’t like you in which case…ditto.”

    • Unspoken Yellow

      Indeed. Back in the day, many communist groups were supported or controlled by the Soviets via the Comintern; no such international organization exists today.

      Furthermore, the rise of the Nazis in Germany had more to do with economics and “restoring national prestige” than as a counter to communism. In fact, the West and the Soviets both tolerated Nazi Germany as a buffer zone between themselves. The Soviets even secretly helped Germany redevelop its military. We all know how that worked out for everybody in the end.

      • Scottlowther

        The rise of fascism wad not a straight line. But Italian fascism was a direct outgrowth of Italian socialism. Mussolini was a high up in the socialist party before he broke away. And there’s nothing a zealot hates more than an apostate.

    • Scottlowther

      Recall that during the early part of the election campaign Bernie sanders said that he liked Nordic style socialism. The the Danish prime minister. (or some such) pointed out that the Nordic countries *aren’t * socialist. They are capitalist but with enormous welfare systems. If you want actual socialism like Bernie wanted, look to Venezuela with its practice of nationalizing businesses.

      • Adam

        That was Lars Lokke Rasmussen, current prime minister of Denmark. The reason for the statement is that aside from the high personal taxes, sales taxes and welfare states, the Scandinavian countries have fairly laissez-faire policies regarding the conduct of private enterprise within the economy. They don’t have minimum wages, they have low business taxes, strong respect for property rights and they have fairly lax laws regarding trade.

  • Bob

    Just more evidence the country has lost its buttons and We’re All Doomed. For at least the past 100 years no one has paid any attention to these statues but the pigeons. Now all of a sudden the Looney Left has discovered a new issue with which to create turmoil . Where will it end? More important will it ever end?

  • Allen Ury

    According to Marx, socialism was to be the bridge between Capitalism and Communism. However, in practice, virtually all capitalist nations have found that some socialist(ic) elements are necessary to maintain social and economical stability. (e.g., Denmark’s “enormous welfare system.”) Today, in the West, there aren’t a whole lot of pure “socialists” around, just those, like Sanders, who see merit in the adoption of some socialist(ic) principles and programs. This is the capitalistic/socialist “hybrid” system economists like to talk about as dominating the Roosevelt administration. (Which, although it contained socialist elements, probably saved Capitalism in the USA). So, again, don’t conflate socialism with Communism. Certainly not when characterizing those fighting domestic Fascism.

    • Scottlowther

      The problem is that while there are some minor economic differences between fascism, socialism and communism, they are all based of the notion that The State has the right, nay, duty, to control who can do what. And the irony is that those today who are most vociferous in “fighting fascism” are virtually indistinguishable in their violent rhetoric and tactics.

      • Allen Ury

        That the state can control “who can do what” is true of ALL governments. That’s what governments do. They create laws and regulations and control “who can do what.” Unless you’re an anarchist, that’s what you’re stuck with, regardless of the economic system supporting it.

        • Thucydides_of_Athens

          The primary difference lies in the “who” can do this and the “why”. Even Libertarians (or libertarians) accept that there must be a rule of law and some common areas where the use of force for individual and collective protection is necessary, and an impartial arbitrator for the resolution of disputes.

          When a capricious dictator or unaccountable bureaucracy can make arbitrary rules and regulations (or arbitrarily enforce them), then you run into the excesses of all governments out side of Republics and parliamentary democracies. Even when you do have a Republic or Parliament, there are plenty of loopholes and opportunities for would be dictators to exploit……

        • Scottlowther

          > That the state can control “who can do what” is true of ALL governments.

          True to a degree, but it’s the degree that’s important. “Controlling people” is a *defining* *feature* of fascism, socialism and communism. As it has to be… if you don’t control the people, you don;t get to stay a fascist, socialist or communist state, because people rebel against systems that just plain suck.

          As for what nations were/are actually socialist, Wiki has a list, and a map:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Socialist_states_by_duration.png

          None of them is really a place where you want to be.

          • Allen Ury

            Prior to, I believe, the 1980s, the British Government controlled the nation’s coal and steel industries, which it considered vital strategic resources. This was considered “socialist.” But the rest of the economy remained capitalistic. So was the UK Capitalist or Marxist-Leninist? And what is China today with its one-party Communist government but a whole bunch of private industries generating billions? God, it’s hard to pin names on things….

          • Scottlowther

            > So was the UK Capitalist or Marxist-Leninist?

            Capitalist with a dose of socialist.

            > And what is China today

            National socialist/fascist would be a good descriptor for modern China. They used to be outright communist, but even *they* realized that communism is a fantastic way to fail spectacularly, and started in on some basic private property rights and market reforms. However, like the fascists, they let you own your own factory, and let you keep most of the profits, but you make what they want you to make.

            Communism is communism.
            Socialism is communism-lite.
            Fascism is socialism-lite.
            Naziism is fascism with a great big dose of identity politics.

            So one can understand why a feller might get nervous when he sees modern day socialists glomming on to identity politics.

          • Allen Ury

            I think there’s many kinds of “identity politics.” There’s “your group has more than my group and I want what you have,” and “your group stole from my group and I want it back/you owe me” and “My group is superior to your group and/or your group is subhuman and/or your group is an infection on all that we hold near and dear and therefore must be eliminated.”

            Sometimes the claims behind examples #1 and #2 are specious, sometimes not. Certainly American history is rife with examples of certain groups or classes behind kept away from the reigns of power. (Would you classify the fight against Jim Crow laws or the Suffragette movement examples of mere ‘identity politics’? ) Example #3 is pure Nazism and, frankly, I’m not all that troubled by those who use force — or the threat of force — against it. Playing nice with Nazis didn’t work out so well in Europe 75 years ago.

          • Scottlowther

            > I’m not all that troubled by those who use force — or the threat of force — against it

            Ah. I am, but then, I’m an American. People are allowed to have any whackado belief they like, no matter how offensive, without the need to worry that they will face violence just for the belief. If it’s ok, to murder people who hold white supremacist beliefs, then it’s ok to murder anyone who holds communist beliefs, because the commies were *worse.* And then you can excuse violence against religious beliefs, so long as you can demonstrate that that religion teaches violence or has violence in its history.

            You want to use violence against those who use violence, hey, great. But violence against political belief? Yeah, no, *Especially* since violence against “Nazis” is *exactly* what they want, what they can use to swell their numbers. Unless, of course, you are willing and ready to use all-out tactics. Round up everyone you can find who wrongthinks. Put them into camps, concentrate them there, you might say. And then kill them.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XItQ776Y4Y

          • Allen Ury

            Yes, violence against those who use violence. Not to throw the first punch, but to be ready to respond in kind when they do.

          • Scottlowther

            That’s fine. It’s the jackholes who are salivating to attack someone who are trouble .

          • sferrin

            So you are vehemently against Antifa and BLM then? (They are after all the two most notorious groups when it comes to violence and property destruction.)

          • sferrin

            .” There’s “your group has more than my group and I want what you have,”

            And if that were followed up by, “so I’m going to work my ass off to acquire it for myself” that would be one thing. But we know that’s not the case. It’s nearly always followed up by, “so you should GIVE it to me” or “I will STEAL it from you”.

            “”your group stole from my group and I want it back/you owe me”

            Ah yes, the old, “my ancestors were slaves so YOU owe ME money”. That’s an assertion so absurd that anybody with more than two functioning brain cells would dismiss it out of hand.

            “Example #3 is pure Nazism and, frankly, I’m not all that troubled by those who use force — or the threat of force — against it.”

            Except 99% of those your Antifa and BLM buddies use violence against aren’t Nazi sympathizers. I guess that’s okay though eh?

          • Allen Ury

            I don’t have any buddies in Antifa or BLM. I barely know the people who live down the block. But I have visited the BLM website, and they don’t call for the use of violence. Quite the opposite. So anyone committing violence in their name is not holding true to the organization’s mission. As for Antifa, it’s not even an organization. It’s a “movement” that’s been around since the 1930s. Pretty much fringe whackos. Don’t know how many Americans they’ve killed. However, the number of Americans killed by right-wing extremists is 106 (between September 12, 2001 and the end of last year (2016), according to the GAO.

            Source: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/aug/16/look-data-domestic-terrorism-and-whos-behind-it/

          • Scottlowther

            > But I have visited the BLM website, and they don’t call for the use of
            violence. Quite the opposite. So anyone committing violence in their
            name is not holding true to the organization’s mission

            That’s incredibly naive. What would you say about a “White pride” organization that claimed to not hate others, but was only interested in promoting the welfare of white people… and which constantly quoted Hitler and plastered his image all over the place as their founder and hero? I would imagine you would find their claims of peacefulness to be spurious at best.

            Well, guess what: BLM venerates and copies the ideology and chants of one “Assata Shakur,” a convicted terrorist who killed a cop in her successful escape attempt. She is currently luxuriating in Castros Cuba.

            It’s a little long, but this is worth a watch to get an understnding of the politics and ideology underlying BLM:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyUcfYsd8n0

            > However, the number of Americans killed by right-wing extremists is 106
            (between September 12, 2001 and the end of last year (2016), according
            to the GAO.

            Those conclusions are *extremely* spurious. The article claims:

            Since then — from Sept. 12, 2001, to Dec. 31, 2016 — there have been
            85 attacks in the country by violent extremists resulting in 225
            deaths. GAO reported citing data from the U.S. Extremist Crime Database.

            Of those 225 deaths:

            • 106 individuals were killed by far-right violent extremists in 62 separate incidents;

            • 119 individuals were killed by radical Islamist violent extremists in 23 separate incidents;

            So according to them in that period the only “extremist” killings were those carried out by right wingers and Jihadis. But off the top of my head, in July of 2016 a BLMer assassinated five cops in Dallas. And there was LAPD cop Dorner who went on a killing spree in part because he didn’t like lax gun laws.

            Take a read of this:

            http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450498/domestic-terror-threats-media-mislead-alt-right-leftists-anti-cop-jihadists

            “For example, the two deadliest domestic right-wing terror attacks the
            GAO lists are Dylann Roof’s June 2015 Charleston church massacre and
            Christopher Harper-Mercer’s shooting spree at Umpqua Community College.
            Both men claimed nine victims, and Roof’s attack was unquestionably an
            act of race-motivated terror. But what about Harper-Mercer? The GAO
            calls him a “white supremacist,” but Harper-Mercer was a black man who hated organized religion,
            was frustrated that he didn’t have a girlfriend, and was fascinated by
            the fame of mass shooters. How is that clearly “far right” violence?”

    • Scottlowther

      > While the New Deal contained socialist elements, it probably saved Capitalism in the USA

      While extending the Depression unnecessarily by about a decade or so, and saddling the US with not only a crushing new entitlement program, but a foot in the door for even *more* crushing new entitlement programs.

  • CaptainNed

    According to a link in the Puppy Blender, the Durham statue was a memorial to those who were conscripted into tbe Confederate Army.