Anti-war activists March 12, 2003 11:54 AM   Subscribe

Over the past three days, there were FPPs on anti-war statements here and here. Each time, hama7 (a/k/a dhoyt) derailed the thread through guilt-by-association redbaiting. Can we just stipulate that anti-war activists will not be satisfied until the means of production have been turned over to the proletariat, and move on?
posted by subgenius to Bugs at 11:54 AM (132 comments total)

My point is pretty simple: NewsFilter is bad enough, but constantly revisiting the philosophies underlying communism, discussing its supporters, and revisiting McCarthyism makes it that much worse.

(That was originally supposed to go into etiquette, but when I hit "back" to make some edits it erased mycomment. I had to paste it back in, but I guess I forgot to change the category. Sorry.)
posted by subgenius at 11:59 AM on March 12, 2003


hammy7's just a hater ... not a particularly good one either.
posted by donkeyschlong at 12:20 PM on March 12, 2003


You want to get rid of those hilariously uninformed tirades? They're the best part of the threads! Everything else is just sort of tepid and average, but hama7's, and to a lesser extent Dhoyt's, verbal diarrhea is inspired. It takes a certain willful ignorance to connect anything even remotely liberal to some Maoist, Stalinist, Communist, Anti-American, Nazi-Terrorist plot.

What else can you say about someone that makes Michael Savage look reasonable? Keep em coming Hama!
posted by SweetJesus at 12:23 PM on March 12, 2003


are hama7 and dhoyt the same person with multiple logins? or were you just being, um, poetic. (fine with me if you were, i just really want to know.) because although i've been in deep shit here before, behaved like an idiot at times, and pissed off numerous people, i have never and will never resort to a fake login to escape my words and actions or to insulate myself from them, like certain simpering cowards have. so, is this another example of simpering cowardice?
posted by quonsar at 12:37 PM on March 12, 2003


Logins are like shirts, quonsar: some days you feel like wearing a different one.
posted by timeistight at 12:47 PM on March 12, 2003


Dhoyt and Karl are the same person, not through any trickery as I remember, but because of a lost password or something. I'm pretty sure Hama7 is a one and only. If you were just being "poetic", that was not exactly classy. But then neither is tarring every member of the left with the A.N.S.W.E.R./Stalinist brush.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:49 PM on March 12, 2003


dhoyt and Karl are the same person. From the style you would think that hama7 is also. As one of the frequent targets of their shrill screeds and insults let me say that if we didn't have them we would have to invent them just to keep the conversation laughably entertaining. I kinda like to poke at snakes with a stick. :-)
posted by nofundy at 12:53 PM on March 12, 2003


Jinx on PinkStainlessTail!
posted by nofundy at 12:55 PM on March 12, 2003


re: simpering cowardice
um, sir throbbinghamizer excepted, of course...
posted by quonsar at 1:27 PM on March 12, 2003


timeistight: you mean i'm supposed to be changing this shirt?!?!?!
posted by quonsar at 1:29 PM on March 12, 2003


Maybe instead of Godwin's Law, when somebody brings up Stalin/Mao, we could invoke NIWDOC's Law.
posted by wendell at 1:42 PM on March 12, 2003


Quonsar, I realized after I posted that the the Karl-Dhoyt thing was probably going to cloud the issue. My reading of both threads was that hama7 set up the communism issue and Dhoyt/Karl went crazy with it.

Don't get me wrong, I can totally respect the issue of whether anti-war activists are being co-opted by far-left types and/or whether these far-left types are taking advantage of more mainstream activists. But misusing that issue -- as I believe hama7 was, his links were horrible and his comments were full of innuendo about revolution and sedition -- to derail conversations is, in my mind, intolerable.

I get sick of all the war talk, but I think it's important to know if the corporate media won't accept ads telling the anti-war story. And I get sick of celebrities who think they should be heard just because they're famous, but some musicians have had important things to say during times of war and have catalyzed popular opinion. I wouldn't have seen either of those links without MeFi, and I was disappointed to see both threads go off on needless tangents.
posted by subgenius at 1:59 PM on March 12, 2003


I consider my politics pretty radically far left AND I'm for the war. I don't know whether to be insulted by Hama's ignorant assumptions about the left, ignorant assumptions about the anti-war movement or his ignorant assumption that they are somehow tied together. I think all three.

Of course quonsar and nofundy are right, I love having the bears around to torment, just as much as I'm sure they love to torment us!
posted by Pollomacho at 2:17 PM on March 12, 2003


I can't believe people still respond to this kind of bait from hama7. If he's going to be allowed to continue posting here, then people just need to ignore him about, oh, 95% of the time.
posted by pitchblende at 2:21 PM on March 12, 2003


quonsar, outing is out. Don't you ever read your memos, or do you just stuff them in your never-changed shirt? :-)
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:21 PM on March 12, 2003


Wow. So HAMASheaven is dhoyt?
posted by eyeballkid at 3:10 PM on March 12, 2003


Holy shit, ebk, that spelling never occurred to me.
posted by adampsyche at 3:54 PM on March 12, 2003


If you don't want to jaw about the dangerous anti-American organizations which are orchestrating the "peace" marches, then you could always not post threads "about the upcoming war in Iraq".

Now where have I seen that before?
posted by hama7 at 4:06 PM on March 12, 2003


Beautiful...
posted by SweetJesus at 4:07 PM on March 12, 2003


are hama7 and dhoyt the same person with multiple logins

Logins are like shirts


maybe it's because I belong to the Kaycee Nicole MeFi class, but Matt should not allow multiple identities here.
two logins from the same IP address? Matt should ban both
posted by matteo at 4:23 PM on March 12, 2003


Whoah there, hoss! I, like many other people, share a home computer with a fellow mefioso. Let alone people who work for a large organisation which lets out a single IP address for many network logins.
posted by walrus at 4:43 PM on March 12, 2003


I'll save mathowie the detective work:

timeistight
he opens a window
scold_and_obfuscate
Goosestepping poxi!
posted by timeistight at 4:49 PM on March 12, 2003


What, exactly, is the point of this? Using up a limited number of accounts? Vanity?
posted by Mid at 4:58 PM on March 12, 2003


If you don't want to jaw about the dangerous anti-American organizations which are orchestrating the "peace" marches, then you could always not post threads "about the upcoming war in Iraq".

OK, I'll bite. What this statement is sayhing is that if you post a link about Iraq, you should expect to hear from hama7 about how his detective work wrt ANSWER organizing peace protests, and how anyone who takes part in them must automatically agree with the goals of some obscure group who happened to snap up the protest permit.

At any rate, these wacky lost Freepers are entertaining enough to keep them around. I just hope that anyone who does ahve a reasoned, informed opinion supporting war in Iraq doesn't get painted with the same brush.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:04 PM on March 12, 2003


I've always wanted two accounts so I could argue with myself in a thread.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:06 PM on March 12, 2003


Compare & contrast:
A) Danny DeVito quotes and Cheney jokes: comedy fuckin' gold.
posted by dhoyt at 4:37 PM PST on December 10


Dude, X-Man, it's just like that book 1984 braaah. *Bong Hit*........
It's not a microphone braaah. *Bong Hit*
posted by Karl at 4:39 PM PST on December 10

B)Last month, the US killed six "dangerous" al-Qaeda suspects in Yemen.

Yeah, I can see why they put quotes around "dangerous" in that sentence. In all likelihood the al-Qaeda were potato-cooking homemakers on a shopping errand.
posted by dhoyt at 4:43 PM PST on December 10

It's a lose-lose

What are you some kind of Marketing relic from the late 90s?
posted by Karl at 4:53 PM PST on December 10

Karl/dhoyt: why not ask for one to be deleted? Clearly, at 10 minutes apart, they're not 'seperate IDs for seperate locations.
posted by dash_slot- at 5:10 PM on March 12, 2003


hmmm sounds fair enough,
it was hard to get in and all that,
a bit unfair for people,
hey, are there any mefi-lurkers reading this ?
people that read mefi a lot but cant get in as a user ?
email me and tell me if this is the case.
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:16 PM on March 12, 2003


What, exactly, is the point of this?

I created "timeistight" when I first discovered the secret sign-up page (now closed). I created "he opens a window" to confirm that I actually found what I thought I found.

"scold_and_obfuscate" is from when sign-ups were open so it's my only "legal" account. I did it to bug you-know-who, but then thought better of it. I've never used it.

"Goosestepping poxi!" was a joke on mathowie; he called me that in a thread. He freaked out because he thought he'd deleted the sign-up page. Cold fusion had evidently re-created it from a cache. I thought he'd left it open on purpose.

Sign-ups aren't closed because there's a limited number of accounts; they're closed because it's hard for the community to absorb new users.
posted by timeistight at 5:24 PM on March 12, 2003


I have a spare, barely used one too, which I registered for a purpose I soon got tired of and have since been saving for the right candidate. If that's a bad thing, I'm prepared to have it prematurely deleted. Otherwise, I'll keep it on ice if that's ok.
posted by walrus at 5:40 PM on March 12, 2003


skallas: I have been affected on a website in the past from an IP ban applied to a different user in my organisation. They may not have been using best practise.
posted by walrus at 5:51 PM on March 12, 2003


Hello.

Guys, I explained in the thread why I have two IDs, though I can explain again. One account was started many moons ago when logins were flowing fast and free, and another was started much later when I'd occasionally post at work. For the record, I am fortunate (?) to live within a five-minute walk from work and sometimes comment twice in one thread with two IDs, not really thinking about the consequences, because, well, it's just a website, and I've never been a well-known personality around here anyway. Long story short, I'm not interested in deceiving anyone. If Matt wants to delete one of the logins, that's fine with me.

My opinions about ANSWER are based on the fact that many acquaintances of mine felt a bit "duped" about attending a sponsored rally in DC, not knowing how dangerous & controversial ANSWER's stance really was. And no, it's not simply because they've been described as Stalinists, but because they're really no more ideologically palatable the Bush administration. Subgenius's comment about "redbaiting" is priceless. So every time someone vents their disgust with the US sociopolitical system, do we then qualify it as Capitalist Dog Baiting?

You can call my comments "verbal diarrhea" or "screed" if you will, but I think you know that that kind of aggressive arguing comes from all sides of the political spectrum, an on occasion most of us have been guilty of it. I actually find the sparring kind of fun & often comic. Again, it's just a website.

Believe it or not, I'm pretty much a moderate/centrist, but have a tendency to play the devil's advocate when there is such an element of political homogeneaity on this forum. Pretend there's not, if you like, but anyone spending five minutes on the site these days could observe the perceived "threat" that people like Hama7 represent to some of you. Some of the most intelligent posters on this forum (Aaron, Evanizer to name two) have thrown in the towel since being so frequently being accused of something resembling fascism. It's sad. The guise of "open-mindedness" has never been so transparent in some of the political threads.

if we didn't have them we would have to invent them just to keep the conversation laughably entertaining.

Believe me, nofundy, the feeling is mutual. For every dopey reference to "Duhbya" or "Shrub" I get a little smile. Though it's often followed by an annoyed feeling because I know that "commentary" like that simply begs to be ripped apart. It's as if a whole new generation of MeFi users have just entered college, taken their first few poly-sci classes, and run to Metafilter to regurgitate all the fashionable stuff, with gaping holes where the objectivity and life-experience should be. I only stick around because folks like Owillis, Jonmc, et al, are not afraid to cross party lines and offer sometimes unfashionable, uncliched sentiment.

Finally, I'd appreciate it if someone could email me at the dhoyt account if I'm being discussed in MetaTalk, please. It would feel a little less awkward that way, now that we're 30+ comments deep.
posted by dhoyt at 6:37 PM on March 12, 2003


Duhbya. Shrub.
posted by quonsar at 7:13 PM on March 12, 2003


Oy. I just looked at some of dash_slot's quotes and realized that I had let a (former) co-worker post with my old login as I think new logins were not available then. I know it sounds unfeasible, but it hadn't occurred to me that it would resurface as controversial. I definitely never made the "Marketing relic from the late 90s?" comment.

Again, Matt if you'd like to purge the Karl login, that's fine.
posted by dhoyt at 7:13 PM on March 12, 2003


:-)
posted by quonsar at 7:13 PM on March 12, 2003


>:-[
posted by dhoyt at 7:16 PM on March 12, 2003


the perceived "threat" that people like Hama7 represent to some of you.

Nothing at all threatening about hama, he's just always vociferous and occasionally offensive.

Some of the most intelligent posters on this forum (Aaron, Evanizer to name two) have thrown in the towel since being so frequently being accused of something resembling fascism.

Despite all the hoopla surrounding evanizer's departure (in MeTa, but mostly on his own site), he, well. . . he never really left. . .
posted by Shane at 7:22 PM on March 12, 2003


Despite all the hoopla surrounding evanizer's departure (in MeTa, but mostly on his own site), he, well. . . he never really left. . .

Yeah. Who doesn't know this by now? He stormed off in a huff, and then kept a second logon active and posts in that one. So let's have no more talk of the dear "departed" Evanizer. Also, Aaron's still posting here. True, many have left, but that's really part & parcel of a community network. Some voices come and others go, and it's not always who we would choose for either role.
posted by jonson at 7:39 PM on March 12, 2003


If those of us who got acused of being commies took it so personally this place would be pretty damn empty..
posted by Space Coyote at 7:42 PM on March 12, 2003


i'm no where near right wing enough to warrant being called a commie.
posted by quonsar at 7:47 PM on March 12, 2003


Hey I can handle right-wingers. I've even come to appreciate Steve@ after hanging in #mefi - the thing that's infuriating about hama7's comments is the blind ignorance/arrogance of them. He doesn't seem to hate "leftists" because of what they believe in (as diffuse and wide-ranging a concept as any) - he hates them because they are "leftist" and that just explains everything else. Leftist = Socialist = Marxist = Communist = your local friendly police officer hanging from a lamp post. No other user invokes such an irrational, thoughtless sequence of stereotypes, followed my a whole lot of nothing to back it up because calling someone "leftist" should explain everything. It's like he wishes "leftists" didn't exist - that we avoid any plurality of opinion because right is right.
posted by Jimbob at 8:05 PM on March 12, 2003


he hates them because they are "leftist" and that just explains everything else.... No other user invokes such an irrational, thoughtless sequence of stereotypes...

Absolutely not true. There are some, uh, younger MeFi users who can barely say the word "Republican" without spewing a bunch of peurile cliches & stereotypes. I could provide examples ad nauseum, but give it some objective consideration and I think you'll agree--there are plenty of Hama7's of the Left, too.
posted by dhoyt at 8:12 PM on March 12, 2003


Calling a communist a communist is not "redbaiting", it is a simple statement of fact.

Authoritarianism is Leftist, not Rightist, by John J. Ray.

Read it and weep.
posted by hama7 at 8:41 PM on March 12, 2003


Aaron and Evanizer are still around?
posted by konolia at 8:54 PM on March 12, 2003


No konolia, we wish.
posted by zpousman at 9:21 PM on March 12, 2003


Calling a communist a communist is not "redbaiting", it is a simple statement of fact.

Yeah, but hama, you think anyone who disagrees with you is a communist.
posted by bshort at 9:22 PM on March 12, 2003


his links were horrible and his comments were full of innuendo about revolution and sedition

The links of which you speak were directly to the organizations I criticized, and believe me there is no "innuendo" about those groups' goals of sedition and violent communist overthrow, nor did I mince words about their admiration of brutal totalitarian leftist dictators both present and past. There is no innuendo, just simple facts directly from the source!
posted by hama7 at 9:30 PM on March 12, 2003


you think anyone who disagrees with you is a communist

I don't agree with the support, association and financing of a discredited, dangerous political experiment that has killed over 100 million people and counting.
posted by hama7 at 9:34 PM on March 12, 2003


hama7: But calling a communist a communist in a FPP about something else is nothing more than an attempt to derail the thread.

The first thread was about WinWithoutWar, Mos Def, Russell Simmons, Susan Sarandon and Ben and Jerry. Your response contained links to Answer and NotInOurName. The FPP did not discuss those groups. You pasted in an unattributed quote about ''anti-Israeli and anti-capitalist views," but neither the FPP nor any previous posters had mentioned Israel or capitalism. You mentioned petitions, but neither the FPP nor previous posters had mentioned petitions. And, of course, you pulled communist revolution out of -- what, exactly?

The second thread was about the BeastieBoys. Your response contained links to a random website linking the Beastie Boys to Mumia -- no idea where that came from -- and a link to an article criticizing Answer. Once again, there hadn't been any discussion of Mumia or Answer -- and you did your best to derail the thread.

So I get the fact that you don't like Answer. Why not wait until a thread is posted about them? Or do you feel like every FPP discussing someone with an anti-war sentiment deserves a random anti-communist screed? Or -- better yet -- is everyone who has associated with Answer a commie? Were all 400,000 of us in NYC on February 15 now Communists in your book?
posted by subgenius at 9:39 PM on March 12, 2003


Hmm - "goals of sedition and violent...overthrow" - OK, heck, here's a good tidbit (link to story much more interesting material in that tale. Here's a good vein too [ quote from 2nd link : "Friedrich Flick was the major co-owner of the German Steel Trust with Fritz Thyssen, Thyssen's long-time collaborator and occasional competitor. In preparation for the war crimes tribunal at Nuremberg, the U.S. government said that Flick was `` one of leading financiers and industrialists who from 1932 contributed large sums to the Nazi Party ... member of `Circle of Friends' of Himmler who contributed large sums to the SS. ''.......Flick, like Thyssen, financed the Nazis to maintain their private armies called Schutzstaffel (S.S. or Black Shirts) and Sturmabteilung (S.A., storm troops or Brown Shirts).

The Flick-Harriman partnership was directly supervised by Prescott Bush, President Bush's father, and by George Walker, President Bush's grandfather. The Harriman-Walker Union Banking Corp. arrangements for the German Steel Trust had made them bankers for Flick and his vast operations in Germany by no later than 1926."
]

Quote from 1st link:"At about the same time the Du Ponts were serving the Nazi cause in Germany, they were involved in a Fascist plot to overthrow the United States government. "Along with friends of the Morgan Bank and General Motors," in early 1934, writes Higham, "certain Du Pont backers financed a coup d'etat that would overthrow the President with the aid of a $3 million-funded army of terrorists . . ." The object was to force Roosevelt "to take orders from businessmen as part of a fascist government or face the alternative of imprisonment and execution . . . "

My point: There sure are a lot of bodies in the wake of the so-called "right" and the "left" too. But I rather like the two-axis typology, and so I call this "left vs. right" issue bullshit. Left? Right? Goebbels or Eichmann vs. Beria?..............all vicious killers.

posted by troutfishing at 9:57 PM on March 12, 2003


Authoritarians are left and not right? What exactly, does this matter to anyone who is not an authoritarian? It doesn't make someone on the right or left of the political spectrum an authoritarian / communist just because they're on the same side in an imaginary spectrum. Unless you're an ignorant tool who can only understand the world in terms of us / them, good / evil, etc.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:58 PM on March 12, 2003


you think anyone who disagrees with you is a communist

I don't agree with the support, association and financing of a discredited, dangerous political experiment that has killed over 100 million people and counting.


Once again, you're not addressing what I'm saying. I'm saying that you label anyone that disagrees with you a communist.

Note: I was not suggesting that you were somehow a communist.
posted by bshort at 9:59 PM on March 12, 2003


and you did your best to derail the thread.

The Beastie Boys have associated themselves (by playing fun-raising concerts) with the "mumia" nonsense, which is exactly the same group that backs A.N.S.W.E.R. and the WWP, as I linked in the thread, so I think a healthy amount of skepticism should be exercised when they posture for "anti-war" sloganeering, which is a front for the groups' actual intentions.

I still fail to see the point of this thread. First you try to insinuate that I am using multiple log-in names. Next, you try to attribute meanings too.

When "protesters" are marching at functions organized and sponsored by pro-communist, anti-American groups advocating sedition, if not violent communist revolution in the United States, then you'd better believe somebody should speak up about it.

If you want to discuss anybody on the rather lengthy list of NION advocates, and their "anti-war" views, then it's reasonable to question the intentions of its organizers: members of the Revolutionary Communist Party (comprised of Socialists, Maoists, Stalinists, Leninists, Marxists, and Communists), advocating a communist dictatorship in place of the American government.

I'm saying that you (and anybody else who fails to check the agendas of these groups in the name of "peace") are being manipulated into supporting very dangerous groups indeed.

The End
posted by hama7 at 10:19 PM on March 12, 2003


fund
posted by hama7 at 10:21 PM on March 12, 2003


This is a religious matter for hama7 and therefore beyond the power of reason. Communists are evil, hate crimes are abominations, racism is a sematically null concept, "political correctness" is a product of the Frankfurt School, Stalin was so much more evil than Hitler yada yada pound the Freeper blah blah woof woof bible. It's all in black and white, no need for pesky nuances and...

it makes him 1000% Right, number one on God's, and number two on Dan Hersham's, side, and Hellbound you 1000000% Wrong, so don't you forget it.

It's a lonely job but he's doing God's work. Honest.

The political correctness tripe is especially rich--someone evidently has never worked for a major corporation coughwith a human resources departmentcough...
posted by y2karl at 10:21 PM on March 12, 2003


Hitler and Stalin were both leftists.
posted by hama7 at 10:23 PM on March 12, 2003


Hitler and Stalin were both leftists.

Whatever.
posted by bshort at 10:39 PM on March 12, 2003


We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.- Adolph Hitler

Whatever.
posted by hama7 at 10:41 PM on March 12, 2003


Of course, we'll take Hitler on his word...
posted by Space Coyote at 10:44 PM on March 12, 2003


and the poltical affiliations of hitler and stalin are relevant nowadays...how?

face it, there's no justification for swallowing the party line.
posted by mcsweetie at 10:45 PM on March 12, 2003


I'm saying that you (and anybody else who fails to check the agendas of these groups in the name of "peace") are being manipulated into supporting very dangerous groups indeed.

Just because someone happens to agree, on one point, with communists, does not make that person a communist. I'm finding it hard to believe that you're unable to see the logic here.

Example: I think kicking puppies is bad. Lets say that Stalin was a big dog lover. Now just because we both happen to believe that kicking puppies is a bad thing does not mean that we agree on any other issues (e.g. minority groups, economics, the best way to fight a land war in asia, etc.).

See?

Also, I think you don't really understand the Nazi party. Here's a quick summary that you might want to read before you start frothing at the mouth again.
posted by bshort at 10:53 PM on March 12, 2003


Ever get the feeling that certain people like to steer any discussion to their own pet topic? As if they've been losing the same argument over and over, and they want to practice and improve it, so they keep plugging away, coming up with clever responses to any opposing argument, ready to be brought out during the next inevitable incarnation of the same damn discussion.

It's a bit like trying to get good at Pac Man by memorizing the proper sequence of moves, and being so determined to win that you don't want to play any other game, so you try and get everyone to play Pac Man each time.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:57 PM on March 12, 2003


That's it, folks...

TKO by Godwin, in the 56th post.
posted by cadastral at 11:31 PM on March 12, 2003


Godwin: another meaningless meme.
posted by mischief at 1:11 AM on March 13, 2003


Did I miss the thread diversion into the issue of multiple accounts?
I just took 12 hours to figure out a password I haven't used in a year and a half...
I thought mathowie allowed multiple accounts for multiple personalities. (surprised some of the participants here qualify for ONE)

Actually, my involvement in the MeFi grew out of the nonsense in Thread 1142 (no, I 'm not linking to it.. at least I can save matt the bandwidth of downloading that elephantine page a couple more times). And I personally pledge to limit my future participation to discussions which require a pause for everyone to stand for Our National Anthem while I slip whoopie cushions on their chairs.

Thank you and Godwin Night, everybody!
posted by wendellseviltwin at 1:44 AM on March 13, 2003


"Hitler and Stalin were both leftists."

Sure, as "National Socialists" just has to mean that Hitler was a nationalistic commie, right?. Why he let thousands of communists in the high ranks of the Red Army get slaughtered, why the SA viciously fought any communist group on the streets before he came to actual power, why (along with the jews and other dissidents) all communists got fired from public workplaces after 1933, remains a mistery...

Seriously though, that was the most idiotic statements I have ever come across on MetaFilter Network. You, sir, just like to losely link your obsessive finds on communism with anything you can associate with it, no matter if it's just mere semantics. You never proved any of your points by arguing in a reasonable way but are just trying to make a point by throwing around various facts backed up by no explanation for their significance or validity whatsoever.
posted by zerofoks at 1:53 AM on March 13, 2003


I don't agree with the support, association and financing of a discredited, dangerous political experiment that has killed over 100 million people and counting.

Why don't you love America, Hama7?

runs, hides...
posted by inpHilltr8r at 2:37 AM on March 13, 2003


totally uninteresting.
you're like the support band.
thinking everybodys watchin your amazin moves but Im just wondering when you'll all shut up.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:24 AM on March 13, 2003


Who doesn't know this by now?

Me

He stormed off in a huff, and then kept a second logon active and posts in that one. So let's have no more talk of the dear "departed" Evanizer.

Seriously, I don't know. Not that I've missed him, but I'm curious: what's his second logon?
posted by matteo at 3:34 AM on March 13, 2003


sir throbbinghams comes very close.
posted by quonsar at 4:39 AM on March 13, 2003


Aaron still posts here. His last comment was in late February. His user name is, oddly enough, Aaron.
posted by iconomy at 5:08 AM on March 13, 2003


Have you ever been on the Yahoo message boards? They have this thing where you can "ignore" a user, and then that user's posts don't show for you. Pretty neat.
posted by elvissinatra at 5:23 AM on March 13, 2003


"No other user invokes such an irrational, thoughtless sequence of stereotypes, followed my a whole lot of nothing to back it up"

Ummmm....... What site are you referring to? Certainly not MetaFilter. I find plenty of this from both sides, but most of it comes from the left IMHO. And I consider myself part of the "left".

Is hama7 ridiculous in his hyperbole? Hell yes. Is he the only one here like that? Not even close. This stuff is the foundation of MetaFilter. Doesn't make it right, but beating up ONE user for it is dumb.

MetaFilter: Irrational, thoughtless sequences of stereotypes, followed my a whole lot of nothing to back it up.
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:27 AM on March 13, 2003


y6y6y6: the problem is not that hama has his own little bone to pick, and does it whenever he gets a chance, its that he actively seeks out and derails threads whenever he sees that bonepicking is a possibility. If he doesn't agree with the beastie boys, the feb15 protesters, etc, fine. But derailing a thread just to derail it is bad for the community, and not a practice that we should condone.

Hama is not interested in rational, interesting discussion (as we can see from this thread), but only in furthering his own petty little cause. I, for one, vote that he goes and takes a walk around the block for a bit, until he can carry on a conversation like a rational person.
posted by bshort at 5:39 AM on March 13, 2003


"he actively seeks out and derails threads whenever he sees that bonepicking is a possibility."

"not interested in rational, interesting discussion, but only in furthering his own petty little cause."

I still get the idea you're not talking about MetaFilter. The above could be said of at least 20% of the posters here. This is why we don't do hot button topics well. Remember? It's part of the culture. Blaming one person (even someone I loath as much as hama7) is silly.

I think you are finding a scapegoat rather than seeing the forest.

(damn but I love mixed metaphors)
posted by y6y6y6 at 5:50 AM on March 13, 2003


You people do know that no matter how many times you go around a circle, you always end up exactly where you started, right?

The only way it makes sense is if you find the trip itself worthwhile. And you obviously do.
posted by pardonyou? at 6:51 AM on March 13, 2003


I'm with you Y6, I fully agree that the same foaming at the mouth rhetoric comes out of the many on the left as it does out of hama. Hama's not a bad person, I don't hear him advocating that we "round up all the n-bombs and ship them back to Africa" I think he might be a little misinformed or not well versed, but what he lacks in knowledge he certainly makes up for with passion and there's got to be something said for that, no? He might just be a little out of touch with American values living over in Korea, I don't think that means he hates America. He may accuse me of hating America, but that might just be because he doesn't know that my love for America is why I believe the things I do about it. I think we've singled him out too much already, his opinions may be different, his rhetoric flowing freely and his ideas misinformed, but he's certainly no different than a vast number of MeFiers (interesting note, spell check suggested "defilers" for this word) perhaps even a majority. Besides I'm pretty sure he gets the same kick out of the same old arguments that his opposition does.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:46 AM on March 13, 2003


Sure, as "National Socialists" just has to mean that Hitler was a nationalistic commie, right?. Why he let thousands of communists in the high ranks of the Red Army get slaughtered, why the SA viciously fought any communist group on the streets before he came to actual power, why (along with the jews and other dissidents) all communists got fired from public workplaces after 1933, remains a mistery...
posted by zerofoks at 1:53 AM PST on March 13


I see you gentlemen are quite flustered about this little political symposium, but you could do worse than getting a little information about the ideological basis of Nazism .

The initial Nazi partyline, before Hitler's takeover of the party, was very clearly socialist; Hitler's later denouncement and persecution of communists does not make the Nazis less socialist, since they retained most socialist economic tenets and ruthless methods. Remember the fact that communists and their many pink gradations fight each other everywhere as well as among themselves in their own parties; also remember that as late as 1939 Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with the "man of steel".

You people are suicidally naive when you say that a socialist is not a communist; he's an agent towards communism. Both Marx and Gramsci have written at length about the role of socialist movements, which they despised but whose function as a means for communism they acknowledged; socialists are very often dupes, patsies for hidden agendas they believe to fight.
posted by 111 at 8:00 AM on March 13, 2003


Hence the gulags popping up all over Norway . . .
posted by hackly_fracture at 8:18 AM on March 13, 2003


You people are suicidally naive when you say that a socialist is not a communist; he's an agent towards communism.

And you are suicidally naive to believe that ruthless totalitarians like Stalin and Hitler or the modified capitalism of trade unionists have ANYTHING to do with the people's revolution as from Marx and Ingles.

The initial Nazi partyline, before Hitler's takeover of the party, was very clearly socialist

Hitler was Nazi party member number 7, so when exactly was this before Hitler time? As I said above, don't confuse trade unionists and totalitarians with communists, this is an argument without backing in communist writings. Stalin was not a communist or a Marxist, he was a Stalinist. Hitler was the Nazi Party (one reich, one party, one fuerer) so calling Hitler a socialist is the same mistake. This is the same argument that makes Hama aggravating. Its also why I support the war with Iraq, I want to see the elimination of a ruthless totalitarian.

communists and their many pink gradations fight each other everywhere

This is actually pretty accurate, but it might be because when they don't have a ruthless authoritarian dictator making the absolute decisions for them people tend to form different opinions about issues. That is why we like to refer to Matt as the "benevolent" dictator, he rules, but he spares the iron fist.

Why am I arguing this here? Sorry pardonyou?, I disgust even myself.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:29 AM on March 13, 2003


some dead guys did some bad things. lets move on, ok?
posted by mcsweetie at 8:32 AM on March 13, 2003


To bury myself further into the above meaningless argument:

September 1934, Closing of the Nazi Party rally Nuremburg, Germany

Rudolf Hess [Deputy Fuhrer]: "The party is Hitler, but Hitler is Germany, just as Germany is Hitler."
posted by Pollomacho at 8:44 AM on March 13, 2003


Sorry pardonyou?

Heh. Believe me, I'm guilty of this myself. But then after the fact I'm mad that I wasted my time. So I thought a reality check might help someone this time.
posted by pardonyou? at 8:44 AM on March 13, 2003


Ingles.

You have just made a fool of yourself on so many levels I should actually just leave it at that, but let's proceed out of charity.


Hitler was Nazi party member number 7, so when exactly was this before Hitler time?

"After World War I a number of extremist political groups arose in Germany, including the minuscule German Workers' party, whose spokesman was Gottfried Feder. Its program combined socialist economic ideas with rabid nationalism and opposition to democracy. The party early attracted a few disoriented war veterans, including Hermann Goering , Rudolf Hess , and Hitler. After 1920 Hitler led the party;" (from the aforementioned reference source, destined for entry-level students)


As I said above, don't confuse trade unionists and totalitarians with communists, this is an argument without backing in communist writings.

Really? So stuff like "violent overthrow of the government", "proletariat dictatorship", "workers of the world, unite" and "appropriation of the means of production" comes from whom, Adam Smith? Trade unions are not necessarily communist, but have often been fronts for communist parties worldwide.


Stalin was not a communist or a Marxist, he was a Stalinist.

Funny, until his death 50 years ago communists considered him a hero and some still do.


Hitler was the Nazi Party (one reich, one party, one fuerer) so calling Hitler a socialist is the same mistake.

No. I won't even bother replying.


This is actually pretty accurate, but it might be because when they don't have a ruthless authoritarian dictator making the absolute decisions for them people tend to form different opinions about issues.

Communism is authoritarian in itself; despots are interchangeable under communism-- the iron fist remains no matter who's on charge and who gets sent to Siberia. The endless leftist nitpicking is by no means a democratic practice, but rather the search to legitimize what's inherently dictatorial.
posted by 111 at 8:54 AM on March 13, 2003


The initial Nazi partyline, before Hitler's takeover of the party, was very clearly socialist;
As Pollomacho, there was no NSDAP without Hitler, or, if there had been, it would have been irrelevant to politics and thus history, too. One always has to consider the motives of the leaders of a political group which the other members decide to follow.

Hitler's later denouncement and persecution of communists does not make the Nazis less socialist, since they retained most socialist economic tenets and ruthless methods.
The NSDAP most certainly did not retain any socialist economic tenets (prove me wrong if you can, which I doubt), and their ruthless methods have been fascist, which have been many communist enterprises, too. But it is a very poor use of logic to make the conclusion NSDAP = communists, as the example by bshort in this thread also shows.

Remember the fact that communists and their many pink gradations fight each other everywhere as well as among themselves in their own parties;

*gasp* JUST LIKE DEMOCRATS! I KNEW IT! DEMOCRACY IS NOTHING BUT COMMUNISTICAL MOB RULE!

also remember that as late as 1939 Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with the "man of steel".

Just to have some spare time to prepare for his later attack on the Sowjet Union. Seriously, what is your point? Was Hitler not allowed to trick Stalin because Hitler was a commie?
posted by zerofoks at 8:54 AM on March 13, 2003




also remember that as late as 1939 Hitler signed a non-aggression pact with the "man of steel"

Nixon formed detante Mao, Regan signed disarmament agreements with Gorby, I guess by that logic Nixon and Regan were a dirty red bastards!
posted by Pollomacho at 9:02 AM on March 13, 2003


Okay, so the guy spelled Engels wrong. Big fuckin' deal, doesn't help anything at all if you're gonna point your finger at it. But it shows much of a hypocrite you are when accuse others of nitpicketing.

from the aforementioned reference source, destined for entry-level students

I searched through all of your posts in this thread, but there is no such thing as an "aformentioned source".
Anyways, the "Blut und Boden" ideology of the NSDAP was from its early days nothing else but losely connected with socialism by propagating the idea of a strong Aryan Agricultural Germany. And the only ones who did get expropriated were mainly jews, communists and other dissidents, not the German Bourgeouisie. This was clear from day 1.

No. I won't even bother replying.

You have just made a fool of yourself on so many levels I should actually just leave it at that, but let's proceed out of charity.
posted by zerofoks at 9:03 AM on March 13, 2003


You people are suicidally naive when you say that a socialist is not a communist; he's an agent towards communism.

and capitalism is an agent toward corporate totalitarianism. so the fuck what? meet the new boss, same as the old boss. politics is tiresome to discuss. lets mock somebody or do something outrageous instead.
posted by quonsar at 9:17 AM on March 13, 2003


I say we lift up our shirts and compare scars (actually I've got a wicked cool one on my neck)!
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:28 AM on March 13, 2003


Hey quonsar, is your high school having a senior prom this year?

[/mockery]
posted by dhoyt at 9:30 AM on March 13, 2003


zerofoks:
The NSDAP most certainly did not retain any socialist economic tenets (prove me wrong if you can, which I doubt)

The Nazis took the means of production and private sector under heavy guidance and surveillance, drove companies not controlled by nazi sympathizers off the market, controlled labour supplies (80 hour workweeks) etc etc-- not a capitalist method, I'd say; they also relied on a planned central economy destined to 1)feed the population (at first; later on, civilians were discarded for specific military priorities) and 2) guns and warcraft production. More here.

their ruthless methods have been fascist, which have been many communist enterprises, too. But it is a very poor use of logic to make the conclusion NSDAP = communists, as the example by bshort in this thread also shows.

It's your own conclusion to completely equate nazism and communism (soviet I presume). My own contention is that both drank from the same unholy sources and, although they fought each other, they were and are birds of a feather.

*gasp* JUST LIKE DEMOCRATS! I KNEW IT! DEMOCRACY IS NOTHING BUT COMMUNISTICAL MOB RULE!

Democracy is constructive and not schismatic; it does not aim at violently destroying your opponent unless he threatens democracy itself.

ps: "nitpicketing"? Is that a unionized slip of the tongue? The source is somewhere above; it's from the Columbia Encyclopedia (also on Encyclopedia.com).

Pollo, the Nixon and Reagan agreements were very different in nature from the Stalin-Hitler pact.

quonsar,
capitalism is an agent toward corporate totalitarianism. (...) meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

The capitalist boss may fire you, but the communist boss shoots you and takes hold of your personal belongings. It's just as simple as that.
posted by 111 at 9:43 AM on March 13, 2003


Yes, I am such a moron because I slipped one letter, oh god, I deserve to die because of a spell check error! Let's focus on a spelling error since you have no argument elsewhere.

So stuff like "violent overthrow of the government", "proletariat dictatorship", "workers of the world, unite" and "appropriation of the means of production" comes from whom, Adam Smith? Trade unions are not necessarily communist, but have often been fronts for communist parties worldwide.

Where did you get your information, the Nixon library? Read something about communism, please, before you make statements like that. Yes, Marx and Ingles (look I did it again I must be a total idiot), did call for the workers to unite and topple the aristocracy. I'm wondering where having one absolute ruler of all fits in with that though? Maybe you could explain how having a political system that eliminated hierarchy and class is the same as one where one guy rules everything. Yes it says, proletarians of the world unite, but it does not say unite behind one absolute ruler (as all Nazi party members swore oath to do on Feb. 25, 1934) Yeah, right, Stalin was a communist. I'm not arguing that Stalin and Hitler weren't cut from the same cloth, but that was not the cloth of communism. Since I know its going to come up, try reading Animal Farm and 1984 again and this time remember that the author was an avowed communist to his grave.

Funny, until his death 50 years ago communists considered him a hero and some still do.

Soviets considered him a hero, those that are actually communists (like Orwell) despise Stalin and Mao more than Nixon and McCarthy ever did (that's why misinformed teachers try and tell kids that Orwell's books are anti-communist rather than anti-totalitarian, they are actually pro-communist)

No. I won't even bother replying

Why, because you don't have an argument against the words of the actual Nazi party members?

Communism is authoritarian in itself; despots are interchangeable under communism-- the iron fist remains no matter who's on charge and who gets sent to Siberia.

Once again you seem to have mistakenly interchanged the word totalitarianism for communism. Rule by egalitarian people as a whole and rule by a single despot are opposites not synonyms.

The endless leftist nitpicking is by no means a democratic practice, but rather the search to legitimize what's inherently dictatorial.

I have no idea where you came up with that one, Limbaugh maybe? What is inherently dictatorial in communism is NOTHING, no amount of nitpicking will change that. What communists have fought each other over has been whether to fight totalitarianism first and then have the people's revolt or vice versa (read Homage to Catalonia by Orwell for example)
posted by Pollomacho at 9:43 AM on March 13, 2003


Look!!! A puppy. I like puppies. Do you folks like puppies? What sort of puppies do you like? If you could be any puppy, what would you be?
[/failed attempt to derail something that is of absolutely no importance to anything]
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:58 AM on March 13, 2003


Joey
A black lab, of course. How about you?
posted by timeistight at 10:16 AM on March 13, 2003


The Nazis took the means of production and private sector under heavy guidance and surveillance, drove companies not controlled by nazi sympathizers off the market, controlled labour supplies (80 hour workweeks) etc etc-- not a capitalist method, I'd say;

Why not? Capitalistic corporations work the same on society. Just replace "nazi" with "whoever serves status quo". So the political control was a little harsh. But the economic control was a rendezvous between fascism and capitalism rather than what happens in every communist country: the expropriation of the rich.

they also relied on a planned central economy destined to 1)feed the population (at first; later on, civilians were discarded for specific military priorities) and 2) guns and warcraft production.

The most ridiculous thing I have read from you. By no means was the economy of Nazi Germany a planned one to feed the people. Would you please look up some figures about how much money companies like IG Farben, BASF and others made under the hitler regime?

Democracy is constructive and not schismatic; it does not aim at violently destroying your opponent unless he threatens democracy itself.

What a bunch of meaingless phrases. Every nation socialist could have said the same back then by just replacing "democracy" with "national socialism".

My own contention is that both drank from the same unholy sources and, although they fought each other, they were and are birds of a feather.

How literate. Now translate your vague and obscure mix of metaphors into some sentences with content (without having to link to someplace which I won't even comment on for obvious reasons).
posted by zerofoks at 10:24 AM on March 13, 2003


Oh, and I might add the fact that I know that there hasn't been one single communist state or country so far in history. But seeing as the socialists of China and Russia liked to call themselves communists, I overtake the terms.
Just like antisemitism isn't aimed against semites, but you still don't hear anyone in Germany, for instance, use the term "Anti-Judaismus".
posted by zerofoks at 10:29 AM on March 13, 2003


During the Spaticist revolt of 1919, part of germany came under the control of communists for a few days. Hitler was in his regimental barracks at the time and was forced to wear a red armband, so, for a few days, hitler was an communist. (wether he liked it or not) Not long after, he became a spy, one of his first assighnments was to look into the DWP.

Hitler was Nazi party member number 7, so when exactly was this before Hitler time?

Hitler was really something like #111 but lowered the number 7 later.

As Pollomacho, there was no NSDAP without Hitler

true, as the party was know as the German Workers Party before hitler changed it.
must remember that Germany, after her defeat, suffered putsch after putsch. The socialist part was for show, to get those on the boarder between nationalism and communism into the DWP fold.

The most ridiculous thing I have read from you. By no means was the economy of Nazi Germany a planned one to feed the people

it most certainly did, the people where feed, and material prosperity returned, in time. See, this is easy when you confiscate citizens assets. (Jewish people, reds, etc.) Also, it is easier to kill the mentally Ill and terminally sick then pay for them to receive care. Also, if you don't pay your reparations bill and sell arms to the sovs, what a extra windfall huh?
posted by clavdivs at 10:59 AM on March 13, 2003


Hitler was really something like #111 but lowered the number 7 later.

...by converting from binary.
posted by timeistight at 11:09 AM on March 13, 2003


it most certainly did

But that wasn't the goal of the economy as far as it was planned by the national socialists.

Other than that, 100th post and I agree with the rest you said. Though I think NS politics had even crueler ends planned than you mentioned.
posted by zerofoks at 11:18 AM on March 13, 2003


What sort of puppies do you like?

democratic, capitalist puppies.

zerofoks, you're in denial. You manipulate the facts ("a little harsh"?) to suit your beliefs. Expropriation was rife in Nazi Germany. Hitler's programme was heavily influenced by the "guns vs butter" crisis of 1935, when he directed every effort to (unsuccessfully, since there were few incentives) to feed the German people; it was part of his political platform.

The figures were crooked: unemployment levels didn't show jews and non-nazis. Industrial output data in Nazi Germany was slanted. The degree of control and was so harsh that a book written by a communist sympathizer shortly after WWII (called "Economics of Destruction" or something like that) actually stated that Hitler controlled the economy too much even if compared to Stalin!
More.

Hitler was really something like #111 but lowered the number 7 later

111? No way!!!
posted by 111 at 11:21 AM on March 13, 2003


binary

I think thats a good name for a black lab.
posted by jmd82 at 11:27 AM on March 13, 2003


agreed zerofoks. (sorry about the number sentence i wrote...binary indeed:) I am not sure of the number 111-111 but it was higher then 7. I believe they inflated the numbers as to attract more members.

Though I think NS politics had even crueler ends planned than you mentioned.

most certainly, i believe the socialist stuff was just window dressing to get the moderates in.

actually stated that Hitler controlled the economy too much even if compared to Stalin!
this is true especially during the war when he interfered with Todts' then later Speers' armaments program. Hitler got a kickback from the postal system for every stamp with his image. He also used Boorman to "buy" any land he wanted.
posted by clavdivs at 11:39 AM on March 13, 2003


my sexiness is what keeps you guys coming back.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:01 PM on March 13, 2003



posted by dhoyt at 12:16 PM on March 13, 2003


Hey quonsar, is your high school having a senior prom this year?

i divested myself of all my high school holdings back in 2001 and am now heavily invested in nunneries. that's the new mother teresa just above me here. whatcha think, hrm?
posted by quonsar at 12:27 PM on March 13, 2003


zerofoks, you're in denial.

And you don't pay attention.

Example:

Expropriation was rife in Nazi Germany

I already said that this didn't specifically target the German bourgeousie in order to divide the wealth up on the whole people but rather only those which didn't fit into the racial system.

And I refuse to argue with you. These are my last arguments on the case. You may retreat to elementary school tactics of pointing out spelling errors, I don't care.

Hitler never meant to expropriate the rich (as the socialist revolutionaries all over the world did), and my point stands and is valid. In fact, the richest companies of today's Germany came to power during the Nazi era, strongly profitting from the workers of the concentration camps which provided the capitalist system with slave workers.

And maybe that the numbers of the employment rates were crooked. So what? Hitler reduced them heavily anyways. They had been up to 50% before he came to power and abolished the Weimarian democracy.

What unholy sources unite communists and nazis now?
You cannot even argue for yourself and you couldn't argue against any of the points I made.

But why do I even try to argue? I am in denial! Oh, what a futile attempt of me to differentiate between the most important ideologies of the last millenium.

Bleh.
posted by zerofoks at 12:47 PM on March 13, 2003


i divested myself of all my high school holdings back in 2001 and am now heavily invested in nunneries. that's the new mother teresa just above me here. whatcha think, hrm?

Nicely played.
posted by dhoyt at 12:59 PM on March 13, 2003


Ah, I think I'm starting to understand the sources (sorry cached) of all the misinformation!
posted by Pollomacho at 1:02 PM on March 13, 2003


Ah, I think I'm starting to understand the sources (sorry cached) of all the misinformation!

Sorry Pollo, but you're still not quite "starting to understand" it for the following reasons:

-the source is no source at all; it's just a paranoid rant against the well-known fact that Lew Rockwell is a christian libertarian (oh!) who criticizes Ayn Rand (oh!!); it's a free world, so you may choose sides as you wish, but I invite everybody to read the cached page carefully and draw their own conclusions;

- there is no misinformation on the second link. Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) is a much respected liberal (in the european, Austrian sense) economist whose work seems much more sound these days than, for example, Keynes'-- let alone the outdated, much ridiculed marxist central planning.

You should perhaps have first read the sites before linking to them; your comment didn't make any sense-- unless you were under the impression that "misinformation" is etymologically linked to "Mises", which would be incorrect but not surprising considering it came from you.
posted by 111 at 1:37 PM on March 13, 2003


Expropriation was rife in Nazi Germany
as a side note, only to whom did not fit a model of german citizen. For instance, after Kristalnact (sic sp), any german owned business that was damaged was given money to rebuild. Also the timeline of Germanys demand for products, and war material is relevant in that by the end of the war, the average german worker had given there all in terms of work, and the soul is a different matter here. Also the average german worker (worker as in middle classes, not the 'eyegee fabens') gave their children to that horrid war machine. So i guess one could argue that the Nazis took about everything one had.

now Cambodia, there is a case of class expropiation.
posted by clavdivs at 1:48 PM on March 13, 2003


Democracy is constructive and not schismatic; it does not aim at violently destroying your opponent unless he threatens democracy itself.

Democracy is a style of government. It has no aims of its own. It is merely an instrument for the people to express their aims. Are you suggesting that people never aim at violently destroying their opponents? Explain this.
posted by wrench at 2:00 PM on March 13, 2003


Democracy is a style of government. It has no aims of its own. It is merely an instrument for the people to express their aims.

Pretty obvious, isn't it? Demos + kratia etc etc. But democracy does have an aim of its own, namely self-preservation as the only system where individuals have the most freedom possible within a given social context. Beyond democracy lies anarchy and, ultimately, disorder; below democracy lie attempts to control society and, ultimately, impose a tyrannical rule.

Are you suggesting that people never aim at violently destroying their opponents?

No. I suggest people of a democratic persuasion will resort to violence only as a means to avoid totalitarianism.
posted by 111 at 2:15 PM on March 13, 2003


Hama's got a one-track mind when it comes to political threads, but his FPP contributions are wonderful. One doesn't necessarily excuse the other, but any talk of banning the guy should take into account that he makes a great contribution above and beyond equating liberals with fascist regimes in China and Russia.

Also! He likes The Smiths! Doesn't that mean anything to you people??
posted by jennyb at 2:19 PM on March 13, 2003


Now that was a perfect troll.

Step 1: Blah blah blah insane arguments about supporting communism blah blah blah you people are as good as HITLER! Step 2: Sit back and enjoy a milk bone babble sophomorically with quonsar in a commie-free world.
posted by MarkAnd at 2:19 PM on March 13, 2003


First of all will you PLEASE give up the oxymoron of communism and Sovietism? The Soviet/Maoist style government may have called itself communist, they may have called it the communist party and the proletariat and had catchy symbols and slogans that were used by the early communists, but little of the authoritarian, totalitarian, bureaucratic morass had anything to do with communist writings.

Yes, the source link was not the best one, a throwaway, point conceded, but the first and last links are more key. They give clear insight into the motivations of your source. I read plenty of Rockwell's self-described "anti-state, pro-market" essays to understand where he was coming from on the issues and how he feels about anything interested in putting any controls on economies. From what I gather from Rockwell, Mises also was exactly what Hitler hated from his days in Vienna (and wrote about in Mein Kampf), maybe even him personally, he was lucky to get to Geneva alive! I'm sure the feeling was quite mutual as well. I'm not blaming Mises, he was run out of Austria for 50 years, but I can see how he'd have an axe to grind against Hitler and the Nazis and how he hated the communists so why the hell not just lump their ideologies into one all pervasive all-evil "planned economy" and point fingers at it for not considering the human element (the same thing proponents of more structured economies point out as the flaws in liberal systems).

Hey, I'm not advocating any sort of economic system here, besides, God knows I'm not an economist, so I'm not going to argue that. I'm not discounting him just because a Harvard Business School pencil neck claims he's a "right-wing reactionary" but I AM saying that if that's where you're getting your information from exclusively, then you are a little misinformed in your arguments. He may be highly regarded outside of reactionary libertarian circles, I don't know really, but if reactionary libertarians are all you read about other ideologies, then chances are you are going to get a reactionary libertarian view of those ideologies, no?
posted by Pollomacho at 2:30 PM on March 13, 2003


Since I know its going to come up, try reading Animal Farm and 1984 again and this time remember that the author was an avowed communist to his grave.

Orwell was a reluctant socialist, who felt that the reality of the politics always lead to leader worship. I do not know where you are getting your information, but the man was pretty anti-communist in everything I have ever read. I am perfectly happy to believe that he would have been thrilled if everyone had decide to give socialism a try, but it seems to me he would have been horrified by any socialism imposed upon people.
posted by thirteen at 2:42 PM on March 13, 2003


First of all will you PLEASE give up the oxymoron of communism and Sovietism? The Soviet/Maoist style government may have called itself communist, they may have called it the communist party and the proletariat and had catchy symbols and slogans that were used by the early communists, but little of the authoritarian, totalitarian, bureaucratic morass had anything to do with communist writings.

Pollomacho, I apologize for not warning you before, but without that fundamental misdirection, 111 hasn't a leg to stand on when deciding that the rest of us are commie sympathizers and perpetrators of the greatest evils of the world. After all hasn't communism (in whatever form 111 decides) killed billions of people? Seriously, kudos to you both for a good debate, but it is a rather pointless one as long as 111 makes up the definitions to fit the agenda.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:46 PM on March 13, 2003




No! We must argue!
And then we will argue some more!
posted by rocketman at 2:56 PM on March 13, 2003


kudos to you both for a good debate

What?!? Have lost your ever-lovin' mind, man?
posted by timeistight at 3:00 PM on March 13, 2003


Sit back and enjoy a milk bone babble sophomorically with quonsar in a commie-free world.

hee hee. i are only a freshman!
posted by quonsar at 3:03 PM on March 13, 2003




What?!? Have lost your ever-lovin' mind, man?

Not at all; just trying to be polite to those making effort. It's dreck, but at least it was thoughtful dreck.

y6y6y6, you've been saving that up for just such an occasion, haven't you?
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:30 PM on March 13, 2003


The MeTa post starts off saying:

NewsFilter is bad enough, but constantly revisiting the philosophies underlying communism, discussing its supporters, and revisiting McCarthyism makes it that much worse.

What do Mefites do for 125 comments (and counting)?:

Constantly revisit the philosophies underlying communism, discuss its supporters, and revisit McCarthyism (making it that much worse.)

Conclusions reached: 0

Final endpoint: Sq. #1

Pictures of pretty women: 1

Pictures of cute puppies: 1

Classic!
posted by Shane at 6:30 PM on March 13, 2003


The Chinese won't let The Rolling Stones play "Brown Sugar". Why is that?
posted by clavdivs at 6:57 PM on March 13, 2003


my head hurts.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:59 AM on March 14, 2003


Last time I promise, I just want to set this strait:

I do not know where you are getting your information, but the man was pretty anti-communist in everything I have ever read.

I'm getting my information from Orwell. I know that your misinformed, cold war era trained teachers told you that 1984 and Animal Farm are "anti-communist" because they were taught by their teachers to ignore everything else Orwell wrote and to attribute 1984 and Animal Farm to communism as a philosophy and not to its intended targets, Stalinism, Sovietism and totalitarianism, but the fact is that Orwell himself even took a bullet in the Spanish revolution fighting in a communist militia (not a Stalin backed militia, which he criticizes in Homage to Catalonia). 1984 and Animal farm are anti-totalitarian books, they contain NO criticism of communism (as a matter of fact you may recall that the animals live in collectivized harmony and work together well until Napoleon takes control), they do however criticize Soviet Russian Stalinist Totalitarianism, which Orwell despised, this called itself communism and came to power through an actual brief people's revolution, but as I've repeated time and again, totalitarianism is far from the people's revolution that Orwell wrote in support of and even took up arms for in Spain. Stalin may have paraded pictures of Karl Marx down Red Square, but he was the antithesis of Marxism, he may have called his party the Communist Party, but it was neither a political party nor communism. A master lording over all and forcing the workers into industrial slavery is exactly what Marx and Orwell together rail against!

OK, I'm done, I promise
posted by Pollomacho at 7:14 AM on March 14, 2003


as I've repeated time and again

!

OK, I'm done, I promise

Sure you are.
posted by timeistight at 8:25 AM on March 14, 2003


I'm getting my information from Orwell.
Then find a link. Yes he did fight with the Communists, but I am unable to find an instance where he refereed to himself as one. It seems pretty clear that he became disillusioned with Communism (Capitalism as well, but I am not arguing that he was in love with that), as a viable solution. Communism will always be corrupted into totalitarianism. He called himself a Socialist many times over. He later turned in people he suspected of being Communists. I am not maintaining that Stalin was a perfect example of what Communism is supposed to be, but I do think Stalin is going to be the end result of any attempt at trying it. Hell, I think George Bush is the end result of a representative Democracy. You make broad assumptions about my education, and you are just spewing stuff I have never heard about. Back it up.
posted by thirteen at 8:36 AM on March 14, 2003


Links? They are called books 13, books, they are not on the computer except for maybe at Amazon.

Sorry, timesight, I really am not coming back to this again.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:48 AM on March 14, 2003


I read one of the two, and it does not back up your position. The man is hardly undocumented, and yet there is nothing to show him ever calling himself a communist, nor anything that shows him actively supporting communism in his later life. It does not exist.

those that are actually communists (like Orwell)
I am maintaining he was a Democratic Socialist, as he called himself throughout his life, and that his fear of authoritarianism would never have allowed him to impose that Communism on anyone.
posted by thirteen at 9:12 AM on March 14, 2003


What a wonderful expose of logical fallacy in action this thread is. Definitely a keeper.
posted by walrus at 9:48 AM on March 14, 2003


« Older Attacking and insulting members isn't cool.   |   Posts that just are links to Google searches Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments