Turtlewins

The Far Left are Fascist because;

They want to consolidate all power in the executive

They want to governmentalize corporations

They want to corporatize government

They demonize everyone who disagrees with them

They praise fealty to the state

Fascism by definition isn’t restricted to either end of the spectrum

The Far Left are being called Fascist because they;

Use black bloc tactics to terrorize the public into voting how they want

Physically attack anyone who dissents

Ruin the lives of anyone who dissents

Target the dissenter’s family

Burn books

Restrict knowledge

Actively try to rewrite history

Try to memory hole every bad thing they do

Restrict speech

Expand government

Try to erase human rights

Control media

Having the backing of corporations and the government

Push racial politics

Have regressed social progress 60 years

Actively support genocidal regimes

Demonize and scapegoat one ethnic group pinning the faults of others onto them

Murder others for not supporting their political candidates

So for context, the “la riots” or more properly termed the La uprising was a result of the absolutely brutal and horrific beating and torture of Rodney King at the hands of LA PD and the subsequent acquittal of all the officers involved. So when you say “different decade, same shit” the “same shit” is the horrific systemic racism that leads to the death and torture of black people and the absolution of white racists and dismissal by white Americans which in turn spurns justified outrage.

It’s also important to note that the brunt of the damage occurred in Korea town because a few days after the brutality showed to Rodney King, a Korean shop owner shot a 14 year old black girl in the head because he falsely accused her of shop lifting. The shop owner was given a criminally light sentence which also sparked outrage.

The reason that there were black shop owners affected by these things is that in tandem with the shooting, gentrification saw Asian and Latino people overtaking black neighborhoods and displacing the local black communities in Los Angeles. So while these attacks were focused on members of the Korean community in Los Angeles, there were black shops that got caught in the crossfire.

It’s also important to know that almost all of the people injured and left dead were black people at the hands of a fiercely and swiftly militarized police force.

The aftermath of the LA uprising saw 2 of the officers brought up on federal charges of civil rights violations and found them guilty while the other 2 were again acquitted.

11,000 people, most of whom were black, were arrested and saw harsher punishment than the officers who beat Rodney king and the shop owner who fatally shot a 15 year old girl.

So the increasing burden of systemic racism, extreme poverty, displacement, and finally the public brutality shown to black people with absolutely no chance at justice reached a boiling point which resulted in the 1992 LA uprising.

So rather than hyper focusing on the unfortunate fact that some black business owners get caught in the cross fire as a way to pretend that you care about the material damages done to black people, how about we focus on the conditions that continue to result in these kinds of tragedies in the first place by addressing institutional white supremacy and its resulting cyclical poverty and oppression.

“I don’t care actually about poor people or other people of color.”

Child Labor: Nations with low economic freedom (see exhibit A) tend to correlate with larger amounts of child labor (see exhibit B). Contrary to popular belief, child labor has been the standard for most of human history; it's only up until extremely recently that children in developed countries were granted the liberty to attend public education instead of working on the family farm, store, bakery, etc.

Slavery: Unfortunately, slavery has existed throughout history (even today in some nations) and pre-dates pretty much every modern economic system (similarly to child labor) . With that being said, it would be hard to argue that modern capitalism has much of a correlation with slavery, as when many modern developed nations today began adopting these capitalist policies were roughly around the same periods they were eliminating slavery.

The slave trade was outlawed in the United Kingdom in the 19th century, just when modern capitalism was developing. 

In the 19th century of the US, slavery was predominantly practiced in the South, but not as common in the industrialized North. Part of the reason, at least, is that slavery is viable only when simple and easily monitored tasks are being performed, such as picking cotton or rowing in a galley ship. Because capitalism leads to innovation in productive techniques and, with it, a declining demand for unskilled labor, it would reduce demand for slaves even if the ideas behind it did not.

The individualistic ideas that motivated market liberalism also motivated a repugnance for slavery. (SOURCE)

Wars of Conquest: Yet again another phenomenon that pre-dates modern Capitalism (are we noticing a trend yet?). With that being said, although one could make strong arguments that free markets have greatly influenced wars of conquest, it would be challenging to conclude that they were the cause as most wars in history were decided by the public and/or representatives of the public (i.e. government).

Genocide: See above.

Worst Famines in History: This is where we just cross the line of being wrong to being illogical as the worst famines in history were due to natural causes (disease, lack of rainfall, etc.). If we look at one of the more commonly used examples for “Capitalism causing a famine”, then we would turn to Niger, which interestingly, had no problems until they started experiencing significant locusts ate crops and cattle fodder, then magically people started questioning Capitalism.

“9.1 million people starve...”: That’s an astute observation, but unfortunately, that is a far too simple consideration for the following reasons:

The “enough food for 10 billion” metric derives from food that most governments would deem illegal to serve as food to humans.

Producing food is merely a single step in a long list of steps in actually feeding a person.

To actually “solve” global starvation would require extensive military forces (or as the UN calls them “peacekeeping forces”) and this has widely been opposed as it would be deemed “imperialistic”.

You wouldn’t have to beg for your rights like a peasant if you had “death weapons”, lmao

Governments are NECESSARILY meant to be stronger than the individual, since if they aren’t then no government truly has any power. Without governmental power, which while you may see it as “BIG FEDERAL MAN TAKES AWAY GUN” actually includes local activism and more, the mechanics for communal growth don’t exist.

>the minute someone else has bigger ones we no longer have our rights

The US government, and pretty much every other government in the world, says HELLO

Like.

Imagine saying this and unironically not seeing how you’ve been cuckholded into believing this shit, believing that government “should be stronger than the individual” because otherwise how would they trample their rights with impunity??

I mean god DAMN, I’ve never seen someone just come right out and say “hey guys, I know we have decades of government genocide and murder, CIA coups and destabilizations, FBI coverups and ATF mass murder, but gosh what if billionaires had nukes? That would be so irresponsible!”

Lol fuck you and your whole fucking life, Statecuck, you’re fuckin hopeless

^ exhibit A, No because you’re a bootlicker.

You call yourself a “pacifist” because you think that if you advocate for the state to do the violence instead it makes it more noble and removes all responsibility from you. You claim you “hate the government” but then you literally demand it’s expansion.

So you’re not only a bootlicker, you’re a fucking delusional coward who’s happy to let someone else get their hands bloody for you while they carve out your utopia. You call guns “death weapons” and pretend people don’t have the right to own them - inherently, you’re making the argument that the State has the right to regulate them - and then say you’re a “pacifist” even though your ideology inherently sends men with guns into people’s homes to disarm them against their will. That’s violence. Your idea of government is empowered BY violence.

“I don’t want the state to be violent either”

HahahahahahahahahahahahahHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Fucking When?

See, I’m not a pacifist. I’m comfortable with violence. When you violate people’s rights, you violate the NAP.

“Socialist pacifist”

Dudes enjoying a kid taking the class serious all prepared for a full on combat discussion.