What do you mean by state?

He's talking about how in some ideal version of communism that'll never happen, the state will dissolve and everybody will life by their own needs, or something.

Spoiler, it won't.

To my knowledge(Which I fully admit is not the most extensive), most attempts at communism start off with the bold revolutionary. Then he dies, at some point after, the tyrant takes over, and they either turn the thing into a proto-fascist system, or also die, which leads reformers to attempt to fix the situation, and fail, and by either political, populist, or economic pressure, are forced to change the system.

eu elections isn't that important and as far as i am aware of the far left has also gain substantial seats, so it's more like that there are more radical voters than conservative voters.

as for india, there is always room for fascism to grow in a country that consider itself to be suppressed by colonial overlords and deeply religious, and the ideology itself has not been kept in check as much as in europe and the us.
but india is also a country with loads of regional differences, people in the deep south literally care nothing about modi, and only vote for him because regional parties tell them to vote / had form an alliance with the bjp, so i would say the surge on fascist is only happening on the provinces that speak hindi.

@Zoe, are you a K debater?

Edited 6/17/2019 01:38:09

BJP is right-wing nationalist and centralist (although India has always been more centralist than its federal Western counterparts), but it's a stretch to call them fascist or even authoritarian. Moreover, the sentiment in India isn't so much pro-fascism as anti-status quo (status quo = Rahul Gandhi's Congress) populism with a desire to see growth and development.

Plus applying the label "fascism" to the Global South can get tricky because fascism has some distinctly eurocentric ways of reasoning about cultures, nations, and societies. Those models can't be easily matched to the realities of non-Western societies, just like how the Western application of race, national identity, and religion hasn't been all that accurate in those cultures. I'd argue that lumping India (and Brazil and the Philippines, etc.) into this global overarching narrative is borderline colonialist in its mindset.

@Checkmqte: If Zoe's a K debater, they're definitely not nat circuit... I'm pretty sure Zoe just watches a ton of BreadTube or something.

Edited 6/17/2019 03:37:15

Don't cancel out the possibility that some people only heard one side of an argument.

In India? They have more parties (especially regional parties) than anyone can keep track of. Plus the shift from Congress (dominant party 1947-2014, now barely keeping up nationally) to BJP (dominant party today) necessarily implies that people are broadly familiar with at least two major options.

But with a country of like 1.3 billion people, they're almost certainly not making the same choice(s) for the same reasons (as sos pointed out), so it's unwarranted to paint over it all with a broad brush and call it support for fascism. Right-wing nationalism, sure, people have to at least tolerate that to vote for RSS/BJP, but fascism? Just no. They're still working within the framework of liberal democracy and not proposing to change it.

In fact, it's frankly kind of hard to conceive of India operating under some non-democratic framework [in the long run]. The shared republic is like at least half of what even makes India India.

Edited 6/17/2019 03:55:24

To think that India has over 1 000 000 000, and Canada has less then 40 000 000.

@knyte: well it looks like i did apply a eurocentric thinking towards fascism in the east huh (juq's west intensifies), also india is a really decentralized country, and bjp is a very large party as well, modi has his charisma but his power probably doesn't fit the required amount to be a fascist government.

Edited 6/17/2019 05:11:55

Most political systems are bad, but communism... Do you want us all to die?

@knyte ayee fellow debater

I just figured that's the only place someone could get into radical marxism/smashing the state to that extent.

@Zoe, are you a K debater?

What's that?

What do you mean by state?

A state as in the government. I'm a Marxist-Leninist so I specifically believe in the gradual withering away of the state after the implementation of Socialism, but there's a million other different types of Communists that believe in different ways of achieving Communism.

If Zoe's a K debater, they're definitely not nat circuit... I'm pretty sure Zoe just watches a ton of BreadTube or something.

Dunno what the hell nat circuit is either lol, I watch a few lefty YouTubers but not that often, maybe a Shaun or Hbomb video occasionally. I mostly watch Destiny even though he's a Liberal.

the far left has also gain substantial seats

you mean the European United Left (socialists) which lost 14 seats? or maybe you're talking about Greens but you'd have to be a Farage fuckbuddy yourself to label them "far left"

also what's a K debater?

Edited 6/17/2019 22:05:54

Policy debate is an extra curricular in middle school to college. A K debater is someone who runs arguments like critiques of capitalism. Nat Cir = National Circuit.

I mean, I'm a Marxist so I'm probably a K debater lol

K = kritik, not necessarily a kritik/critique of capitalism per se. I've run K's all over the political spectrum (although, I wasn't really nat circuit, just went to a couple TOC bid tournaments and only made the bid round once).

It's more of a style of argument, not about the substance (i.e., you can run left-wing arguments as traditional "cards"/contentions with a claim, warrant, and impact- that's most comparable to what Zoe is doing here). A K, on the other hand, is an out-of-left-field argument that critiques your opponent's implicit worldview (or something similar). It's like someone runs a traditional argument, and you link them into some problematic ideology (to keep it basic, let's say their argument relies on some racist assumptions). Then you bring out the impacts of the pervasive ideology ("racism leads to dehumanization, and dehumanization is worse than mass murder because X") and offer an alternative (e.g., let's burn America down). You have to win on all 3 parts- link, impact, alternative- to win on the K. The link and impact can be turned (e.g., "actually you're the real racist"/"racism is actually good") and now all the arguments in your K work against you.

K's can get very interesting, e.g., resulting in someone breaking out into poetry in-round. There's also all sorts of interesting things in debate, like theory debate (policing unfair/uneducational behavior in-round to win a ballot).

So a K isn't == making anti-capitalist arguments. It's about critiquing what's going on in round, including at the level of debate itself. A K debater is someone who employs K's often, usually the same few handful of K's if they're very good at it.

I don't know anything about middle school debate parlance but what Knyte seems to be describing is reductionism. As in all authority lacks metaphysical ground so all authority is reduced to absurdity. However, the reductionist falls prey to his own axiom because the authority upon which is argument is to be accepted is not grounded.

While I'd recommend delving further into that line of argument, as advocates for what you call "reductionism" (?) probably have good responses to such an obvious retort, I think I mis-explained what a Kritik is. It's not about the argument but about the level of analysis.

A typical debate just involves the affirmative and negative trading contentions ("X is good because Y" and responses to it). A K goes beyond that level of analysis (just looking at contentions on the flow) and peeks beneath the surface of what's going on in the round. It's not about particular authors or arguments; it doesn't even need philosophical depth.

Or, since "tell" doesn't seem to work, let's try "show": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnlyHkUzD4w

(This isn't a typical K, nor was the person in the video a good debater at the time of the video, but I think it makes my point that a K is about form not substance). You can make the "reductionist" attacks on authority that VV cited above, or the claims against capitalism that Zoe used above, without using a K. However, Zoe were truly critiquing capitalism (e.g., like Zizek does here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_K_79O21hk), then that would be a bit like a Kritikal approach. A critique is a type of analysis; it's like the difference between talking about the, idk, bad character development of Star Wars: The Last Jedi vs. critiquing some deeper aspect, like the underlying concept of "subverting expectations" (or, to use a BreadTube analogy, making a Lindsay Ellis video).

I hope that clears up that off-topic detour.

EDIT: One good point I noticed in VV's response, though- you don't have to respond to K's at a Kritikal level yourself. You can use conventional reasoning to dismantle unconventional arguments. So K's (and theory) aren't extinction-level threats to traditional debate, and honestly traditional policy and Lincoln-Douglas debate are still thriving in high school (middle-school and college debaters are much rarer; debate is mostly a HS activity since that strikes the right balance between being too ignorant to debate effectively vs. being too educated to mistake debate for an educational activity).

Edited 6/20/2019 04:17:57

"debate is mostly a HS activity since that strikes the right balance between being too ignorant to debate effectively vs. being too educated to mistake debate for an educational activity). "

its funny because its true

but marxist leninist like come on, as you yourself mention there are many different strains of communism and you have to pick the worst one....your the enemy within

Edited 6/20/2019 14:31:25

I think fascism is outdated and wrong. Every fascist nation in history has gone down within a short time-period.