Seems related.

Why do you find fascism too dangerous?

Too volatile. Militaristic, patriotism bordering on paranoia, always aggressive.

Certainly valid.

I see it as impossible to succeed in the long term.

They often rely on a cult of personality as well.

Therefore its excess energies are a danger to all effected.

At least Marxist have a stable vision for the future.

How so?

Monarchist revival when

Marxism resolves the contradictions in society by removing the material antagonisms in society, but for Fascism it is always perpetual struggle without end.

At least that it the theory, which is infinitely better than Fascism's total lack thereof.

Sell me Monarchism, if you can.

And the Catholic answer to the class struggle is to mediate between the two.

Fascism non-answer is to ignore it and focus on external enemies.

Class Collaboration was heavily promoted by Jose Antonio Primo De Rivera and the Falange

the perfect chat doesn't exi-

ive got a pdf of the some of writings of the founder of the Spanish Falange

finally something decent

you interested

hello comrades

Welcome, Matt.

Hello

hello

hello.

<:st:312060486449364993> <:st:312060486449364993> <:st:312060486449364993>

hello comrade

It does bother me than Marxism and Catholicism are irreconcilable. I would have liked to enjoy both together without contractions. Nonetheless, and strangely, my studies have lead me to study both of these and see where it leads.

What is it about marxism that attracts you?

How are you all?

I'm good, how are you?

I'm well.

Speaking from Marxist-Leninism, which has been my focus, the material analysis is quite good.

The theory has been somewhat proven in practice also, which makes it scientific.

But again, they offer opposite explanations, and as of yet I am unsure how to evaluate which has more merit.

Feuerbach, for instance, whose view were later adopted by Marx and Engels, offers and explanation for Christianity from the secular, human perspective. This is good and valid, but it does not address the reason and arguments posed by Aquinas and others, which are also valid.

The two are in competition.

It is annoying but I know that once this is resolved the answer will be very concrete and I will be able to determine which I stand on politics in the future.

The best argument *against* God is probably that his existence is not empirical. When Aquinas makes his arguments for the existence of God, it is deduced from reason alone. Empirically, as far as we know, God does not exist, although the possibility still remains.

This isn't disproven, but explained by the notion that God exists outside of physical things.

For regular purposes, mere possibility holds little relevance. But for God, the smallest potential can still hold highest consequences. Which is why reason alone is so tormenting.