Fascism and the left wing

[Peach]

Fascism is of course the far end of CONSERVATISM, but CONs are so busy listening to their "commentators", picking up a history book is beyond their limited capabilities.

 

[percysunshine]

I wish I could place bets in Vegas on a 'Stupidity Index'.

.

 

[Wiseacre]

Fascism and nazism are labels used by the left to demagogue the right, as though the vast majority of RWers are trying to return to the good old days of Hitler and Mussolini. It ain't worth the argument any more. Knock yourselves out.

 

[Peach]

The writers here that think movies are real life, and use actors from B grade performances as icons cannot understand the present, history is way beyond the capacity of their shriveled brain cells. They voted a Z grade actor into the White House, helpless creatures that they are.

 

[Cowman]

Fascism is left wing, the Democratic south in the 1800's wasn't made up of conservatives.

What other wacky things will you have next?

 

[bripat9643]

The writers here that think movies are real life, and use actors from B grade performances as icons cannot understand the present, history is way beyond the capacity of their shriveled brain cells. They voted a Z grade actor into the White House, helpless creatures that they are.

Well that certainly is a compelling argument.

 

[Saigon]

Well that certainly is a compelling argument.

You mean compared to refusing to use dictionaries because they are written by liberals?

 

[Saigon]

Fascism and nazism are labels used by the left to demagogue the right, as though the vast majority of RWers are trying to return to the good old days of Hitler and Mussolini. It ain't worth the argument any more. Knock yourselves out.

That is true, but as the graphic in this thread shows - calling conservatives 'fascists' is massively inaccurate.

I also don't see any lack of right wing posters calling left wing posters 'communists', which is equally as inaccurate.

Some of the confusion with political terms is lack of education and ignorance, but a lot of it is also deliberate.

 

[Saigon]

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what politicians say. We only have to look at what they do. Any objective economic assessment indicates fascism is a form of socialism.

End of story.

Ah, so even when politicians SAY they are fascists, we should ignore them?

Really, BriPat, this is just a brilliant, measured insight, I can only sti back in awe.

btw. If any 'objective assesment' would indicate that fascism os 'socialist', why do ALL objective source - including the politicians themselves - disagree with you?

Do you really not see that when you post things like this the only response is laughter?

 

[bripat9643]

Well that certainly is a compelling argument.

You mean compared to refusing to use dictionaries because they are written by liberals?

Appeal to authority.

Next fallacy to dispose of, please.

 

[Saigon]

btw. Central planning is prominent in quite a number of extreme right wing societies. Stroessner, Pinochet, Franco, Antonescu...it just isn't at issue here. It just is not a feature of Conservatism or more moderate right wing ideologies. I don't dodge points, but sometimes ignore things I imagine you could figure out yourself if you could use Google.

ROFL! Pinochet didn't engage in central planning. The others are not "right-wing." They are left-wing.
.

So Pinochet, Franco, Stroessner and Antonescu were left wing?

Despite the fact both they and all objective sources have said otherwise?

Well let's see..

Antonescu:

Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period.

Antonescu's policies were motivated, in large part, by ethnic nationalism.

In one of his letters to Hitler, Antonescu himself stated his anti-communist ideological motivation: "I confirm that I will pursue operations in the east to the end against that great enemy of civilization, of Europe, and of my country: Russian Bolshevism [...]

A recurring element in Antonescu's doctrines is racism, and in particular antisemitism.

Like other far right Romanians, he saw a Jewish presence behind liberal democracy

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall I go on?

 

[Saigon]

Well that certainly is a compelling argument.

You mean compared to refusing to use dictionaries because they are written by liberals?

Appeal to authority.

Next fallacy to dispose of, please.

Citing dictionaries and encyclopedias is an appeal to adulthood, education and common sense.

Refusing to use sources is simply childish.

It is no coincidence that you are both hugely, massively confused about political terminology AND refuse to look at books.

 

[bripat9643]

The bottom line is that it doesn't matter what politicians say. We only have to look at what they do. Any objective economic assessment indicates fascism is a form of socialism.

End of story.

Ah, so even when politicians SAY they are fascists, we should ignore them?

Really, BriPat, this is just a brilliant, measured insight, I can only sti back in awe.

btw. If any 'objective assesment' would indicate that fascism os 'socialist', why do ALL objective source - including the politicians themselves - disagree with you?

Where did you ever get the idea that politicians are objective? Politicians are all lying scumbags, especially leftist politicians. You're the one who claims that Hitler (a politician) was lying when he said he was a socialist. But now you're telling me he is "objective?"

Do you really not see that when you post things like this the only response is laughter?

The ignorant are always laughing at things they don't understand. You post one logical fallacy after another, and yet you imagine you're winning the debate. You don't even appear to be concerned that your arguments are logical fallacies. You have yet to post a single objective fact that supports your claim.

 

[bripat9643]

Fascism and nazism are labels used by the left to demagogue the right, as though the vast majority of RWers are trying to return to the good old days of Hitler and Mussolini. It ain't worth the argument any more. Knock yourselves out.

That is true, but as the graphic in this thread shows - calling conservatives 'fascists' is massively inaccurate.

Your graphic is worthless propaganda, so who cares what it says? It assumes that fascism is right-wing, so why would anyone who disputes that notion accept it as valid?

I also don't see any lack of right wing posters calling left wing posters 'communists', which is equally as inaccurate.

Hardly. Check the agenda on the CPUSA web page. You'll note that it's indistinguishable from the agenda of most of the left-wingers in this forum.

Some of the confusion with political terms is lack of education and ignorance, but a lot of it is also deliberate.

Your ignorance is genuine, I'm afraid.

 

[Saigon]

Stroessner

From that socialist newspaper, the Economist!

The style of government was a spoils system, underpinned by terror of a vicious network of spies and secret police. Foreign policy was a buddies' brigade with other dictators—Videla of Argentina, Pinochet of Chile—to co-ordinate counter-terrorism and assassinations. And the most famous tourist was Josef Mengele, the fugitive doctor of Auschwitz, riding into a village in the Paraguayan wilderness to be welcomed and protected.

General Stroessner used the Colorado (“Red&#8221 party, a right-wing body that became steadily more so as its moderate politicians were ejected. Membership of the party was compulsory for all teachers, doctors, engineers, officers or those who hoped for government service.

The Catholic church got restive, especially when the general ignored calls for land reform from the indigenous poor.

Alfredo Stroessner | The Economist

Paraguay was a leading participant in Operation Condor, a campaign of state-terror and security operations which were jointly conducted by the right-wing military governments of six Latin American countries (Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and Brazil).

Alfredo Stroessner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Saigon]

You're the one who claims that Hitler (a politician) was lying when he said he was a socialist. But now you're telling me he is "objective?"

This is simply a literacy issue, in that you have not understand what was posted.

I did not say Hitler was "lying" when he used the term socialist, I linked material which proved that:

a) he opposed use of the term Socialist

b) The German form of the word Socilalist was adopted in the mid-1920s, before it had been used in a left-wing context in German.

c) Frnco's use of the term socialist in a left-wing context occured later, in the late 1930s. Note that Hitler railed against 'Marxism' and 'Communism', avoiding use of the word 'Socialist'.

Secondly, I am not saying Hitler is "objective".

I am claiming that using Hitler's own quotes to establish his politics would be a part of any objective analysis.


You really are flailing away at anything at all here, aren't you?

What do you gain with this ridiculous pretence anyway? You must know that you are wrong.

 

[Saigon]

Pinochet

On 11 September 1973 Pinochet joined a coup d'état which overthrew Allende's elected socialist government.

From the beginning, the government implemented harsh measures against its political opponents.[5] According to various reports and investigations 1,200–3,200 people were killed, up to 80,000 were interned, and up to 30,000 were tortured by his regime including women and children.

Under the influence of the free market-oriented neoliberal Chicago Boys, the new government also implemented economic reforms, including currency stabilization, tariff cutting, opening Chile's markets to global trade, restricting labor unions, privatizing social security, and the privatization of hundreds of state-controlled industries.

Perhaps most infamously, the CIA maintained contacts among the Chilean DINA intelligence service while DINA leaders, under Pinochet's direct command, led the multinational "anti-communism campaign" known as Operation Condor, resulting in assassinations of prominent politicians and activists of the legal left in various Latin American countries, in Washington, D.C., and in Europe (see section below). In particular, CIA contact with the head DINA, Manuel Contreras, was established soon after the coup (in 1974, during the Junta period prior to official transfer of Presidential powers to Pinochet);


Augusto Pinochet - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[bripat9643]

So Pinochet, Franco, Stroessner and Antonescu were left wing?

Despite the fact both they and all objective sources have said otherwise?

What "objective sources," a gang of commie professors?

Well let's see..

Antonescu:

Antonescu sympathized with the far right and fascist National Christian and Iron Guard groups for much of the interwar period.

Aside from being antisemitic, what is the evidence that this National Christin party was right wing? The Iron Guard was a fascist group and therefore left-wing. You are begging the question by taking it for granted that the term "fascist" means right-wing.

Antonescu's policies were motivated, in large part, by ethnic nationalism.

Nationalism does not make you right-wing. During the war, Stalin was a nationalist. So was FDR. Are they right-wingers?

In one of his letters to Hitler, Antonescu himself stated his anti-communist ideological motivation: "I confirm that I will pursue operations in the east to the end against that great enemy of civilization, of Europe, and of my country: Russian Bolshevism [...]

Again, how many times do you have to be told that opposing communism doesn't automatically make you a right-winger?

A recurring element in Antonescu's doctrines is racism, and in particular antisemitism.

Like other far right Romanians, he saw a Jewish presence behind liberal democracy

As I've already told you, there's nothing inherently right-wing about racism. Woodrow Wilson was a racist. FDR was a racist. Stalin was a racist. FDR was also a well known antisemite.

Ion Antonescu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shall I go on?

Please do.

 

[Saigon]

Ok, so let's do a quick review:

We have now seen material which covers:

Hitler
Mussolini
Antonescu
Pinochet
Stroessner
Franco

For th six leaders, we have seen quotes where all six attacked Marxism, Communism annd left-wing ideologies.

We have seen that encyclopedias describe them as being right wing fascists.

And we have seen that they all insititued policies consistent with right wing govenrment, such as arresting and killing left-wing leaders, privatisation of assets, stimulation of corporations and appeals to the upper class elites.

I'm happy to answer ad questions or provide further material, but hopefully the debate can now start to move on to a slightly more informed stage.

 

[Saigon]

how many times do you have to be told that opposing communism doesn't automatically make you a right-winger?

Oh, right - communists would attack communism all the time, wouldn't they?

It's not something the right wing would ever do?


BriPat, I have to conclude at this point that this entire topic is simply beyond your comprehension.

I have provided you with swathes of information, everything from highly respected history books to direct quotes, and you simply ignore them or seem to not understand what they mean.

You clearly have no intention of producing any facts or evidence to back up your inexplicable claims - probably because we both know no such evidence exists.

I suggest you go and read something like Ian Kershaw's 'Nazi Dictatorship', which covers Fascist theory in detail, and try and get up to speed.