Fascism

[Iceweasel]

''''

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

I'd call it having some aspects of an ideology and leave the broad brush at home.

hmmm....can you do that?

I did. I used dictionary terms and you used your fuzzy logic one.

Nope. I defined my terms. You just didn't like the definitions so you pretend that socialism is just an economic system.

Yes, you defined YOUR terms. As for me like liking them, I gave them no consideration. I use established terms so I can communicate effectively and you spin everything for a purpose.

 

[bripat9643]

Also, you can have social democracies (a number of European states have this) where individualism co-exists with the state.

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

 

[Coyote]

Who decides what a life is worth?

Whaaaat? You're all over the place. Ask the aborted fetus. There, a new tangent.

Not at all.

In unregulated capitalism - human life has very little value. Let's not derail into an abortion debate.

Actually, it has tremendous value or capitalism wouldn't exist....

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Tell that to Massey.

I'm not saying you don't care. But clearly, there are others who do not unless the financial cost becomes to high. I'm also talking historically - we would not have enacted those laws had there not been a need. Human life was cheap.

 

[Coyote]

''''

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

I'd call it having some aspects of an ideology and leave the broad brush at home.

hmmm....can you do that?

I did. I used dictionary terms and you used your fuzzy logic one.

Nope. I defined my terms. You just didn't like the definitions so you pretend that socialism is just an economic system.

Yes, you defined YOUR terms. As for me like liking them, I gave them no consideration. I use established terms so I can communicate effectively and you spin everything for a purpose.

No, actually - I provided plenty of sources for definition. Nice try though.

 

[bripat9643]

What happens when a coyote encounters a feral dog? They fight. Why do they fight? Because they are both seeking the same resources. Namely food. Nazi Germany was the lion, and the Soviet Union was the tiger. Both fighting for the same real estate, both talking about the collective "will of the people" both espousing similar propaganda, the Nazi's were fighting for the "fatherland" and the Soviets were fighting for "mother Russia". Do you see a pattern here?

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

Here is what you just said:

1. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both
2. Fascism is widely regarded as right wing.

You posted two sentences in sequence that contradict other. That's pretty much the story of this whole thread: one failed attempt at committing logic after another.

 

[Coyote]

Also, you can have social democracies (a number of European states have this) where individualism co-exists with the state.

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

 

[bripat9643]

''''

I'd call it having some aspects of an ideology and leave the broad brush at home.

hmmm....can you do that?

I did. I used dictionary terms and you used your fuzzy logic one.

Nope. I defined my terms. You just didn't like the definitions so you pretend that socialism is just an economic system.

Yes, you defined YOUR terms. As for me like liking them, I gave them no consideration. I use established terms so I can communicate effectively and you spin everything for a purpose.

No, actually - I provided plenty of sources for definition. Nice try though.

Your sources are nothing but propaganda.

 

[Coyote]

I see the pattern you're talking about but - I not sure I agree with your analysis. Both right and left extreme ideologies go towards authoritarianism/totalitarianism if you look at it in a 4 square model with left/right authoritarian/liberty axis.

Fascist states specifically opposed socialist/marxist ideology and the idea of a classless state was opposed by fascists who believed in a strict and natural social order. That produces very different propoganda. The propoganda the fascists fed their people which united them - was opposition to communism (the so called "creeping sharia" of that era) - fear unites and makes excellant propoganda. The Soviets did the same with their anti-western propoganda and added a bit of the Russian persecution complex (everyone is out to get us) for flavor.

How Fascism Works

• Survival of the fittest: Some fascist philosophers were influenced by the writings of Charles Darwin and his theory of natural selection. In the context of fascism, the State is only as powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. The State is thereby selected for survival due to its strength and dominance. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State.
• Strict social order: Fascism maintains a strict class structure. In this way, it's the antithesis of communism, which abolishes class distinctions. Fascism believes that clearly divided classes are necessary to avoid any hint of chaos, which is a threat to the State. The State's power depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every person has a definite, unchangeable, specific role in glorifying the state. It's an absolute rejection of humanism and democracy.
• Authoritarian leadership: The State's interests require a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This is the concept of Führerprinzip, "the leadership principle" in German -- that it's necessary to have an all-powerful, heroic leader to maintain the unity and unquestioning submission required by the fascist State. This leader often becomes a symbol of the State.

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

Here is what you just said:

1. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both
2. Fascism is widely regarded as right wing.

You posted two sentences in sequence that contradict other. That's pretty much the story of this whole thread: one failed attempt at committing logic after another.

How do they contradict each other?
Nazism.
Fascism.

I've linked to sources already so I'm not going to repeat that.

 

[Coyote]

''''

hmmm....can you do that?

I did. I used dictionary terms and you used your fuzzy logic one.

Nope. I defined my terms. You just didn't like the definitions so you pretend that socialism is just an economic system.

Yes, you defined YOUR terms. As for me like liking them, I gave them no consideration. I use established terms so I can communicate effectively and you spin everything for a purpose.

No, actually - I provided plenty of sources for definition. Nice try though.

Your sources are nothing but propaganda.

Ah...that old tactic.

"anything I don't agree with is propoganda" - that's are bripat

 

[Iceweasel]

Whaaaat? You're all over the place. Ask the aborted fetus. There, a new tangent.

Not at all.

In unregulated capitalism - human life has very little value. Let's not derail into an abortion debate.

Actually, it has tremendous value or capitalism wouldn't exist....

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Tell that to Massey.

I'm not saying you don't care. But clearly, there are others who do not unless the financial cost becomes to high. I'm also talking historically - we would not have enacted those laws had there not been a need. Human life was cheap.

I think you'll find many of the abuses came from those in bed with government. It's how many got big. There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. You are applying your own terms to the words. Capitalism is private ownership. Period. It does not mean greedy, evil or inhumane, just private ownership.

 

[bripat9643]

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

That's not an insult. It's an accurate description of what you're trying to do.

The issue under discussion in this thread is whether fascism is "rightwing." If that yardstick measures anything, it measures the amount of government control supported by a given ideology. If it doesn't measure that, then what does it measure? You already avoided answering that question.

According to the left/right paradigm, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing.

 

[gipper]

If it doesn't have regulations who decides what a dollar is worth? Mad Max?

Who decides what a life is worth?

Whaaaat? You're all over the place. Ask the aborted fetus. There, a new tangent.

Not at all.

In unregulated capitalism - human life has very little value. Let's not derail into an abortion debate.

Actually, it has tremendous value or capitalism wouldn't exist....

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

That is terribly foolish. However it is an opinion held by the elite left and is very wrong.

 

[Coyote]

Not at all.

In unregulated capitalism - human life has very little value. Let's not derail into an abortion debate.

Actually, it has tremendous value or capitalism wouldn't exist....

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Tell that to Massey.

I'm not saying you don't care. But clearly, there are others who do not unless the financial cost becomes to high. I'm also talking historically - we would not have enacted those laws had there not been a need. Human life was cheap.

I think you'll find many of the abuses came from those in bed with government. It's how many got big. There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. You are applying your own terms to the words. Capitalism is private ownership. Period. It does not mean greedy, evil or inhumane, just private ownership.

I think that's a convenient excuse for greedy, evil, inhumane behavior.

There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. EXACTLY. Now you get it.

 

[bripat9643]

''''

I did. I used dictionary terms and you used your fuzzy logic one.

Nope. I defined my terms. You just didn't like the definitions so you pretend that socialism is just an economic system.

Yes, you defined YOUR terms. As for me like liking them, I gave them no consideration. I use established terms so I can communicate effectively and you spin everything for a purpose.

No, actually - I provided plenty of sources for definition. Nice try though.

Your sources are nothing but propaganda.

Ah...that old tactic.

"anything I don't agree with is propoganda" - that's are bripat

They are obviously nothing but opinions unaccompanied by any supporting facts. That makes them propaganda. That judgement not a bias. It's simply a fact.

 

[Iceweasel]

''''

I'd call it having some aspects of an ideology and leave the broad brush at home.

hmmm....can you do that?

I did. I used dictionary terms and you used your fuzzy logic one.

Nope. I defined my terms. You just didn't like the definitions so you pretend that socialism is just an economic system.

Yes, you defined YOUR terms. As for me like liking them, I gave them no consideration. I use established terms so I can communicate effectively and you spin everything for a purpose.

No, actually - I provided plenty of sources for definition. Nice try though.

I could find bullshit all over the net, not hard to do. Here are the English definitions. Anything beyond that is agenda driven.



cap•i•tal•is•m (kăpˈĭ-tl-ĭzˌəm)
►

• n.
  An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

so•cial•ism (sōˈshə-lĭzˌəm)
►

• n.
  Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
• n.
  The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

 

[gipper]

The elite left has done a great job of denigrating capitalism and sadly they have duped many into believing their BS.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, it has tremendous value or capitalism wouldn't exist....

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Tell that to Massey.

I'm not saying you don't care. But clearly, there are others who do not unless the financial cost becomes to high. I'm also talking historically - we would not have enacted those laws had there not been a need. Human life was cheap.

I think you'll find many of the abuses came from those in bed with government. It's how many got big. There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. You are applying your own terms to the words. Capitalism is private ownership. Period. It does not mean greedy, evil or inhumane, just private ownership.

I think that's a convenient excuse for greedy, evil, inhumane behavior.

There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. EXACTLY. Now you get it.

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

 

[Iceweasel]

Actually, it has tremendous value or capitalism wouldn't exist....

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Tell that to Massey.

I'm not saying you don't care. But clearly, there are others who do not unless the financial cost becomes to high. I'm also talking historically - we would not have enacted those laws had there not been a need. Human life was cheap.

I think you'll find many of the abuses came from those in bed with government. It's how many got big. There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. You are applying your own terms to the words. Capitalism is private ownership. Period. It does not mean greedy, evil or inhumane, just private ownership.

I think that's a convenient excuse for greedy, evil, inhumane behavior.

There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. EXACTLY. Now you get it.

Huh? You keep using your own personal dictionary there. There's nothing about socialism that dictates human worth either. That's not what the words mean. They are terms defining economies, not worth, purity or higher planes of existence.

Now I KNOW you've been jerking us around.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism needs some regulation.

If it doesn't have regulations who decides what a dollar is worth? Mad Max?

Who decides what a life is worth?

You seem to believe that capitalism doesn't measure it, so you must think you know who does.

For the record, only leftists claim that capitalism places a value on "human life." That's totally bogus. Under capitalism the consumers place a value on your labor.

 

[bripat9643]

Capitalism needs some regulation.

If it doesn't have regulations who decides what a dollar is worth? Mad Max?

Who decides what a life is worth?

Whaaaat? You're all over the place. Ask the aborted fetus. There, a new tangent.

Not at all.

In unregulated capitalism - human life has very little value. Let's not derail into an abortion debate.

That's communist bullshit.