Fascism

[bripat9643]

Communists are all liars, for one thing. His work is has no visible means of support. It has no facts or logic behind it. It's merely a list of his leftwing prejudices about anyone who isn't a leftist.

Kind of like your definitions of socialism is a list of your rightwing prejudices about anyone who isn't a rightist?

Eco seems to have some pretty good academic credentials with a degree in Philosophy which kind of goes along with understanding political ideologies. He also grew up under Mussolini's regime and describes fascism quite well.

He points out that defining fascism is somewhat fuzzy, which is also pointed out in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But both Eco and the Encyclopedia on some of the main points.

Nope, my definition of socialism is the economic definition. It's devoid of emotion or prejudice of any kind. In functional terms, socialism is government control of the economy. Any claims to the contrary are easily proven to be bogus propaganda.

The fact that he grew up in fascist Italy proves nothing about his understanding of fascism. If you grow up in Alamogordo, does that mean you know how to build an atom bomb?

He "points out" that the his definition of fascism is "fuzzy" because he knows it's bullshit. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also full of shit.

So any definition that disagree's with yours is "bullshit" regardless of it's origins?

Socialism:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Yeah, that's pretty much correct. There is no requirement for democracy to make a system socialist. That's a recent addition after the Soviet Union embarrassed all socialists with it's existence. And the rest of the definition is equally wrong. Not all forms of "collective ownership" are socialist. Corporations are based on collective ownership, but not even you would call them socialist. Socialism is always based on coercion. If people are free to flout the rules and commands of the socialist authorities, then socialism becomes a joke.

Anyone who claims there are multiple definitions of a term is simply admitting that he doesn't know what a definition is.

No one said that all forms of collective ownership are socialist. What they said is it's one of the defining characteristics of socialism. Socialism is not always based on coercion. Take for example the "socialistic" kibbutz movement in Israel. If people did not want to follow the community rules, they were free to leave. Like Fascism, there are multiple definitions - as the wikipedia article said: Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.

The Kibbutz were government property. Force was used to create them: socialism. Socialism can't exist without force. If falls apart.

 

[Coyote]

Kind of like your definitions of socialism is a list of your rightwing prejudices about anyone who isn't a rightist?

Eco seems to have some pretty good academic credentials with a degree in Philosophy which kind of goes along with understanding political ideologies. He also grew up under Mussolini's regime and describes fascism quite well.

He points out that defining fascism is somewhat fuzzy, which is also pointed out in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But both Eco and the Encyclopedia on some of the main points.

Nope, my definition of socialism is the economic definition. It's devoid of emotion or prejudice of any kind. In functional terms, socialism is government control of the economy. Any claims to the contrary are easily proven to be bogus propaganda.

The fact that he grew up in fascist Italy proves nothing about his understanding of fascism. If you grow up in Alamogordo, does that mean you know how to build an atom bomb?

He "points out" that the his definition of fascism is "fuzzy" because he knows it's bullshit. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also full of shit.

So any definition that disagree's with yours is "bullshit" regardless of it's origins?

Socialism:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Yeah, that's pretty much correct. There is no requirement for democracy to make a system socialist. That's a recent addition after the Soviet Union embarrassed all socialists with it's existence. And the rest of the definition is equally wrong. Not all forms of "collective ownership" are socialist. Corporations are based on collective ownership, but not even you would call them socialist. Socialism is always based on coercion. If people are free to flout the rules and commands of the socialist authorities, then socialism becomes a joke.

Anyone who claims there are multiple definitions of a term is simply admitting that he doesn't know what a definition is.

No one said that all forms of collective ownership are socialist. What they said is it's one of the defining characteristics of socialism. Socialism is not always based on coercion. Take for example the "socialistic" kibbutz movement in Israel. If people did not want to follow the community rules, they were free to leave. Like Fascism, there are multiple definitions - as the wikipedia article said: Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.

The Kibbutz were government property. Force was used to create them: socialism. Socialism can't exist without force. If falls apart.

You've created a circular argument there, you realize that don't you?

What force was used?

 

[TemplarKormac]

That was never anything more than a puerile attempt to derail the thread by harping on the shiny object of a URL.

NEIN

The OP should have known better than to use Rense as a source for anything. If you want people to focus on the object of your OP, don't site disreputable sources. I mean hey, the information might be fine, but Rense? Seriously?

If we're going to harp about "fake news" now, let's give equal scrutiny here, okay?

 

[TemplarKormac]

It completely ignores, and can't explain, the fact that the same analysis, by the same analyst, was reprinted verbatim in several other sources, four of which are books (PoliSci and others) that I already cited in post 40.

Sorry. It was the OP's job to post from a better source, not you. And since he cited Rense he pretty much broke his own arguments.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dogshit has no case here other than being profoundly guilty of Poisoning the Well as an attempt to deflect what is obviously for him a severely inconvenient topic. That alone tells us more about Dogshit than any analysis of 'fascism' has.

Wry might have had a case had s/he not cited from a website run by a known anti-Semite. Jeff Rense is an anti-Semite. That seems to be the inconvenient part for you.

 

[TemplarKormac]

But since we're going to play the "X is a fascist" game, I'll just point out to you what liberals did to George W. Bush.
George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism - Project for the OLD American Century



And since we aren't concerned with the integrity of the sources, such as the one Wry cited:

Flashback: MSNBC Hosts Called Bush Fascist, Murderous and War Criminal, Never Faced Suspensions

This isn't unique behavior, and almost every time, the president liberals think is a fascist turns out not to be one. In fact, liberals have a nasty habit of labeling people they fundamentally disagree with as fascists. Funny how that also happens when you don't like the guy in the White House.

Next, the paper Wry cites compares past fascist regimes and identifies 14 characteristics unique to all of them. Trump hasn't even set any policy in motion yet. Wry is dishonest enough to attempt to use "rhetoric" as a means of identifying Trump as a "fascist." For Trump to be readily identified as one, he needs to have been in office for an extended period of time, in this case, his first term. Words are meaningless.

 

[Pogo]

Dogshit has no case here other than being profoundly guilty of Poisoning the Well as an attempt to deflect what is obviously for him a severely inconvenient topic. That alone tells us more about Dogshit than any analysis of 'fascism' has.

Wry might have had a case had s/he not cited from a website run by a known anti-Semite. Jeff Rense is an anti-Semite. That seems to be the inconvenient part for you.

Once AGAIN ---- what the URL says when it's quoting a widely-circulated study is wholly irrelevant. It's not their original material. Don't you GET that?

I don't know Jeff Rense from Mike Pence, nor do I need to. They're quoting an outside source. Put the same text in a book or in a different URL ------- AND IT'S STILL THE SAME TEXT.

Holy shit, talk about DENSE....

 

[Pogo]

It completely ignores, and can't explain, the fact that the same analysis, by the same analyst, was reprinted verbatim in several other sources, four of which are books (PoliSci and others) that I already cited in post 40.

Sorry. It was the OP's job to post from a better source, not you. And since he cited Rense he pretty much broke his own arguments.

RENSE.

IS.

NOT.

THE.

SOURCE.​

​

NOR did it ever claim to be.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Once AGAIN ---- what the URL says when it's quoting a widely-circulated study is wholly irrelevant. It's not their original material. I don't know Jeff Rense from Mike Pence, nor do I need to. They're quoting an outside source. Put the same text in a book or in a different URL ------- AND IT'S STILL THE SAME TEXT.

I could care less what you think is relevant.

If I cited a verbatim copy of the Constitution from a site like Breitbart, would you condemn the source too? Of course you would! Don't sit there and mince words with me.

Fine. I'm going to start doing that. I'll see how far I get before liberals start attacking the source.

 

[Contumacious]

Communists are all liars, for one thing. His work is has no visible means of support. It has no facts or logic behind it. It's merely a list of his leftwing prejudices about anyone who isn't a leftist.

Kind of like your definitions of socialism is a list of your rightwing prejudices about anyone who isn't a rightist?

Eco seems to have some pretty good academic credentials with a degree in Philosophy which kind of goes along with understanding political ideologies. He also grew up under Mussolini's regime and describes fascism quite well.

He points out that defining fascism is somewhat fuzzy, which is also pointed out in the Encyclopedia Britannica. But both Eco and the Encyclopedia on some of the main points.

Nope, my definition of socialism is the economic definition. It's devoid of emotion or prejudice of any kind. In functional terms, socialism is government control of the economy. Any claims to the contrary are easily proven to be bogus propaganda.

The fact that he grew up in fascist Italy proves nothing about his understanding of fascism. If you grow up in Alamogordo, does that mean you know how to build an atom bomb?

He "points out" that the his definition of fascism is "fuzzy" because he knows it's bullshit. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also full of shit.

So any definition that disagree's with yours is "bullshit" regardless of it's origins?

Socialism:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Yeah, that's pretty much correct. There is no requirement for democracy to make a system socialist. That's a recent addition after the Soviet Union embarrassed all socialists with it's existence. And the rest of the definition is equally wrong. Not all forms of "collective ownership" are socialist. Corporations are based on collective ownership, but not even you would call them socialist. Socialism is always based on coercion. If people are free to flout the rules and commands of the socialist authorities, then socialism becomes a joke.

Anyone who claims there are multiple definitions of a term is simply admitting that he doesn't know what a definition is.

No one said that all forms of collective ownership are socialist. What they said is it's one of the defining characteristics of socialism. Socialism is not always based on coercion. Take for example the "socialistic" kibbutz movement in Israel. If people did not want to follow the community rules, they were free to leave. Like Fascism, there are multiple definitions - as the wikipedia article said: Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.

kibbutzim is a form of cooperatives. So long as the land is bought, so long as its members are there VOLUNTARILY then socialism does NOT exists.

It appears that CAPITALISM saved kibbutzim

Capitalism Did Not Destroy the Israeli Kibbutz - It Saved It


.

 

[Pogo]

Once AGAIN ---- what the URL says when it's quoting a widely-circulated study is wholly irrelevant. It's not their original material. I don't know Jeff Rense from Mike Pence, nor do I need to. They're quoting an outside source. Put the same text in a book or in a different URL ------- AND IT'S STILL THE SAME TEXT.

I could care less what you think is relevant.

If I cited a verbatim copy of the Constitution from a site like Breitbart, would you condemn the source too? Of course you would! Don't sit there and mince words with me.

Fine. I'm going to start doing that. I'll see how far I get before liberals start attacking the source.

Absolute fucking bullshit. Now you're compounding a Poison the Well fallacy with a Speculation, and an unfounded one at that. Why the fuck would I condemn a source that was copying something verbatim?? Only an idiot would do that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

It completely ignores, and can't explain, the fact that the same analysis, by the same analyst, was reprinted verbatim in several other sources, four of which are books (PoliSci and others) that I already cited in post 40.

Sorry. It was the OP's job to post from a better source, not you. And since he cited Rense he pretty much broke his own arguments.

RENSE.

IS.

NOT.

THE.

SOURCE.​

​

NOR did it ever claim to be.

I.

DON'T.

GIVE.

A.

FLYING.

FUCK.

IF YOU WANT ANYONE TO TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY, DON'T LINK TO ANTI-SEMITIC CONSPIRACY SITES! THE SOURCE MIGHT BE DR LAWRENCE BRITT BUT THE SITE CITING HIS WORK IS A SITE RUN BY JEFF RENSE! AN ANTI-SEMITE!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Why the fuck would I condemn a source that was copying something verbatim??

Why?

Oh, I don't know, perhaps because the site could twist the meaning of the original material? Spin, mayhap?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Had Wry simply cited Dr. Britt's work by itself, we'd be discussing the finer aspects of fascism instead...

 

[bripat9643]

Nope, my definition of socialism is the economic definition. It's devoid of emotion or prejudice of any kind. In functional terms, socialism is government control of the economy. Any claims to the contrary are easily proven to be bogus propaganda.

The fact that he grew up in fascist Italy proves nothing about his understanding of fascism. If you grow up in Alamogordo, does that mean you know how to build an atom bomb?

He "points out" that the his definition of fascism is "fuzzy" because he knows it's bullshit. The Encyclopedia Britannica is also full of shit.

So any definition that disagree's with yours is "bullshit" regardless of it's origins?

Socialism:
Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production;[10] as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment.[11] Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.[12] Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them,[13] social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms.[5][14][15]

Yeah, that's pretty much correct. There is no requirement for democracy to make a system socialist. That's a recent addition after the Soviet Union embarrassed all socialists with it's existence. And the rest of the definition is equally wrong. Not all forms of "collective ownership" are socialist. Corporations are based on collective ownership, but not even you would call them socialist. Socialism is always based on coercion. If people are free to flout the rules and commands of the socialist authorities, then socialism becomes a joke.

Anyone who claims there are multiple definitions of a term is simply admitting that he doesn't know what a definition is.

No one said that all forms of collective ownership are socialist. What they said is it's one of the defining characteristics of socialism. Socialism is not always based on coercion. Take for example the "socialistic" kibbutz movement in Israel. If people did not want to follow the community rules, they were free to leave. Like Fascism, there are multiple definitions - as the wikipedia article said: Social ownership may refer to forms of public, collective, or cooperative ownership; to citizen ownership of equity; or to any combination of these.

The Kibbutz were government property. Force was used to create them: socialism. Socialism can't exist without force. If falls apart.

You've created a circular argument there, you realize that don't you?

What force was used?

Wrong, that's not a circular argument.

It's government land. Everything government does is accomplished through the use of force. Furthermore, the people living in the Kibbutz don't own it. They simply live there. They are tenants. So how does that constitute "collective ownership?"

 

[Neotrotsky]

 

[Neotrotsky]

The National Socialist German worker stands against Capitalism

 

[Iceweasel]

Please review the following two links on fascism and what we have observed since the election of Donald Trump to the office of POTUS.


Fourteen Defining Characteristics Of Fascism

Donald Trump and the 14 signs of Fascism • /r/politics

Consider the promises made by Mr. Trump during the time before he received the nomination of the Republican Party, his rhetoric before his election after being nominated, and his rhetoric since being elected to POTUS?

How many more time are you stupid fucking liberals going to trot out the same shit? You are expecting different results? Repetition doesn't create fact, that was the methodology of the ministry of propaganda headed by Josef Goebbels.

For the thousandth time, fascism requires big government. That's the hallmark of leftists the world over. If you can't understand it you shouldn't be opining on it. You were fed bullshit by operatives to smear their political enemies.

 

[Iceweasel]

HRC is yesterday, and she was more conservative than Trump appears to be (your use of HRC as an example is a red herring). However, HRC has empathy for others (her life story proves that); Trump is a classic narcissist and a callous conservative (if we are to believe his behavior with women and employees accurately describes him).

Trump was a popular media personality and business tycoon who will now make much less money and is despised by leftists before he even takes foot in the White House so it's brain dead to conclude he did this for his ego. It just a simple answer for a simple mind.

Hillary wanted to raise taxes, keep borders open, increase Islamic refugees, install liberals on the Supreme Court, continue obama's business regulation onslaught, etc. etc. So by what measure is that more conservative. You're an idiot. You post nonsense every day thinking it will become reality. What a pathetic laughable fool.

 

[Iceweasel]

Trying to turn fascism into a leftist ideology is the rightwingnut's Holy Grail.

Wrong. The right is not the one throwing the term around. That's what lefties do, it's THEIR holy grail to smear the right with it. The right, rightly points out that it's the lefties that want the big government. You can't have socialism or fascism without big government.