56 replies to this topic

[CodeCat]

Fascism is not extreme right, its more of the extreme left as fascists adopt a 'Third Way' between capitalism and socialism. The left right scale is used purely for economic terms.

Hahaha. It's funny, the only person I know of that made that nonsensical claim before was Aircraftkiller.

[Cheshire Fox]

Define what you consider fascism. This is probably what the disagreement stems from.

From dictionary.reference.com: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

That's as much Stalin as Hitler.

From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

Just because you like the left more than the right doesn't mean they can't become fascist. Going too far to either extreme is generally a bad idea. I wholeheartedly support the left as well and despise the right, but that doesn't change the fact that a Communist government based on good ideals can be turned fascist.

EDIT: Oh wait...shit, I thought you were saying I was wrong about the left not being able to turn fascist. Eh, whatever I'll leave this up for the hell of it.

Edited by Darkskul, 22 April 2007 - 09:37 PM.

[Ash]

The existance of a US backed dictator?

Was Tsar Nicholas US-backed? No. However I would consider the existence of a US-backed dictator to be a fairly legitimate reason in its own right. Wasn't what I was thinking of, though.


I speak, of course, of a (military) coup d'etat, often followed (though not necessarily) by a civil war. Either way, the old leaders are invariably forcibly deposed by the so-called communists. Although technically this move was proposed by Marx as being the first step on the road, it is obviously going to be the most dangerous. All the power in the hands of the revolutionaries, you end up inadvertently going down the road of fascism purely because the power is still in the hands of a small group of individuals and not dispersed throughout the populace.

As a result, it is little wonder that so many parallels can be drawn between authoritarianism and communism, as the revolutionaries lose their way to fickleties and become the very thing they hate most.

Edited by Paradox, 22 April 2007 - 10:11 PM.

[narboza22]

Define what you consider fascism. This is probably what the disagreement stems from.

From dictionary.reference.com: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

That's as much Stalin as Hitler.

From the Merriam Webster dictionary:

1. a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.

2. a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality

Just because you like the left more than the right doesn't mean they can't become fascist. Going too far to either extreme is generally a bad idea. I wholeheartedly support the left as well and despise the right, but that doesn't change the fact that a Communist government based on good ideals can be turned fascist.

EDIT: Oh wait...shit, I thought you were saying I was wrong about the left not being able to turn fascist. Eh, whatever I'll leave this up for the hell of it.

And you deduced that Bush is a fascist from these definitions? Don't know about where you live, but there is definitely no suppression of opposition here. I can't go for 30 seconds with out hearing some political crap about Bush and his policies. AFAIK, there is no secret police stalking Nancy Polosi and her pals.

[Cheshire Fox]

No, that was for proving a completely different point.

I say Bush is a fascist because the FBI can break into my house, raid my room, and steal stuff without telling me. That is a step towards fascism. And it scares me. On the surface, it may not seem like that big a deal. But this country was founded on the idea that the government can't do that to you, that your privacy and freedom can never be intruded upon by the government without definite reason. Oh yeah, and what about gathering phone records illegally so they could hear what you were talking about to your friends...without a permit. And they went further along that line of action. They were tapping peoples phones. Sure they had permits to do it. They didn't get those permits from the judges who issue them.

http://newsblogs.chi...hone_recor.html

http://www.washingto...5121701233.html

[chemical ali]

Fascism is not extreme right, its more of the extreme left as fascists adopt a 'Third Way' between capitalism and socialism. The left right scale is used purely for economic terms.

Hahaha. It's funny, the only person I know of that made that nonsensical claim before was Aircraftkiller.

Well that makes Andrew Heywood, Richard Kelly and many other famous political commentators nonsensical.

[Blodo]

If they really claim this bullshit, then they truly must be nonsensical.

[Hostile]

Traditionally, the farther right you go the smaller the government. I suppose if you go far enough you only have one person calling all the shots. Sounds like fascism to me. IMO.

[CodeCat]

Not necessarily. Stalin was just one man by himself too. Small government is just a relative term really, and it doesn't deal with one specific policy. Right-winged governments tend to be small economically, but christian conservatives are often larger on personal matters. With left-wing social-democratic governments have big governments on economic matters but small government concerning personal things. Of course, in the end, authoritarianism still means a big government on personal matters, and in the extreme even a total domination of the everyday lives of people. So it's not really possible to call authoritarianism 'left' or 'right' because it's a different axis on the spectrum.

[chemical ali]

Not really as often socialist governments in mainland Europe epically go the extreme, prepared to impose onto peoples lives in the pursuit of equality, and interference in economic matters is essentially infringing on personal freedoms with tax and restriction on private capital.

[duke_Qa]

and have far, far lower crime rates despite having far less police, and have a generally happier populace.

true, but what does it matter if someone has it alot worse than you if you can have it alot better?

rhetoric btw. though that would make this post redundant so I'll say something more useful.

its not like its impossible to get into a fine position in a socialistic society, the problem is that it takes too much hard work. with less rules to worry about it would be alot easier for people to make their lives as great as they can. naturally at the expenses at making other people's lives harder.


(edited out the bummer that implied that this thread had grown out from the 420 thread.)

Edited by duke_Qa, 29 April 2007 - 03:01 PM.

[Cheshire Fox]

I'm not really seeing the connection here...where did weed come into this?

[Ash]

I think he refers to the fact that he, unlike his peers, saves a lot of money by being teetotal and thus not doing weed, alcohol, etc.

However I agree, it didn't seem all that pertinent a point.

Edited by Paradox, 29 April 2007 - 09:23 AM.

[duke_Qa]

hmm, replied around 0330am on the topic, must have mixed it up with the 420 thread

not that i would have been surprised if that thread turned into what i read on this page , we usually turn any thread into a socialist vs right-wing thread quite quickly.

[Cheshire Fox]

Or athiest vs thiest.