First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Google & Bing Changing the definiton of Fascism
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

sundin13 wrote:

But facism is generally considered to be the extreme right version of authoritarianism while communism is considered the extreme left version of authoritarianism.

Whats the issue here?



KennethKenstar wrote:

Right-wing fascists surprised the definition of fascism includes "right-wing"

What the hell is the issue here? What problem do you have with fascism being right-wing?


Lets start off defining some terms:


Left Wing:
1) members of a liberal or radical political party, or those favoring extensive political reform.
2) the part of a political or social organization advocating a liberal or radical position.


Right Wing:
1) members of a conservative or reactionary political party, or those opposing extensive political reform.
2) that part of a political or social organization advocating a conservative or reactionary position:


Liberal:
1) favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.


Conservative:
1) disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.


Of the 3 main fascists (Germany, Italy, and Spain) all wanted to perform extensive political reform. They were fed up with the way things were and were in direct opposition to anyone wanting to maintain the status quo. They did perform MASSIVE political reforms and Socialized large portions of the economy to benefit the nation as a whole. They setup themselves to have massive Authority to the point where they were a dictator.

While were at it lets define some more terms:

Socialism:
1) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Fascism:
1) (sometimes initial capital letter) 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.


So tell me how exactly you equate someone who implements extensive political reform as being a right-winger, who opposes extensive political reform?
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

runec wrote:


Rujikin wrote:
Well they then got reported for the very same things they reported others of and now we got this.


This being:





21941 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / F
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

MrAnimeSK wrote:


KennethKenstar wrote:

Right-wing fascists surprised the definition of fascism includes "right-wing"

What the hell is the issue here? What problem do you have with fascism being right-wing?


Maybe because lefties act like fascists?


this right here LOL
geee I wonder whyyy
qwueri 
24168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17
A thread arguing political agendas in dictionary terms? I am not prepared to deal with this yet.


Okay.



Rujikin wrote:

Of the 3 main fascists (Germany, Italy, and Spain) all wanted to perform extensive political reform. They were fed up with the way things were and were in direct opposition to anyone wanting to maintain the status quo. They did perform MASSIVE political reforms and Socialized large portions of the economy to benefit the nation as a whole. They setup themselves to have massive Authority to the point where they were a dictator.

While were at it lets define some more terms:

Socialism:
1) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Fascism:
1) (sometimes initial capital letter) 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.


So tell me how exactly you equate someone who implements extensive political reform as being a right-winger, who opposes extensive political reform?


Who does and does not support extensive political reform depends entirely on what policies were wrought before them. You could very easily (and incorrectly) argue that Donal Trump is a left-wing politician because he wants to enact widespread healthcare, tax, and immigration reform. Reforming parties are synonymous with opposition parties who have or want to come into power. Fascists form revolution through fear of outside threats and a cult of personality from their leader, communists (socialism is not the same thing) form revolution through the promise of communal prosperity and cult of the state.

Both generally come to power through widespread reforms, fascists being preoccupied with military control and communism with economic control.

In short and oversimplified terms,
fascists: "Fuck you, got mine."
communists: "Fuck you, got bread line."
Revolver Dogelot
73247 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / somewhere that is...
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/4/17
Hey guys, I just had to go through over 25 forum reports, most of them from this thread. It seems you guys don't understand the idea of respecting your fellow user, much less than you shouldn't use mods as some sort of vendetta tool.

Since civil intelligent discussion isn't happening here (I have deleted over a page of posts by now) this thread is locked and closed. If you find yourself banned shortly, don't be surprised.
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17
Nice.
23260 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

qwueri wrote:

A thread arguing political agendas in dictionary terms? I am not prepared to deal with this yet.


Okay.



Rujikin wrote:

Of the 3 main fascists (Germany, Italy, and Spain) all wanted to perform extensive political reform. They were fed up with the way things were and were in direct opposition to anyone wanting to maintain the status quo. They did perform MASSIVE political reforms and Socialized large portions of the economy to benefit the nation as a whole. They setup themselves to have massive Authority to the point where they were a dictator.

While were at it lets define some more terms:

Socialism:
1) a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Fascism:
1) (sometimes initial capital letter) 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.


So tell me how exactly you equate someone who implements extensive political reform as being a right-winger, who opposes extensive political reform?


Who does and does not support extensive political reform depends entirely on what policies were wrought before them. You could very easily (and incorrectly) argue that Donal Trump is a left-wing politician because he wants to enact widespread healthcare, tax, and immigration reform. Reforming parties are synonymous with opposition parties who have or want to come into power. Fascists form revolution through fear of outside threats and a cult of personality from their leader, communists (socialism is not the same thing) form revolution through the promise of communal prosperity and cult of the state.

Both generally come to power through widespread reforms, fascists being preoccupied with military control and communism with economic control.

In short and oversimplified terms,
fascists: "Fuck you, got mine."
communists: "Fuck you, got bread line."


Trump is technically a left wing president and the left are ironically the right wingers. Its funny how that works. On the same note the history of left vs right wing is interesting. During the French revolution the people who desired radical change all sat on the left while the ones desiring little change were sitting on the right. Thus we get the term left wing and right wing.

The Russian revolution and Chinese revolution would like to dispute your claim that communists are not focused on military control. Plus both had the cult of Lenin and Mao.

Both are Authoritarian though and that's really the main enemy here. Less government = more freedom.
runec 
40002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

Rujikin wrote:
So tell me how exactly you equate someone who implements extensive political reform as being a right-winger, who opposes extensive political reform?


....because...if you don't have the system you want you try to change it? Your argument makes no sense, dude. Also, I see the Oxford definitions are good enough for you for everything else.

Fascism ( and Communism ) are Authoritarian political ideologies. Control is the name of the game and once ether one gets into a position of power in a state that is not fascist or communist its going to get all authoritarian up in that and try to drastically change it to either one.

That Fascism exists and sits on the far right side of the spectrum does not mean the right is fascist. Anymore than Communism sitting on the far left means the left is Communist. The scale of politics runs up and down as much as it does left and right. From liberal to conservative and from libertarian to authoritarian.

Calling the "lefties" fascist doesn't make much sense when everyone seems to have such a piss poor grasp of what fascism even is. It makes even less sense when you're calling them fascist AND communist as many in the angry mobs seem want to do.
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

runec wrote:

Calling the "lefties" fascist doesn't make much sense when everyone seems to have such a piss poor grasp of what fascism even is. It makes even less sense when you're calling them fascist AND communist as many in the angry mobs seem want to do.


Not really. Antifa calls right-wing protestors fascists because of an alleged similarity in political ideology, and they are mostly wrong.

Right-wing protesters call antifa fascists because of an alleged similarity in tactics and behavior, and they are mostly correct.
runec 
40002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

Rujikin wrote:
Trump is technically a left wing president and the left are ironically the right wingers.


Trump is a whatever president. He has bounced between left and right as has suited his attention garnering needs for years. There's practically no hot button left/right issue he has not been on both sides of. He was firmly pro-choice, loved the Clintons and thought Hillary would be a great president till he decided to run himself.

That's pretty much the entire problem that *both* parties have now. There is no real Trump doctrine or ideology. Just self service and unpredictability.

runec 
40002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

outontheop wrote:
Not really. Antifa calls right-wing protestors because of an alleged similarity in political ideology, and they are wrong.

Right-wing protesters call antifa fascists because of an alleged similarity in tactics and behavior, and they are correct.


They call right wing protesters fascist because of a sitting president with authoritarian and nationalistic tendencies. Whom they support despite how absurd its getting.

Right-wing protesters actually call antifa communists for the most part. Calling them fascists doesn't work. They are neither agents of the state nor the side wrapping themselves in American flag undies.

The "tactics and behaviour" of antifa is far more akin to anarchists.

qwueri 
24168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

Rujikin wrote:

Trump is technically a left wing president and the left are ironically the right wingers. Its funny how that works. On the same note the history of left vs right wing is interesting. During the French revolution the people who desired radical change all sat on the left while the ones desiring little change were sitting on the right. Thus we get the term left wing and right wing.

The Russian revolution and Chinese revolution would like to dispute your claim that communists are not focused on military control. Plus both had the cult of Lenin and Mao.

Both are Authoritarian though and that's really the main enemy here. Less government = more freedom.


There's no "technically" about it, calling Trump left wing is a gross misunderstanding of the modern usage of "left" and "right" wings.

Lenin and Mao were referred for bringing about their respective party's revolutions, but the main power went to the state at large. See how modern China functions. You could make an argument for how the Un's claim godhood in North Korea, though they rely heavily on their party and China to stay in power.

The key difference in military between fascists and communists is how they used military. Fascists glorified their military and embraced it as an arm of their leader's will, communists viewed the military as more an arm of the party.
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

runec wrote:

a sitting president with authoritarian and nationalistic tendencies.



Yes, I can see how repeatedly deferring to state's rights and rolling back executive order authority is super-authoritarian.

Trump may be terribly nationalistic, but he is objectively less authoritarian than Obama.
qwueri 
24168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/4/17

outontheop wrote:

Yes, I can see how repeatedly deferring to state's rights and rolling back executive order authority is super-authoritarian.

Trump may be terribly nationalistic, but he is objectively less authoritarian than Obama.


I'm not sure how getting immigration ban orders rolled back and spewing venom at those same courts counts as deferring power of the executive branch.

Number of executive orders by Obama in first 100 days: 19
Number of executive orders by Trump in first 100 days: 30
http://heavy.com/news/2017/04/trump-vs-obama-who-signed-more-executive-orders-first-100-days-how-many-number-comparison-full-list/

Trump may be happy to repeal previous Obama orders, but he's not sitting back and letting the rest of the government do it's own thing (except when he's out golfing).
runec 
40002 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/4/17

outontheop wrote:
Yes, I can see how repeatedly deferring to state's rights and rolling back executive order authority is super-authoritarian.


Yeah, repeatedly attacking the very checks and balances that stop him from going full hog wild is all about states rights. Repeatedly praising and legitimizing foreign dictators and tyrants. Always going on about how he alone could fix everything and operating under the mistaken belief the president can just do whatever he wants throughout his campaign. Up to and including war crimes and jailing political opponents. Attacking the free press on a daily basis. None of that is authoritarian. No sir.

The only saving grace is that his incompetence, complete lack of intellectual curiosity and inability to multi-task is getting in the way of his aspirations. He has neither the patience nor the competence to become the Supreme Leader he envisions himself as.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.