Anti-goverment Uprising

[Kalamos]

After this post, I'm done bickering here:
What's up your ass today?

I'm just indulging in my destructive "chaotic neutral" nature.

 

[isanelytklsh]

Or maybe the people doing the most bitching are hard-working middle-class people who don't want a damn fascist in office.....

FYI - Fascism is primarily a left-wing ideology. So, it is impossible for GWB to be a fascist. Liberals/democrats - now THOSE ARE FASCISTS. Do your homework, little girl. At least insult the president correctly.

 

[Kalamos]

FYI - Fascism is primarily a left-wing ideology. So, it is impossible for GWB to be a fascist. Liberals/democrats - now THOSE ARE FASCISTS. Do your homework, little girl. At least insult the president correctly.

Fascism is a LEFT winged ideology..?

...

Ok... Now I've seen it all.

 

[isanelytklsh]

Fascism is a LEFT winged ideology..?

...

Ok... Now I've seen it all.

Just one example of "all" that you have NOT "seen":

http://www.andresgentry.com/thoughts/2004/02/the_left_and_fa.html

 

[Kalamos]

That is nonsense.

Fascism is RIGHT winged.


From Hyperdictionary.com

Fascism:
A political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism).


Traditionally, Communism and Socialism are LEFT winged ideologies.

Communism:
A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership.

Socialism:
A political theory advocating state ownership of industry.

 

[alf1]

Don't loose your time Kalamos, they won't believe you 😉

cogliona lol 🙂

 

[Kalamos]

-> Alf.

😉


To quote infamous Dr Meneghetti...

Time is money, money is mine. 😉

 

[SheDevil1]

Hahahaha fascism a left winged ideology. Wow, you should be honored "Ticklishy"! You're the 2nd stupidest person on this entire forum that I've met. What do you win? A silver boot in the ass. Sorry, but somebody not even from this country has the Gold. Feel free to keep talking though, you just may yet earn it! 😉
Ya see, it works like this: Liberals are all for freedom, and helping the people. How is that fascism? It's not. You're just an idiot
Now, the inappropriately named Patriot Act however is the epitome of fascism.
"Duhh can dat be da fash-ism?" you ask?
Simple: the patriot act gives the government the right to knock down your front door and search your house without any consent or warning. Hmm, that reminds me of something Hitler did when he was exterminating the jews.
Hey, I have a joke for you: What's the difference between Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush?
-
_
_
A moustache.

 

[lazy_tickler]

Hahahaha fascism a left winged ideology. Wow, you should be honored "Ticklishy"! You're the 2nd stupidest person on this entire forum that I've met. What do you win? A silver boot in the ass. Sorry, but somebody not even from this country has the Gold. Feel free to keep talking though, you just may yet earn it! 😉
Ya see, it works like this: Liberals are all for freedom, and helping the people. How is that fascism? It's not. You're just an idiot
Now, the inappropriately named Patriot Act however is the epitome of fascism.
"Duhh can dat be da fash-ism?" you ask?
Simple: the patriot act gives the government the right to knock down your front door and search your house without any consent or warning. Hmm, that reminds me of something Hitler did when he was exterminating the jews.
Hey, I have a joke for you: What's the difference between Adolf Hitler and George W. Bush?
-
_
_
A moustache.

who is the first stupidest lol

 

[Kalamos]

La risposta è prevedibile... 😉

 

[SheDevil1]

Well it seems like Kalamos is aiming for first. But first would go to German. He's a christian who contradicts just about every law his religion says he should follow. He tells me "don't use the lord's name in vain" then he threatens to kill me. lol. I thought christians were to turn the other cheek. Not very christian of him. Oh, and he doesn't like virgins either, I've seen him just disrespecting other people about it like crazy. Which is funny, cuz you're supposed to be married before you can have sex. So to Christianity, virginity is a good thing for unmarried people! Hm. If anybody learned of christianity from him, they'd be gravely misinformed.

 

[general zod1]

Ya see, it works like this: Liberals are all for freedom, and helping the people. How is that fascism?

If that is true then please explain to me why the Federal government forces during the Clinton admimistration had to kill all those Branch davidian folks down in Waco,Texas during the early 90's
Anyone remember that fiasco? I wonder how many Democrats shed a tear for those people But I guess they were wrong to try to make up a new religion and stand up to the democrats in office at the time Long Live The Fatherland

Ted Nugent was right IMo in calling Janet Reno Heinrich Himmler people wake up Democrat or Republican None of them care about the working class

 

[SheDevil1]

Yeah man, the economy being great when Clinton was in office was a total bummer! I hated the fact that my parents had a little more money!!! MAN THAT SUCKED BALLS!!!!!!!

 

[Faramir]

Yeah man, the economy being great when Clinton was in office was a total bummer! I hated the fact that my parents had a little more money!!! MAN THAT SUCKED BALLS!!!!!!!

*stands up and applauds She-Devil*

 

[lazy_tickler]

Yeah man, the economy being great when Clinton was in office was a total bummer! I hated the fact that my parents had a little more money!!! MAN THAT SUCKED BALLS!!!!!!!

i think the only two things he did right were getting the country out of debt and getting laid lol

 

[SheDevil1]

Get the country out of debt and I'm happy. But did you happen to forget the surplus? Hah. The surplus is gone now, along with the rest of the country's fetti, so that may be why no one remembers. 🙁

 

[strider1]

Fascism and Nazism are both forms of Socialism.If you were going to put them anywhere on the left/right scale,it'd be on the left.Although I tend to think the scale's outdated and irrelevant.

Anyhow,I certainly think the government is way to big and has too much power.I'd like to see the size of government reduced quite a bit;but a revolt is a bit too far.

 

[Kalamos]

Fascism and Nazism are both forms of Socialism.If you were going to put them anywhere on the left/right scale,it'd be on the left.Although I tend to think the scale's outdated and irrelevant.

Anyhow,I certainly think the government is way to big and has too much power.I'd like to see the size of government reduced quite a bit;but a revolt is a bit too far.

This was partly true about Nazism: it was originally known as National Socialism.

But it is extremely inaccurate to label Fascism and Nazism as left wing ideologies - and it is an insult to people who call themselves Neo-Fascists or Neo-Nazis.
Likewise, it is an insult to Neo-Communists and Neo-Socialists to call Fascism or Nazim left winged.


I realize they are both older European ideologies, so modern American citizens can't be expected to know about them or recognize their political placement.

Political Parties' original placement do vary over time: for example, Italian Republican party was originally center winged, while now it leans to the right wing.

The fact we have a "center wing" is a sign politics work differently here.


Reg's.

 

[strider1]

But it is extremely inaccurate to label Fascism and Nazism as left wing ideologies

Well,as I said,I don't care for the left/right scale.But why would it be inaccurate to label Nazism left wing if we're sticking to the traditional model of the left/right scale?It's undeniable that Fascism(and by extension Nazism,which was really the fully evolved version of the former,but I digress)sprang from the same theoretical framework as Leninism,which is certainly regarded to be on the left by all but maybe a few syndicalists who knowbody take seriously.

it is an insult to people who call themselves Neo-Fascists or Neo-Nazis.Likewise, it is an insult to Neo-Communists and Neo-Socialists to call Fascism or Nazim left winged.

During the Dark Ages the surest way to piss off a member of the Catholic Church was to tell them Cathars were real Catholics.There was truth to it,but they didn't want to hear it.There's no hatred like fraternal hatred.The two movements traditionally fight each other because they're competing on the same ideological ground.

 

[MistressValerie1]

Anyhow,I certainly think the government is way to big and has too much power.I'd like to see the size of government reduced quite a bit;but a revolt is a bit too far.

Agreed 🙂 I support most of the positions of the Libertarian Party, although their rejection of ALL publicly funded anti-poverty programmes is one major point where I disagree with them. Nonetheless, I usually favour Libertarian candidates.

A non-partisan site which supports reducing government's intrusiveness through non-violent means is Advocates for Self-Government. They also offer a political quiz featuring a new, biaxial model of the political spectrum (left vs. right AND libertarian vs. authoritarian).

 

[cosquillero1]

¿hable inglés, pendejo?

SheDevil, no es necesario usar ese burdo lenguaje sólo aquellos individuos de baja calaña lo emplean.

Parli italiano, cogliona?

Per favore amico kalamos, non è necessari da insultare qualcuno più, io sono d'accordo con voi che ognuno merita che cosa ottengono, ma in questa tribuna ci è la gente con la mente vuota, non essere voi uno più 😉🙂.

 

[Kalamos]

Well,as I said,I don't care for the left/right scale.

Maybe you don't, but other people might.

But why would it be inaccurate to label Nazism left wing if we're sticking to the traditional model of the left/right scale?It's undeniable that Fascism(and by extension Nazism,which was really the fully evolved version of the former,but I digress)sprang from the same theoretical framework as Leninism,which is certainly regarded to be on the left by all but maybe a few syndicalists who knowbody take seriously.

Because Neo-Fascist and Neo-Nazi parties call themselves Right Wing, and they'd protest if you called them Left Winged, or even remotely mentioned a link with a communal Leninistic model.

And Neo-Communists and Neo-Socialists call themselves Left Wing, and consider Fascism a debased form of socialism, which involved into a Right Wing ideology.


Following your reasoning, from the European point of view, we could brand Kerry and Bush the same just because they are both American politicians.
They share the same American framework, so they are both "American Wing".

If it were so, Bush supporters wouldn't be rejoycing, and Kerry supporters wouldn't be pissed off.
Everybody should be happy, since an american nominee became president, by your own reasoning.

Besides, I wouldn't quote you about the "Leninistic model": while Mussolini did start off as a marxist Socialist, he soon rejected Marxism and eventually created his own very different party.

During the Dark Ages the surest way to piss off a member of the Catholic Church was to tell them Cathars were real Catholics.

Again, I wouldn't quote you on that "Dark Ages" statement. Religious heresies caught on after 1100, so period's designation really borders on true Middle Ages.
Cathars were eliminated in 1330 something, so it likewise borders on Italian Renaissance [which started much earlier than North-European Renaissance did].

Besides, I wasn't there to piss off a medieval catholic, but I can assure you that calling left winged a fascist, or right winged a communist is a surefire way to find trouble. 😀 😀 😀

There was truth to it,but they didn't want to hear it.There's no hatred like fraternal hatred.The two movements traditionally fight each other because they're competing on the same ideological ground.

The basic ideology deals with work, and who should get the benefits and distribute the gains.

But *how* different parties do that really defines if they are left or right winged.

I would also like to say that Russian Communism actually betrayed the spirit of Marxism: people never had the power, and politicians effectively ruled the whole confederation.

Historically, both Italian Fascism and Russian Communism dealt harshly with dissenters.
They both were concerned with industry and growth - but while Fascism was land-based, and supported land-owners and agriculture, Russian Communism was more interested in heavy industry and tech advancement.

It should also be added that Fascism was effectively invented by Mussolini, while Russian Communism only derived from marxist theories.

You can claim they drew from the same "marxist cultural pool", but they evolved into very different ideologies and parties, that's why I'd reject your point. They were just about cousins as I am yours. 😀


Reg's.

 

[strider1]

Following your reasoning, from the European point of view, we could brand Kerry and Bush the same just because they are both American politicians.

There's an ammount of truth to that as modern American conservatism and modern American liberalism as represented in the two major parties are basically just factions that fall under the larger rubric of Liberalism.

If it were so, Bush supporters wouldn't be rejoycing, and Kerry supporters wouldn't be pissed off.

No,as I said,doctrinal differences matter.The two sides in American the political landscape fall broadly under the same theory of politics,but have very different ideas on how to reach their goals.

Besides, I wouldn't quote you about the "Leninistic model": while Mussolini did start off as a marxist Socialist, he soon rejected Marxism and eventually created his own very different party.

He rejected Marxism but not socialism.That's the point.He modified his socialism to fit what he saw as the emerging sentinment.He basically replaced class with nation as being the only determinant to matter.But he still always regarded himself as being a socialist.He in fact referred to himself as being a 'marxist heretic',which is extremely accurate.His replacing class with nation was really no more radical than Lenin replacing the proletariat with the revolutionary vanguard.But Mussolini never was particularly adept at defining just what Fascism was.It took Hitler to evolve it to its extreme,and instead of nation being the determinant,turning it to race.Logical extension.Quoting from Paul Johnson's 'Modern Times':

Sophisticated Anglo-Saxon liberals could dismiss it as a new kind of mountebank dictatorship,less bloodthirsty than Leninism and much less dangerous to property.But to the Marxists,it was much more serious.By the mid 1920s there were fascist movements all over Europe.One thing they all had in common was anti-Communism of the most active kind.They fought revolution with revolutionary means and met the Communists on the street with their own weapons...The Comintern...called on the 'workers of the world' to protest against the 'victorious Bulgarian fascist clique',thus for the first time recognizing fascism as an international phenomenon.But what exactly was it?There was nothing specific about it in Marx.It had developed too late for Lenin to verbalize it into his march of history.It was unthinkable to recognize it for what it was-a Marxist heresy,indeed a modification of the Leninist heresy itself.Instead it had to be squared with Marxist-Leninist historiography and therefore shown to be not a portent of the future but a vicious flare-up of the dying bourgeois era.

Pg.101-102

I would also like to say that Russian Communism actually betrayed the spirit of Marxism: people never had the power,

It didn't betray it;it grew out of it.Marx put the onus of revolution on a class that was benefiting materially and therefore had no reason to revolt.By the late 19th century most of Marx's theories were clearly wrong.So Lenin,for whom revolution was a goal in and of itself,modified the theory by taking the onus off of the proletariat and put it onto the self-appointed revolutionary vanguard.

But *how* different parties do that really defines if they are left or right winged.

Both the USSR and Nazi Germany ran things on effectively the same model.Any differences were cosmetic.

It should also be added that Fascism was effectively invented by Mussolini, while Russian Communism only derived from marxist theories.

Like I said,Mussolini's concept of fascism was always somewhat nebulous,but it was really just socialism with nation replacing class.The Italian fascist party platform was virtually indistinguishable from the socialist party's.

For what it's worth,I do think someone like Lenin could only have evolved in a patrimonial system like Tsarist Russia.

You can claim they drew from the same "marxist cultural pool", but they evolved into very different ideologies and parties, that's why I'd reject your point. They were just about cousins as I am yours.

Communism(in the commonly used Marxist-Leninist sense of the word)and National Socialism are both about completely destroying the old order and building a completely new one on its ashes that will become heaven on earth.They're both imminent eschatologies which believe their ultimate triumph is the will of history and allow no room for dissenting worldviews,which of course would be countering said will.Each one has no problem killing as many people as they need to get to their utopia,and some groups of people are marked for complete eradication,whether it be the parasitic upper classes or lower races.The two ideologies are basically competing utopian worldviews and only different in one respect:what they view as being the ultimate historical determinant.For one it's class.For the other,it's race.That's it.All other seeming differences are a patina.

 

[Kalamos]

No,as I said,doctrinal differences matter.The two sides in American the political landscape fall broadly under the same theory of politics,but have very different ideas on how to reach their goals.

So have modern Neo-Fascists and Neo-Communists.
While the original platform was probably similar, they evolved into very different political entities.

It should also be stressed that European [and Italian] political realities are very different from this kind of clear-cut definitions.

While history showed that both Nazi-Fascism and Communism reached their goal [control of the state] through violent means [elimination of the dissenters], this could be applied to many political movements in the past.

United States coalesced after a costly and bloody war; can we deny the winners reached their goal by eliminating the dissenting faction?

He rejected Marxism but not socialism.That's the point.He modified his socialism to fit what he saw as the emerging sentinment.He basically replaced class with nation as being the only determinant to matter.But he still always regarded himself as being a socialist.He in fact referred to himself as being a 'marxist heretic',which is extremely accurate.

Politics outgrow politicians: the original sentiment is less relevant in the light of modern history and facts.

Modern Neo-Fascists call themselves Right Wing. Neo-Communists, Left Wing.
While it is fascinating to trace back the origins of a political ideology, we can't ignore how a given ideology evolved and what stemmed from it.

His replacing class with nation was really no more radical than Lenin replacing the proletariat with the revolutionary vanguard.But Mussolini never was particularly adept at defining just what Fascism was.It took Hitler to evolve it to its extreme,and instead of nation being the determinant,turning it to race.

But again, my point is Russian Communism betrayed [or outgrew] Marxism.
There are parallels, but we are not trying to uncover the older, common origins; the original point went lost, apparently: it was about Fascism being Right Winged. Not about Fascism being invented by an abjurer of Left Winged ideologies.

Logical extension.Quoting from Paul Johnson's 'Modern Times':
It didn't betray it;it grew out of it.Marx put the onus of revolution on a class that was benefiting materially and therefore had no reason to revolt.By the late 19th century most of Marx's theories were clearly wrong.So Lenin,for whom revolution was a goal in and of itself,modified the theory by taking the onus off of the proletariat and put it onto the self-appointed revolutionary vanguard.

I would reject the notion that Marxist theories are wrong.
In particular, the basic idea of alienation of work is still applicable; if it wasn't we wouldn't have a General Strike here in Italy, today.

Both the USSR and Nazi Germany ran things on effectively the same model.Any differences were cosmetic.

This is an American theory.
Sorry, but I'd rather stick to European reality.

Like I said,Mussolini's concept of fascism was always somewhat nebulous,but it was really just socialism with nation replacing class.The Italian fascist party platform was virtually indistinguishable from the socialist party's.

Not Italian Socialist party's.
And it should be stressed that in the '90s Italian Communist party divided into Left Wing Democratic Party and Re-Founded Communist Party [and then they split some more...] - severing any link with Soviet past.

Present Neo-Fascist parties likewise evolved: some became splinter factions, while the main branch formally rejected its past, and was re-founded as the National Alliance Party.

For what it's worth,I do think someone like Lenin could only have evolved in a patrimonial system like Tsarist Russia.

It is an interesting observation: Russian Communism became what it was just because it caught on in the wrong place.

Tsarist Russia was still backward from several points of view: it was more akin to feudalism, than modern industrialism.

History would have been very different if Communism evolved in - say - England.

Communism(in the commonly used Marxist-Leninist sense of the word)and National Socialism are both about completely destroying the old order and building a completely new one on its ashes that will become heaven on earth.
They're both imminent eschatologies which believe their ultimate triumph is the will of history and allow no room for dissenting worldviews,which of course would be countering said will.

I am afraid I have to disagree - more on the terms of semantics, actually. 🙂

While they both had clear goals, calling them an eschatology is misleading - Nazi-Fascism did have a strong spiritual - albeit heretic - outlook, but Communism completely dismissed religion as superstition.

From a religious point of view, comparing a mundane political goal to an afterlife revelation is not proper at all.

However, it would be interesting to compare the notion of "no rooms for dissenters" with modern world political situation.
Dissenters of Bush's have been branded as unpatriotic and un-american; at least this is what has filtered through, here in Europe.
Effectively, you are agreeing with SheDevil's original post.

Each one has no problem killing as many people as they need to get to their utopia,and some groups of people are marked for complete eradication,whether it be the parasitic upper classes or lower races.The two ideologies are basically competing utopian worldviews and only different in one respect:what they view as being the ultimate historical determinant.For one it's class.For the other,it's race.That's it.All other seeming differences are a patina.

This cannot really be considered a "hall-mark feature" of either Communism's or Fascism's.
All radical ideologies seek power and will stop at nothing to reach it.

Whether the elimination of dissenters is symbolic, or factual, is just a matter of different sensitivities and times.

I am not aware of any significant Marxist American phenomenon, so I understand that to American viewers any ideology that stemmed from Marxism is in no way different from its originating philosophy.

This is a misleading notion, though: modern Right, Left and Center Wings are very different, and they are no more reciprocally related than most human ideologies are.


Reg's.

 

[strider1]

While history showed that both Nazi-Fascism and Communism reached their goal [control of the state] through violent means [elimination of the dissenters], this could be applied to many political movements in the past.

Not to the same extent.Other movements do not consider eliminating entire groups of people simply on the basis of them being in that group to be a necessary thing.Communism and Nazism do.

United States coalesced after a costly and bloody war; can we deny the winners reached their goal by eliminating the dissenting faction?

Are you talking about the Revolution or the Civil War?

But again, my point is Russian Communism betrayed [or outgrew] Marxism.There are parallels, but we are not trying to uncover the older, common origins; the original point went lost, apparently: it was about Fascism being Right Winged. Not about Fascism being invented by an abjurer of Left Winged ideologies.

I can't comment because I don't believe in the left/right scale.They're both forms of socialism.

This is an American theory.
Sorry, but I'd rather stick to European reality.

Then what do you perceive as being the major differences between the systems in the USSR and Nazi Germany?

This cannot really be considered a "hall-mark feature" of either Communism's or Fascism's.

Most radical ideologies of the 20th century are offshoots of one of those two.

While they both had clear goals, calling them an eschatology is misleading - Nazi-Fascism did have a strong spiritual - albeit heretic - outlook, but Communism completely dismissed religion as superstition.

Yeah,and then it became a religion in its own right.Marxism may look down on religious faith,but I don't know what else to call the idea that something which has never happened is inevitable.

Dissenters of Bush's have been branded as unpatriotic and un-american; at least this is what has filtered through, here in Europe.

I've heard this accusation made,but I haven't encountered it.

I am not aware of any significant Marxist American phenomenon, so I understand that to American viewers any ideology that stemmed from Marxism is in no way different from its originating philosophy.

The only difference between Communism and Nazism is what they consider to be the ultimate historical determinant.Their goals and tactics are exactly the same.