|
Sakarja posted:I’ve made the argument that liberal societies are less tolerant towards Fascism than socialism, and I don’t see how Operation Gladio is supposed to refute this. If it shows anything, it’s that the western bloc enlisted Fascists and former Fascists during the Cold War. But the same was true of the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc, and I’m guessing that that doesn’t lead you to draw conclusions about the deep, abiding love communists must have for Fascism. Or that they consider Fascism preferable to liberalism. Fascists are the last people on the planet to openly identify themselves as fascists. Popular opinion about the benefits if the party are irrelevant when you are being deliberately deceptive. This is a product of really strong Machiavellian attitudes within their parties. It is not their mandate to convince people of the benefits of their ideology, and rather just eliminate any opposition by force. This is exactly what the Nationalist Socialists used in the Reichstag towards the monarchists. If you look at any modern party that everyone would identify as fascist, such as the Golden Dawn, they demonstrate this point by bringing violence to the streets and rely on single issues to divide voters, who are often oblivious to whatever else their platform is.
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Ardennes posted:Even if they didn't have revolutionary ambitions did not mean they weren't Marxist, you're defining Marxism as solely revolutionary Marxism which might be convenient but it isn't true. I’d argue that any movement that doesn’t propose to ultimately overthrow capitalism cannot be called Marxist. But that wasn’t really my argument. I wrote that there were non-Marxist (and non-revolutionary) movements involved in bringing about and maintaing reforms, and that their impact often seems to be underestimated. But the entire argument is really just another derail. In this case from the discussion of bigotry under capitalism, Fascism and Socialism. quote:Thats the thing I think the topic should have a broader approach than to only talk about "pure" Marxism (only revolutionary Marxism) or pure Fascism (I don't agree that Franco wasn't a fascist). If there isn't common agreement about definitions then there isn't much to talk about. My point isn't about how necessarily "pure" Marxist and Fascist states need to be compared but that the routes of Marxism and Fascism need to be compared as ideologies. Also, I think it is important to bring other types of leftism and right-wing authoritarianism that are edge cases. I absolutely agree with you about the problems with definitions. Of course we could discuss and compare the routes to Fascism and Marxism, or include edge cases. But the discussion will never go anywhere unless we understand what the other person actually means by those terms. quote:They tolerate them because they don't have any power and have already pretty much vanished from at least American academia. You don't fear something that doesn't exist, same with open Fascists. Also, I have no idea where your point is leading, unless you think Fascists are unduly ostracized or Marxists should be more ostracized than they already are. My point is that, according to socialists their own doctrine poses a genuine (potential) threat to capitalist society, while Fascism is merely a tool, agent or deformed version of capitalism. Doesn’t it then follow that socialism, not Fascism should be the “super-taboo”, as NikkolasKing put it. This argument hinges on the assumption that the powers that be in liberal society can control the discourse and political consciousness of their subjects to a great extent. But that seems to be a fairly universal ingredient of modern day socialism. Hodgepodge posted:Seriously? You think that it was acceptable to be a Communist in Western nations after World War II? You know who Joeseph MCCarthy was, right? There are liberal countries beside the US. And it doesn't even tell us much of the relative “popularity” of the doctrines in question. quote:It is "more acceptable" socially to espouse socialist ideals at the present, in that there is a more-or-less coherent socialist ideology with which to associate those ideals. Even the most hardcore Neo-Fascist organizations identify as nationalist or "racially aware" more often than as Fascists, and it is quite acceptable to espouse many ideas they share in the form of nationalism or conservatism, and even covert racism. There is no need to defend or openly associate with the ideologies of a defeated military enemy in order to do so. It’s certainly true that socialist ideology is more coherent, but that’s hardly very important to those who stand to gain by suppressing it. And the very fact that Fascists find it necessary to espouse their ideas in the forms of nationalism and conservatism testifies to how unacceptable they are when they’re presented qua Fascism. quote:There are likewise overlaps between Liberal and Socialist ideals, to the point where most Americans think the two words mean the same thing. To a point, this allows it to acceptably be a "socialist" within the internal discourse of liberalism in some circles. You’re right about the argument. It’s really only based on anecdotal information and casual observation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:My point is that, according to socialists their own doctrine poses a genuine (potential) threat to capitalist society, while Fascism is merely a tool, agent or deformed version of capitalism. Doesn’t it then follow that socialism, not Fascism should be the “super-taboo”, as NikkolasKing put it. This argument hinges on the assumption that the powers that be in liberal society can control the discourse and political consciousness of their subjects to a great extent. But that seems to be a fairly universal ingredient of modern day socialism. I think your emphasis is on Nazism, it is very very unpopular to be a Nazi and the word fascist obviously bring the image of Hitler (maybe Mussolini). I supect you are reducing Marxism to Stalin/Mao and Fascism to Hitler, thats dubious oversimplification. Right-wing authoritarianism that could very well considered outright fascist or at least proto-Fascist is making inroads in Europe, and neo-confederate/extreme right wing attitudes aren't at all uncommon in the United States. You might call them "pure" Fascist but at the moment they are doing better than even broadly leftist movements. It isn't popular to be a Nazi, but it isn't so much a problem if you're a neo-confederate or a fan of the National Front.
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Warbadger posted:It also immediately preceded the Soviet invasions of Poland and Finland. The Soviets were perfectly happy doing their own empire building right along with the Germans. What happens if you have German militarism / Polish nationalist buildup in Eastern Poland? Do you allow that on right on your border? Though any occupation Post WWII was unjustified, any serious military leader is going to want a buffer there. Furthermore, Finland were Nazi collaborators and the USSR needed to gain Karelia/Lake Ladoga to ensure supplies to Leningrad during the Siege. There were bigger things at play here, such as, I don't know, the possible victory of Nazi Germany and the enslavement or extermination of tens of millions more. Finland thought Karelia was more important than fighting the Nazis, and that they could sacrifice millions of people for the sake of territorial integrity. While they did help Germany starve to death 650,000 civilians in Leningrad and deplete crucial resources for the anti-fascist cause, they were thwarted in their ultimate goals. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 22:26 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Sakaraja posted:There are liberal countries beside the US. And it doesn't even tell us much of the relative “popularity” of the doctrines in question. Oh, well, in the case of Western Europe, they were invaded by fascists and Communists were among the most notable resistance. So that lead to Communism being relatively acceptable among the general European public. That's pretty well known, but is much more specific to a time and region than the generalities you are speaking in. quote:It’s certainly true that socialist ideology is more coherent, but that’s hardly very important to those who stand to gain by suppressing it. And the very fact that Fascists find it necessary to espouse their ideas in the forms of nationalism and conservatism testifies to how unacceptable they are when they’re presented qua Fascism. Fascism typically idealizes a mythologized past and collective identity, rather than identifying with an ideology and its labels. Fascists have little to no reason to openly identify with a label with negative connotations that usually has no relevance to the identity they are appealing to. "Fascism" is to a certain extent more a label for a collection of intellectual tendencies of militaristic ethnic nationalism that were in the early 20th Century expressed as ideologies than it is an ideological tradition. This makes it quite possible to espouse a variety of fascism while denouncing "fascists" and considering your own ideology a pure, organic, and spontaneous manifestation of your own culture. Whereas a socialist is consciously drawing on an ideological tradition with a specific history and may at most denounce other varieties of socialism by pointing to particular ideological and historical differences. So a Socialist gains acceptance where possible by drawing distinctions between their beliefs and actions and those of other Socialists. A socially-acceptable Fascist likely does not consider themself such, or at least does not admit any latent sympathies in that direction they may possess. Either ideology may pass outside of the mainstream by adopting elements that are unacceptable within mainstream culture. In the case of Fascists, this tends to be easily achieved by openly professing racist beliefs, which is the basic reason why most open fascists are rejected by society at large. Open racism has been a taboo in the post-civil-rights era, even if various forms of racist beliefs are not. Socialist groups tend to be infiltrated and/or watched by authorities as potential security risks even if they are comfortably within the mainstream. You can perceive the uselessness of this line of inquiry by considering that on the terms you are attempting to use, you might just as well ask "why is it more acceptable to be Muslim than to be a Fascist?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
What a lot of people forget about Joseph Mccarthy is that he was actually right 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:What a lot of people forget about Joseph Mccarthy is that he was actually right Oh boy, this should be good 
|
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:What happens if you have German militarism / Polish nationalist buildup in Eastern Poland? Do you allow that on right on your border? Though any occupation Post WWII was unjustified, any serious military leader is going to want a buffer there. Furthermore, Finland were Nazi collaborators and the USSR needed to gain Karelia/Lake Ladoga to ensure supplies to Leningrad during the Siege. There were bigger things at play here, such as, I don't know, the possible victory of Nazi Germany and the enslavement or extermination of tens of millions more. A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Sep 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 9, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Russian organizational skill must have been quite impressive, able to react to events in September '41 as early as November '39! It isn't a secret, that Stalin's annexations were a part of a lead up to a eventual war with Hitler, granted he thought those new borderlands would absorb the brunt of those attacks rather than quickly be bypassed. The Bolsheviks had been paranoid about how close the Finnish border was to Leningrad for a while, whether that was justified or not is a question. From their perspective the Finnish government at that point was a White government that had beaten Bolshevik supported Finns around the era of the civil war. As history would turn out the Finns would only go so far, and refused to completely surround Leningrad when give the chance.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
It's rather clear that the Soviets intentions was grabbing the bits that had been part of the Russian Empire, eastern Poland, Finland and the Baltic states. But this just seems like a derail, or at best proves the contention that Liberals prefer fascists to socialists since they keep turning the fascism in Europe thread into why those filthy commies are worse than Hitler. It's no ones contention that the Soviet Union, even post-Stalin was a terrible place. But there is tons of Socialist thought that contends that the State Capitalism practiced by the USSR is not the only way to do that, nor is claiming that the Soviet Union might not have been socialist, is a no true scotsman since socialism has a specific meaning, the workers owning the means of production. In the Soviet Union the State owned the means of production. But this is all a derail since this thread is suppose to about the rise of the Far Right in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Oh boy, this should be good Troika's pretty much a poo poo and run white noise poster so probably not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:It's rather clear that the Soviets intentions was grabbing the bits that had been part of the Russian Empire, eastern Poland, Finland and the Baltic states. But this just seems like a derail, or at best proves the contention that Liberals prefer fascists to socialists since they keep turning the fascism in Europe thread into why those filthy commies are worse than Hitler. It's no ones contention that the Soviet Union, even post-Stalin was a terrible place. But there is tons of Socialist thought that contends that the State Capitalism practiced by the USSR is not the only way to do that, nor is claiming that the Soviet Union might not have been socialist, is a no true scotsman since socialism has a specific meaning, the workers owning the means of production. In the Soviet Union the State owned the means of production. Hint: liberals aren't the ones turning this thread, and every other thread on this loving forum, into a discussion about communism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
iCe-CuBe. posted:Hint: liberals aren't the ones turning this thread, and every other thread on this loving forum, into a discussion about communism. Communism came up all the time in the past, it is just that causal dismissal is becoming less causal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
iCe-CuBe. posted:Hint: liberals aren't the ones turning this thread, and every other thread on this loving forum, into a discussion about communism. Actually it was a fascist that started the whole marxism derail. Someone asked about the differences between how fascists and the far left view violence as means to end or what not. Then A sloth, most recently probated for admiring the BNP, started spewing on about how marxism is just as bad as fascism. Add in Ardennes' posting, Troika making GBS threads and running and other various idiots continuing to harp on how bad marxism is on a thread about fascism and here we are right now. VVVV True but there is a point where a derail should just be dropped and we're long past it. Raskolnikov38 fucked around with this message at 06:57 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 06:43
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Actually it was a fascist that started the whole marxism derail. Someone asked about the differences between how fascists and the far left view violence as means to end or what not. Then A sloth, most recently probated for admiring the BNP, started spewing on about how marxism is just as bad as fascism. Add in Ardennes' posting, Troika making GBS threads and running and other various idiots continuing to harp on how bad marxism is on a thread about fascism and here we are right now. Granted, someone has to speak up even if the argument is extremely mundane.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:It's rather clear that the Soviets intentions was grabbing the bits that had been part of the Russian Empire, eastern Poland, Finland and the Baltic states. But this just seems like a derail, or at best proves the contention that Liberals prefer fascists to socialists since they keep turning the fascism in Europe thread into why those filthy commies are worse than Hitler. It's no ones contention that the Soviet Union, even post-Stalin was a terrible place. But there is tons of Socialist thought that contends that the State Capitalism practiced by the USSR is not the only way to do that, nor is claiming that the Soviet Union might not have been socialist, is a no true scotsman since socialism has a specific meaning, the workers owning the means of production. In the Soviet Union the State owned the means of production. As for Liberals preferring Fascists to Socialists, I'm sympathetic to Stalin's belief that Denmark was little better than the other Nazi aligned regimes during the war, despite the post-war consensus in Denmark becoming something along the line of "Every Dane was opposed to the Nazis from day one!" Which is obviously not true. For the longest time, the Danish Social Democrats, and the overall political order, had no real problem cooperating with the Nazis as if they were just another German regime. Only thing I can really give them credit for was that what they sold their cooperation for was the safety of Danes, Danish Jews in particular, instead of territorial adjustments. Bringing that back to the present day, I wonder if the question of irridentism is going to have any major influence on the possible return of Fascism in Europe? While I suspect there are people who want to see a Greater [Insert their country] in every country, the degree to which that penetrates the larger society might be important. I guess other feelings of being wronged might do the same, but the idea that your state is missing a sizable chunk of "its" territory is a pretty easily exploited feeling. Perhaps that's where far-right nationalism and Fascism differ, the far-right nationalist being content with just "removing the negative influences on society" within their own borders, while Fascists see asserting their place in the international order as paramount if the nation is to be reinvigorated.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
This post does make me wonder, is there still a lot of feelings over territory lost by countries following the end of the World Wars? I recall someone mentioning the Greater Hungary and Romania, but it seems like such an anachronistic attitude that I can hardly see it's use in trying to win younger people over to the cause? I say this of course as an American, which if we had lost even a fraction of a fraction of territory 50 plus years ago our Right Wing would still be braying for blood. So I could be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 09:25
|
|
|
I think Europe is kind of laissez-faire on most 'territorial claims', as generally the border lands between todays countries have swapped hands many times, countries merge & split, etc. It may have been yours 50 years ago, but 150 years ago it was ours, any 575 years ago it was theirs, etc. etc. There's at least a good 500 years of well documented stupidity between pretty much any two European countries you can draw on if you really want, so no-one much bothers. We were all assholes, just let it lie. Certainly for much of the younger generations, the EU & the internet leads to much more mixing and travel between countries so it is largely the older generations who carry grudges. In general, if there are enough bread rolls & circuses to go round, then noone really cares. Once you start having economic problems that affect the masses day-to-day life (i.e. Greece), then the general populace look for someone else to blame, as it can't have been my fault for voting in inept & corrupt politicians cos they promised me a tax break. That's when normal people start listening to the fringe elements (both far right & left wings), and the current politicians might try desperate populist stuff. Like asking the Germans to give billions in war reparations, which is a thin cover for saying they don't want to pay the bailouts back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 09:49
|
|
|
OzyMandrill posted:I think Europe is kind of laissez-faire on most 'territorial claims', as generally the border lands between todays countries have swapped hands many times, countries merge & split, etc. It may have been yours 50 years ago, but 150 years ago it was ours, any 575 years ago it was theirs, etc. etc. There's at least a good 500 years of well documented stupidity between pretty much any two European countries you can draw on if you really want, so no-one much bothers. We were all assholes, just let it lie. Certainly for much of the younger generations, the EU & the internet leads to much more mixing and travel between countries so it is largely the older generations who carry grudges. Not that this is a defense of the direction Hungary is going in at the moment*, but it seems a bit rich for anyone from a nation that has preserved its territorial integrity to just outright dismiss the feelings of people where that's not true. Imagine what France would be like if you freed Brittany, and on top of that handed out French territory to all of its neighbors until the population of France itself was reduced to about 46 million. *and there's a big difference between wanting heavily Hungarian territory back, and wanting all territory where Hungarians live back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:32
|
|
|
Sakarja posted:Invasions? I think it's called "creating a buffer zone" when communists do it. Just because something is broken down doesn't it mean it can't be trying to rebuild,that's kind of the point of rebuilding in the first place the point of the thread is the rise of Fascism in Europe, not Fascism it's here,functional and influential. There is a stigma but honestly I blame it on poor organizing more than anything else. You can adapt to being banned as a party and whatnot it's been done before. But like I've told many anarchists,socialists,and communists before yes you're being repressed but your piss poor organizing doesn't help either. Honestly I feel like people in general are having trouble adapting and organizing in more recent years and I can't really pin it on one specific thing. Sakarja posted:As for liberal societies tolerating Fascists and socialists equally, that’s not strictly true everywhere. Many countries have legislation against hate speech and the display of Fascist symbols and salutes. Not that there’s any shortage of “class war” hysteria anytime there are major leftist protests, but it’s hardly the same. No rule is strictly true anywhere especially when we are talking about how people behave. Socialists and Fascists are handled differently but the end result is the same they are marginalized.Europe's relationship with the Fascists is a bit different and most of the banning of Fascism happened directly after WWII, it took a bit for the horrible poo poo from the USSR to catch on due to the poo poo like the Red Scare where liberal societies lost their goddamn minds and people remember that poo poo. There's also the fact that the vast majority of leftists (in the west at least) loving hate Stalin's guts. Fascists will not shut the gently caress up about how we have Mussolini all wrong and it's holding them back. Again it comes back to bad organization and bad political moves than the issue of repression. Sakarja posted:I guess so, but couldn’t the same be said of the relationship to the Soviet Union to some extent? Of course the soviets didn’t invade Western Europe, unlike the Nazis. But decades spent as enemies, and under threat of nuclear war combined with the triumphalism that followed in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union should be able to produce the same effect. Sakarja posted:One the destruction the Fascists cause are alot more open you can see the ruined buildings ,know all your dead family etc. Most of the Cold War are proxy wars that don't take place in Europe or America. So the fact that they didn't straight up invade is a key one. As to Eastern Europe not repressing the Socialists like Western Europe did the Fascists,well ironically (or unironically given the USSR's policy for anyone who disagrees with their government being an enemy)alot of the opposition to the USSR are led by labor or socialist groups. Liberals still think Socialists and Fascists are two sides of the same coin. Sakarja posted:Really? I know there are outright Fascist and crypto-Fascist parties that have scored victories in certain European countries. But I never got the impression that they actually outnumber the left, certainly not in the majority of liberal countries. I don’t doubt what you say, but perhaps you could provide some examples? Most of the political spectrum is just mostly apathetic people who don't pay attention to politics. I'd say left/right is usually pretty even unless major events happen (economic down turns etc) Pope Guilty posted:The American right, who essentially own the American political narrative, have been working hard for decades to convince everybody that the Nazis were communists, so I'm not sure this quite applies. Captain_Maclaine posted:He's exaggerating a bit, but there have been more prominent (though still not particularly credible) sources on the American far right that have for some time now gone out of their way to play up the S in NSDAP. In particular, I recall back when Glenn Beck still had a show on FOX he interviewed the chairman of the CPUSA (if I remember the party right). Throughout the interview, Beck repeated referred to that party's platforms as "nationalized socialism" in like every other sentence to dribble from his mouth. Also, you might consider the unfortunate popularity of prodigal cretin Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism another indication of this move to equate fascism with the left. Right but that doesn't necessarily mean they're doing that because fascism is less popular. They do it because they don't see a difference between the two. They hate both equally. That being said that interview is horrible (and the CPUSA is just loving useless) edit: It's like how the Stalinists tried to equate social democracy and fascism,with the same flimsy rear end logic. I'm certainly not a fan of liberals or social democrats but there is a huge difference. SirKibbles fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:I think your emphasis is on Nazism, it is very very unpopular to be a Nazi and the word fascist obviously bring the image of Hitler (maybe Mussolini). I supect you are reducing Marxism to Stalin/Mao and Fascism to Hitler, thats dubious oversimplification. Not really, I just think it’s useful to distinguish Fascist from non-Fascist movements and regimes, and that the same goes for socialist and non-socialist ones. And I don’t restrict their respective definitions to Hitler/Mussolini or Stalin/Mao. Since it seems unlikely that we’ll ever be able to agree on how any of them are to be defined, I don’t think there’s much else to do here except to agree to disagree. Hodgepodge posted:Oh, well, in the case of Western Europe, they were invaded by fascists and Communists were among the most notable resistance. So that lead to Communism being relatively acceptable among the general European public. That's pretty well known, but is much more specific to a time and region than the generalities you are speaking in. That’s true, but the HUAC is also specific to a time and region. I don’t think that’s your intention, and it’s possible that I’m just misunderstanding you here, but your argument seems to imply that McCarthyism is admissible as evidence of intolerance towards socialism in liberal societies in general, while the positive evaluation of communism, in countries where they formed an important part of the resistance movement during WWII, can only be admitted as circumstances restricted to a specific and narrowly defined time and region. quote:Fascism typically idealizes a mythologized past and collective identity, rather than identifying with an ideology and its labels. Fascists have little to no reason to openly identify with a label with negative connotations that usually has no relevance to the identity they are appealing to. That’s really well put. But it seems to empty Fascism as a concept of all meaning to the point where it’s virtually indistinguishable from any form of aggressive nationalism and nativism. And it completely ignores that there are still groups and individuals that insist on calling themselves Fascists or National Socialists etc. And I don’t agree that the criteria of militarism and ethnic nationalism are sufficient in themselves to define Fascism with any precision, even if they are fundamental and serve to explain the particularly destructive character of the ideology. It’s of course possible to be a militant nationalist and a racist at the same time without also being a Fascist. And it becomes even less useful if we start applying the term Fascist to any group or individual that exhibit only one of those characteristics at any time. Raskolnikov38 put it this way: quote:Person A: I think fascism can be defined as F= {w,x,y,z} Hodgepodge posted:Whereas a socialist is consciously drawing on an ideological tradition with a specific history and may at most denounce other varieties of socialism by pointing to particular ideological and historical differences. It's possible for Fascists to denounce each other on more or less the same basis as socialists do, even if the primacy of the national question reduces common ground considerably, and its ideological tradition is far less developed or coherent. But I can’t say that I follow your reasoning about how socialists gain acceptance. Surely you can’t be arguing that socialists gain acceptance through sectarianism and schisms? Successful Fascist movements gain acceptance primarily by 1) Presenting themselves as the champions of the people, taking a stand both against the corrupt and inefficient liberal state and the frightening, unpredictable violence of the left, 2) Promising to save the nation from the humiliations of economic and military failures and 3) Identifying convenient scapegoats among minorities and others considered to be “degenerates”, whose very existence threatens the “health of the nation” and can be used to explain any problem. It seems obvious that Fascist groups are far more likely to be successful under certain circumstances than others. The likelihood of success is greater in “young” states, where authoritarian rule and/or lack of national self-determination remain in living memory. This was true of the interwar movements, and it still seems to account for some of the differences in the fortunes of Fascist groups today. Another important factor is the weakness of the liberal government and its legitimacy in the country in which the Fascists operate, and/or the slide into illiberal rule. To say that a socially acceptable Fascist doesn’t actually consider himself to be a Fascist at all, or isn’t considered to be such by others, doesn’t make much sense. I guess it’s possible to pursue the goals and use the methods of an ideology without being aware that this is the case. But it seems kind of far-fetched. And if the concept of Fascism is to be used in that way, its usefulness would be reduced to that of a smear. Kind of like how certain members of the American right call Obama or other Democrats “socialists”. quote:Either ideology may pass outside of the mainstream by adopting elements that are unacceptable within mainstream culture. In the case of Fascists, this tends to be easily achieved by openly professing racist beliefs, which is the basic reason why most open fascists are rejected by society at large. Open racism has been a taboo in the post-civil-rights era, even if various forms of racist beliefs are not. Socialist groups tend to be infiltrated and/or watched by authorities as potential security risks even if they are comfortably within the mainstream. Wouldn’t it in fact be sufficient for the Fascist to state openly that he or she is a Fascist in order to be regarded as socially unacceptable? quote:You can perceive the uselessness of this line of inquiry by considering that on the terms you are attempting to use, you might just as well ask "why is it more acceptable to be Muslim than to be a Fascist?" I disagree. It’s almost certainly completely useless, but the comparison seems inappropriate. Muslims are hardly interchangeable with socialists in their relationship to and attitudes toward liberal society. The question isn’t simply “why is it more acceptable to belong to group X than to group Y?” The content of the doctrines in question matters. Sakarja fucked around with this message at 11:32 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 10:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:Then A sloth, most recently probated for admiring the BNP, started spewing on about how marxism is just as bad as fascism. No, I was probated for saying fascist policies can and have reduced unemployment in history. I also said both internationalist and nationalist movements have lead to mass murder. But hell, lets not that get in the way of the cry baby knee jerk when peoples irrational conceptions of the 'bad guys' being everything they hate are questioned. By the way, did you name yourself after the Bolshevik politician or the fictional character from Crime and Punishment? A Sloth fucked around with this message at 11:06 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:02
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Just because something is broken down doesn't it mean it can't be trying to rebuild,that's kind of the point of rebuilding in the first place the point of the thread is the rise of Fascism in Europe, not Fascism it's here,functional and influential. There is a stigma but honestly I blame it on poor organizing more than anything else. You can adapt to being banned as a party and whatnot it's been done before. But like I've told many anarchists,socialists,and communists before yes you're being repressed but your piss poor organizing doesn't help either. Honestly I feel like people in general are having trouble adapting and organizing in more recent years and I can't really pin it on one specific thing. That’s true; none of those movements seem likely to disappear anytime soon, even if they appear to be very weak in most places. I can’t say much about the difficulties they have organizing, but the perceived strength and flexibility of the TINA arguments could be an important factor in why extremist groups fail to achieve popular support in most countries. quote:No rule is strictly true anywhere especially when we are talking about how people behave. Socialists and Fascists are handled differently but the end result is the same they are marginalized.Europe's relationship with the Fascists is a bit different and most of the banning of Fascism happened directly after WWII, it took a bit for the horrible poo poo from the USSR to catch on due to the poo poo like the Red Scare where liberal societies lost their goddamn minds and people remember that poo poo. There's also the fact that the vast majority of leftists (in the west at least) loving hate Stalin's guts. Fascists will not shut the gently caress up about how we have Mussolini all wrong and it's holding them back. Again it comes back to bad organization and bad political moves than the issue of repression. That could very well be the case. At any rate, I guess it would be impossible to actually measure the relative importance of state repression or the organizational failures of the groups in question. quote:Most of the political spectrum is just mostly apathetic people who don't pay attention to politics. I'd say left/right is usually pretty even unless major events happen (economic down turns etc) I agree with that completely, the left/right distinction in general seems to have become less meaningful than it’s ever been since it first came into use. That said, I still think that Fascism is viewed as more problematic and less desirable than socialism in most liberal countries. But, as I’ve pointed out before, that assertion is only based on casual observation. And, as others have mentioned, it might not be a very interesting or productive topic for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:10
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Really, what's the difference between wanting to have those (border) regions join up with Hungary again, and for example Scotland wishing for independence? The Scottish Independence seems to largely be 'We hate the English, ha ha!' and 'We would be richer if we had all the oil to ourselves', but mostly due to political ineptitude leading the to Scottish National-ists getting a majority in their local government and having the issue as an election pledge from day one. Scotland isn't doing bad economically, and the SNP are at the lower end of rabid frothing. The eastern European countries are still young, and chronically poor/underdeveloped from the Soviet era, and generally feel they are hard done by from the EU in terms of economic help. From talking to various people from eastern European countries, the older generations tend to want life back under Communism (it was better in the old days, you see), the younger generations want the conspicuous wealth & consumption of western Europe and can't see why they have to deal with >25% under 25s unemployed and average wages that are around 25% of other EU countries. That's a lot of dissafected people who can be tempted to join more radical groups offering an outlet to the frustration. A fertile breeding ground if ever there was one.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 11:31
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Oh boy, this should be good Do you deny that the USSR had a long history of espionage in the US, including in the Manhattan Project and the US's postwar jet fighter program, amongst other things? Declassified Soviet records have conclusively proven this to be the case, this isn't even arguable. Mccarthy was off in who he was accusing specifically, but he wasn't wrong that there was a concerted Soviet effort to infiltrate the US government, because by the time he got going, it had already happened on multiple occasions.. His inept bumbling most likely made life easier for any actual communist infiltrators, however, by providing a big circus that produced nothing of value. Also, Pornographic Memory, if you really think I'm just shitposting, feel free to use that shiny report button. It's what it's there for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 13:50
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Mccarthy was off in who he was accusing specifically, but he wasn't wrong that there was a concerted Soviet effort to infiltrate the US government, because by the time he got going, it had already happened on multiple occasions.. His inept bumbling most likely made life easier for any actual communist infiltrators, however, by providing a big circus that produced nothing of value. "Sure we executed the wrong guy, and allowed the real criminal to get away but I'm pretty sure the victim's actually dead" "The bad news is I've removed both of your kidneys and it turns out you have meningitis, the good news is the germ theory of disease is still sound" The fact that spies exist and have always done so, does not prove McCarthy was right as nobody in the 1950s didn't already know that the Soviets were spying on Americans, or that the Americans in turn tried to spy on the Soviets, most were probably aware that the Soviets were much much better at the game than the Americans. The Senate that censured McCarthy was well aware of the existence of Alger Hess and the Rosenburgs and pretty much everyone on the planet noticed when the Soviets developed their own Atomic and than hydrogen bombs. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 14:36 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 14:01
|
|
|
It makes me really sad that the Right Wing has latched onto the Vernoa Papers as some sort of vindication of McCarthy, always without the implicit then the existence of American spies in the Soviet Union proved Stalin "was right."OzyMandrill posted:The Scottish Independence seems to largely be 'We hate the English, ha ha!' and 'We would be richer if we had all the oil to ourselves', but mostly due to political ineptitude leading the to Scottish National-ists getting a majority in their local government and having the issue as an election pledge from day one. Scotland isn't doing bad economically, and the SNP are at the lower end of rabid frothing. I'm not sure if that counts as a, everything was better in the old days thing, when there were some things about the old days that were better, less unemployment, less homeless. Which is not to excuse or justify the oppressive regimes of the the Eastern Bloc. But your post about disaffected youth does stand. I have often asked myself what conditions I could tolerate if I didn't have to worry about not being able to pay all of my bills this month. But while that might explain why were seeing fascists gain power in the East, I'm not really sure that explains the increased prominence in the West? Or is it just a matter of degrees, the people of the West long since use to high level of comforts are more easily rocked into extremism when that is interrupted? It is by a far a theory I can believe, especially since in the US when ever some raw material important to everyday life, oil, rare earth metals, etc, runs into a shortage there are endless choruses of people saying we should just invade and secure those resources for our use.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 15:14
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:What happens if you have German militarism / Polish nationalist buildup in Eastern Poland? Do you allow that on right on your border? Though any occupation Post WWII was unjustified, any serious military leader is going to want a buffer there. Furthermore, Finland were Nazi collaborators and the USSR needed to gain Karelia/Lake Ladoga to ensure supplies to Leningrad during the Siege. There were bigger things at play here, such as, I don't know, the possible victory of Nazi Germany and the enslavement or extermination of tens of millions more. Presumably if you don't want a German militarized buildup at your border you don't cooperate with the Germans to invade the non-German-aligned countries between yourself and the Germans so that you share a border with them. Finland was not a threat to the USSR, at war with the USSR (or mobilizing for that matter), nor aligned with Germany until the USSR decided to invade Finland. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Sep 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Do you deny that the USSR had a long history of espionage in the US, including in the Manhattan Project and the US's postwar jet fighter program, amongst other things? Declassified Soviet records have conclusively proven this to be the case, this isn't even arguable. Awe, you disappoint me. I was hoping for some real revaunchist crazy stuff about how the second Red Scare was wholly justified and whatnot, not this weakass bullshit. As DynamicSloth has already said, that the superpowers spied on one another in no ways justifies or validates that alcoholic dipshit's witchhunt.
|
|
#
?
Sep 10, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:There's also the fact that the vast majority of leftists (in the west at least) loving hate Stalin's guts. Is there a reason to...not hate Stalin's guts?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
If your a crazy left leaning authoritarian I would guess Stalin is awesome. If you're a sane human being then no.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:19
|
|
|
He was an effective leader and actually, y'know, built socialism in the real world instead of some imaginary land where bad things never happen. This alone means Western "radicals" hate him because they prefer ideals to ever, EVER having any power. See also: actually existing fascism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
Emden posted:He was an effective leader and actually, y'know, built socialism in the real world instead of some imaginary land where bad things never happen. This alone means Western "radicals" hate him because they prefer ideals to ever, EVER having any power. See also: actually existing fascism. So is it totalitarianism in general that lures you in like a little brownshirted moth to the crematoria's flame, or just those totalitarian states that can wrack up six digit body piles? I'm confused. Berke Negri posted:Is there a reason to...not hate Stalin's guts? There's plenty of reasons to find him a fascinating historical figure to study, both as a person and as a leader, and frankly I'd even go so far as to say you don't have to hate him per se (though if you're decended from Holodomor survivors I'd not blame you if you did), but anyone who displays unqualified enthusiasm about him, or his political ideology, isn't anyone with whom I'd want to spend time stuck in an elevator.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Of some relevance, I was involved in one of the never-ending topics of "who was worse, Hitler/the Nazis or Stalin/the Russians?" and a man poster characterized Stalin as merely selfish while Hitler was evil. This was because Stalin merely killed people as a byproduct while Hitler set out to kill people on purpose. This was a very peculiar view to take, to say the least. I didn't question it because who am I to tell anyone their views of good and evil are wrong? But the point is that Stalin is interpreted in two ways: a typical power-mad dictator who had no higher ideals than consolidating his own rule, or a "true believer" who was still trying to carry out the glorious revolution of the proletariat. Either way, I regard them both as evil monsters, and I don't think the victims of Soviet collectivization who all starved to death are gonna forgive Uncle Joe just because their deaths were "accidents." The only reason to ever like Stalin is if you believe he was a true Marxist or if you take the view that he saved the world by building up Russia into a force that could resist Hitler. I've heard some people summarize what Stalin did as merely all the brutality and cruelty of what other nations did over a century or so but crammed into a half-decade.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
Well, there is a difference between killing out of expediency and doing so out of malice. Of course, eventually Stalin dipped into column c, which would be killing out of batshit crazy paranoia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Berke Negri posted:Is there a reason to...not hate Stalin's guts? You'd be surprised how many groups do that to the point where people usually have to ask,I don't want to deal with Stalin apologists when they're looking for leftist groups to join. A leftist usually doesn't give two fucks about an individual person idea's and well call them out of bullshit. Fascism is such a cult of personality now though they have to defend their leaders (usually it's Mussolini,Hitler is more he had some great ideas) and hopeful they never adapt to this as it will keep them irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 10:15
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Of some relevance, I was involved in one of the never-ending topics of "who was worse, Hitler/the Nazis or Stalin/the Russians?" and a man poster characterized Stalin as merely selfish while Hitler was evil. This was because Stalin merely killed people as a byproduct while Hitler set out to kill people on purpose. I've heard some people say that liberals fear communists more than fascists, but I dunno. It seems like the liberal states would have sided with the Nazis against the Soviet Union in that case, as some conservatives did favor. Even if it's true, though, it'd be a catastrophic mistake since fascism is clearly the greater threat to everybody. Ultimately, a communist world and a liberal capitalist world were able to co-exist for much of the 20th century without descending into general war. I just don't really buy it. "But in 1919 in Germany..." and you have a point. But both sides did form an alliance to defeat Hitler and can sit in the same room together without pulling knives out. You can't really say that liberals fear the International Socialist Organization or whoever more than they do the Ku Klux Klan or even the Tea Party. The liberals I know in my city are going to protests with Marxists and they think the Tea Party are just crazy, Hitler-like people and don't want anything to do with them. So I don't know what universe you are all living in. rudatron posted:Read that as code for 'China' rather than as any self-conscious economic policy. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 10:47 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 10:42
|
|
|
Stalin-liker checking in, he was a pretty ownage guy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 10:47
|
|
|
Yeah he owned newbs by the millions. Awesome K/D ratio.
BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 11:26 on Sep 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 10:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Stalin-liker checking in, he was a pretty ownage guy. Stalinism is gonna be the next big thing in 2014, let me tell you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2013 11:19
|
|
