CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[mechaerik]

Yes yes! We must return to Romantic times and Enlightened times!! Rulers dabbled with these ideals and created the greatest empires! Truly propelled ourselves!

I didn't say to return to those times... just to point out that what people thought was radical left back then is now a position shared by nearly all.

Economics are outside of the narrow range of scope I look at through fascism, I just want good economics I don't care about details I just want results... whatever works. Without sacrificing ourselves of course.

Regulation is best. Deregulation will lead to people (as I said before) looking for ways to make money now, even if it compromises the stability of the future.

 

[Tekee]

I didn't say to return to those times... just to point out that what people thought was radical left back then is now a position shared by nearly all.



Regulation is best. Deregulation will lead to people (as I said before) looking for ways to make money now, even if it compromises the stability of the future.

Hah I didn't mean return to those times either, but the romanticism and nationalism and poltics of those times. Romanticism was where the artist tried to capture a romantic picture of his people and his country, it was a natural art style that flowed out of nationalism and is very beautiful! I know that without a change of ideals to a liberal nationalism, that Napoleon unlocked we would not have this.
We need again this beauty...
This beauty is found only in fascism, which itself is a weird term, so I prefer, this term is found only in racism, but this word also means bad things so maybe this is found only in humanity!(which is natural to be like this fascists)

And for economy, it is beyond me, if deregulation works I trust in it, if something else works, I trust in that.

 

[Ecofarm]

But Fascists have more opinions! more different opinions, they are the real open mindedness!

Fascist = open-minded

Now I've seen it all.

 

[sonorakitch]

Hitler wasn't right wing. Since when does the union halls produce a right winger? Never have understood the revisionist history there.

 

[Earthling]

Right-wing doesn't just mean capitalist, that's why. Check out Hitler's authoritarian policies much?

 

[sonorakitch]

You'll have to dig awfully hard to find anyplace that I've said right wing means capitalist. Right wing more or less identifies with conservative ideaology. Now, check out Hitler's progresses on social safety nets and entitlement programs. Have you read much on his corporate nationalization policies? Not conservative at all. The only tenant he shared with a genuine conservative is that of nationalist tendancies...something which is quite common across all boundaries in different forms.

Next please.

 

[plarq]

Right-wing doesn't just mean capitalist, that's why. Check out Hitler's authoritarian policies much?

Authoritarian is not right-wing. Hitler is right wing because he catered to the right-wing groups.

 

[Earthling]

Nope, either right-wing means 100% anarcho-capitalist, or it means whatever I say it means!

 

[Princeps]

The war made the Holocaust that much worse. Jews were persecuted in pre war Germany but they weren't widely exterminated. I've already claimed multiple times the Nazi racial policies and aggression was a mistake.

Mistake is not the word. It was a hideous massacre, a premeditated genocide.

Communism has killed far in excess the entire casualties caused by WW2.

It depends on what you refer to with the term communism. If you're referring to the economic policies inherent to communism, the casualties they inflicted did not certaintly reach 60 million. But, if you refer to stalinist persecutions, wars, and other such political actions, the casualties do reach several tens of millions, although I doubt the 60 million figure.

IN the USSR alone 20-30 million is a conservative figure with 60 million from 1917-1991 being bandied about including the death toll in occuppied in eastern europe.

20-30 million between 1917-1991 in a region as vast as the USSR and its subjects is nothing compared to the murderousness of the Nazi reich. What the European slavers and communist did in a century, the nazis could do in two years. Make no mistake, plenty of evidence exists that the nazi german industry of murder was lethally efficient and designed to wipe out entire nations.

Most of the fascist dead were casualties of war, with the exception of the holocaust and others in eastern europe essentially murdered by food confiscations and the like.

The Nazi policy of disregard, aggression and planned genocide resulted in the deaths of over 60 million. I don't see how this improves your argument at all.

 

[Zardnaar]

Considering the whole casualty list for WW2 tends to clock in at around 55 million, including the 20 million of so Chinese I don't see how the Nazis managed to kill 60 million, unless you blame every single casualty of the war on then and add a few more million. Nazism was bad, Communism was worse. You don't see the Italians or Spanish fascism murdering hundreds of thousands, although tens of thousands were killed in the aftermath of the Spanish civil war. The evil fascists in those countries have killed alot less than post war USA a modern Democracy LOL.

 

[RedRalph]

Considering the whole casualty list for WW2 tends to clock in at around 55 million, including the 20 million of so Chinese I don't see how the Nazis managed to kill 60 million, unless you blame every single casualty of the war on then and add a few more million. Nazism was bad, Communism was worse. You don't see the Italians or Spanish fascism murdering hundreds of thousands, although tens of thousands were killed in the aftermath of the Spanish civil war. The evil fascists in those countries have killed alot less than post war USA a modern Democracy LOL.

At the very least, Hitler is directly and personally responsible for the 27m Soviet citizens who died in WW2. I cannot for the life of me understand why some people don't attribute those deaths to him.

 

[luiz]

At the very least, Hitler is directly and personally responsible for the 27m Soviet citizens who died in WW2. I cannot for the life of me understand why some people don't attribute those deaths to him.

While Hitler certainly gets plenty of blame, he doesn't get all of it. A very sizeable portion of those deaths is on Stalin, not only for the idiotic manner in which he conducted the initial stages of the conflict but also for his actions prior to it, like purging the army removing it's most competent leaders. Stalin made the war much more bloody for the Soviets than it had to be.

 

[Zardnaar]

They were deaths during wartime, not directly murdered as such. Bad things happen in wartime with numerous examples of atrocities done by the USA, UK, or anyone involved in war. Very few people were activly persecuted in pre war Nazi Germany, compared to peacetime Soviet USSR. The Jews formed a very small percentage of the population and they were the most actively persecuted. Third Reich racial policy was an unmitigated disaster and turned the populace against the Nazis in parts of the USSR. Its also hard to say how many of those deaths were also done by the Germans, as the Nazis got the blame for a few NKVD massacres as well, along with executing their own troops.

 

[RedRalph]

While Hitler certainly gets plenty of blame, he doesn't get all of it. A very sizeable portion of those deaths is on Stalin, not only for the idiotic manner in which he conducted the initial stages of the conflict but also for his actions prior to it, like purging the army removing it's most competent leaders. Stalin made the war much more bloody for the Soviets than it had to be.

No, it doesn't work that way. Incompetence does not equal blame. The fault lies with the aggressor, not with anyone else. While you can argue about the merits of Stalins conduct during the war, the responsibility for all of those deaths is Hitler's, because without him giving the order for Barbarossa, none of them happens.

 

[RedRalph]

They were deaths during wartime, not directly murdered as such. Bad things happen in wartime with numerous examples of atrocities done by the USA, UK, or anyone involved in war. Very few people were activly persecuted in pre war Nazi Germany, compared to peacetime Soviet USSR. The Jews formed a very small percentage of the population and they were the most actively persecuted. Third Reich racial policy was an unmitigated disaster and turned the populace against the Nazis in parts of the USSR. Its also hard to say how many of those deaths were also done by the Germans, as the Nazis got the blame for a few NKVD massacres as well, along with executing their own troops.

Get yerself a history book and come back when you have read it.

 

[amadeus]

You'd certainally call me a leftist but I don't want the power fo the state expanded in the UK, in fact I want some of it reduced when it comes to peoples personal lifes,

Income earnings should be considered part of personal life, as for the matter of what a man earns should be of no concern to you.

drugs

In this case, you'd simply be replacing a police bureaucracy with a regulatory bureaucracy; surely you wouldn't support the unregulated production and sale of dangerous substances? As well, are you in support of complete legalization, or legalization of only which substances you happen to partake?

sex

Aside from homosexuals applying for marriage licenses (a ridiculous concept in the first place, making religious rituals part of the state), what is prohibited in the sexual realm?

cencorship

This I must take issue with! You might be opposed to censorship of trivial matters like violent or sexual content, but do you also oppose censoring such thing as televized cigarette advertisements? Commercials for fast food? What about in the realm of ownership? For many years in the United States, for example, we had rules that prohibited the ownership of more than one TV station in any single market.

 

[Princeps]

Income earnings should be considered part of personal life, as for the matter of what a man earns should be of no concern to you.

Of course it is. Money is power and wealth, and any political systems needs to concern itself with the distribution of both. Indeed, even your statementv above is a statement of such political nature.

 

[Princeps]

Now, check out Hitler's progresses on social safety nets and entitlement programs.

Most of these programs existed before Hitler. But overall, Hitler had little if any concern for the avarage citizen: the overwhelming focus in time and resources went to the rearmament program. Meanwhile, housing spending, welfare and such decreased. Income inequality increased and wages diminished.

Have you read much on his corporate nationalization policies?

The nazis were very favourable toward big business. Even these supposed "nationalization policies" were actually a consolidation of big business and big party power, intertwining the two deeply. Hitler cartelized big business (although forcefully) and most businesses voluntarily joined the cartels, which were organized to service the war economy. Conservatives across the world have supported many pro-businesss statist measures, such as the hideous form of protectionism in patents and copyrights, which increase prices more than any tariff.

 

[luiz]

No, it doesn't work that way. Incompetence does not equal blame. The fault lies with the aggressor, not with anyone else. While you can argue about the merits of Stalins conduct during the war, the responsibility for all of those deaths is Hitler's, because without him giving the order for Barbarossa, none of them happens.

Stalin's idiocy was criminal, especially the purge of the army (which was criminal in itself). And an incompetent ruler does deserve to be blamed, especially when the incompetence is on the scale of Stalin's.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

It's funny to see how many people still buy Hitler's propaganda to this day when it coincides with their partisan hackery.