CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[RedRalph]

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.

So does he also get credit for what he got right Luiz? It was a red flag over the Reichstag and not a swastika over the Kremlin in the end, need I remind you.

And that still makes no sense. Morally, those 27m deaths are attributed to Hitler. Stalin may have made many mistakes (he did, I don'y deny it), but without Hitler's actions none of those happen because there is no war. you can blame Stalin for Soviet casualties vs Finland all you want; but not against Germany. His actions may have caused more casualties than was neccesary, but the moral blame is with Hitler and the Nazis, no one else.

 

[Yeekim]

What is the point of measuring two inhuman and criminal regimes against each other anyway? If I was religious, I'd hope the bastards are cooked in the same pot downstairs.

 

[luiz]

So does he also get credit for what he got right Luiz? It was a red flag over the Reichstag and not a swastika over the Kremlin in the end, need I remind you.

And that still makes no sense. Morally, those 27m deaths are attributed to Hitler. Stalin may have made many mistakes (he did, I don'y deny it), but without Hitler's actions none of those happen because there is no war. you can blame Stalin for Soviet casualties vs Finland all you want; but not against Germany. His actions may have caused more casualties than was neccesary, but the moral blame is with Hitler and the Nazis, no one else.

He gets no credit because the only right thing he did during the war was finally, after many humiliating defeats and gigantic loss of life, allowing his generals to run the show. But that is not a bright or difficul decision, that is the least one would expect from a sane ruler with no military experience. So he was not at all instrumental in defeating the Nazis, quite the opposite. The Soviets triumphed despite Stalin, who was a burden.

OTOH, he made several decisions which were just plain stupid and resulted in loss of life on an unprecedented scale in human history. This was in no small part because of his complete and utter disregard for human life, which only increases his blame. As dictator of the soviet people he had a responsibility to preserve their lifes the most possible; he failed miserably at that and must be held accountable.

No doubt Hitler has plenty of blame for invading Russia, but he can't be held responsible for the way which Stalin handled the war, which was in itself responsible for millions of deaths.

 

[Arwon]

State ownership is left wing. The means are rather irrelevant.

Just because some people want to paint public ownership as different than state ownership means nothing. I'm sure Mao, Pol and Stalin all claimed that the state was of and for the people. Just like democrats in the US try to convince people that the state owning stuff is good for them - it's not... it's all about political power.

The concentration of financial (and thus political) power in the state is patently leftist. If leftists were worried about the public, they'd hand out tax breaks instead of consolidating power in the state.

Excuse me if I don't buy the "left wing is only pure and good stuff" rhetoric.

You mighta missed it because it was at the bottom of the page but I'd really like to hear a response to Dachs' post calling you on your simplistic assertions.

You are applying a standard that may or may not be true for one point in history to an entirely different point in history where it is irrelevant. By your standards, every single government in history is a left wing organization. America has been left wing ever since they ratified the Constitution because the USPS is run by the government. Replacing paid freelance colonels with state officers to recruit regiments, train troops, and command them is nationalization, so there goes most of Europe since the seventeenth century. You're distorting the definition of left wing so much that it becomes useless.

.....

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.

You keep mentioning Spain, but Spain's wasn't really a fascist regime. The Falange was just one element, and the Spanish regime sucked terribly and caused hardship, economic failure and starvation until precisely the moment when Franco started driving out all the fascists in favour of authoritarian but non-fascist Opus Dei technocrats who liberalised the state's economic policy and ditched all that stupid autarky stuff.

Although very right wing, it was certainly not a fascist state by 1975, and the result of 40 years of semi-fascist rule was that Spanish society is utterly anti-fascist. There's no far-right fasicst parties of note in Spain and the country is more liberal than the rest of western Europe in many respects, a lot of this is a direct result of Franco's rule. So your heroes failed utterly and completely.

 

[Quackers]

No: public ownership is traditionally a left-wing position, but only leftist when the state itself is democratic and therefore publically owned. If the state is the private turf of tyrants, public ownership is not left wing because leftist don't support the STATE per se, but the PUBLIC. These are conceptually seperate. And in fascism, the state is privately owned and controlled by a narrow minority of Gauleiters.
Elementary politics really.



This is not an argument.

So you are the judge if it is an "argument" or not. How liberal of you.

 

[JerichoHill]

school is public breeding ground for liberalism so I don't go to school

How exactly, do you intend to learn anything by not going to school.

 

[RedRalph]

How exactly, do you intend to learn anything by not going to school.

Stormfront.

 

[Ecofarm]

You mighta missed it because it was at the bottom of the page but I'd really like to hear a response to Dachs' post calling you on your simplistic assertions.

It's only simple if you twist words, play semantics and look for exceptions. It's general, and it's accurate. Nationalization is left-wing policy.

Sure, there might be an exception or two (though I don't concede the one given) and there are other imperfections... but the statement is by and large true.

No need to complicate things, unless of course, someone is trying to sidestep the authoritarian nature of left-wing economics.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

authoritarian nature of left-wing economics.

Authoritarian, I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

[Ecofarm]

On the micro scale: Taking money away from me and deciding what YOU want to do with it is authoritarian. It's controlling my money, it's controlling my speech, it's controlling my ability to support various causes. It is forcing me to use my labor to do as the government wants. It's all about controlling my personal money/labor.

On the macro scale: nationalization and public ownership limits the free market and opportunities for private enterprise. It is all about controlling the means of production.

If you don't think that taking someone's money away and using it for a government decided purpose is authoritarian...

Sure, representation helps (and renders minimal taxation and state ownership tolerable), but it is authoritarian at its base. The government is taking my stuff/forcing me to do things with my labor.

 

[RedRalph]

On the micro scale: Taking money away from me and deciding what YOU want to do with it is authoritarian. It's controlling my money, it's controlling my speech, it's controlling my ability to support various causes. It is forcing me to use my labor to do as the government wants. It's all about controlling my personal money/labor.

On the macro scale: nationalization and public ownership limits the free market and opportunities for private enterprise. It is all about controlling the means of production.

and privatising is about giving the control to unelected rich individuals. Can you not see its just a matter of changing who is in control?

 

[Ecofarm]

I prefer private citizens be in control of my country's wealth, not government bureaucrats. I find them to be astoundingly more efficient and motivated.

 

[RedRalph]

I prefer private citizens be in control of my country's wealth, not government bureaucrats.

But you do acknowledge that its transferring control from one entity to a different one, not creating control where there was none before and thus is not inherently authoritarian, don't you?

 

[Ecofarm]

From a private citizen's perspective, government taking control is authoritarian. Other private citizens having money or power does not affect me, unless they start taking my stuff. Now, every modern free-market has protection for people not to be exploited and defrauded so don't start with the tyranny of the market.

So, given that the government can enforce its will with a gun, and a private citizen cannot... I say a new authority is created. The executive of some company cannot force me to do anything, the government can. More government = more authority.

A private citizen is not an authority to me. I'll tell em "hey, you ain't the boss of me... I'll do what I want!". That doesn't work with the government.

 

[Kraznaya]

I prefer private citizens be in control of my country's wealth, not government bureaucrats. I find them to be astoundingly more efficient and motivated.

I'm sure Duke William of Aquitaine felt the same way.

 

[PiMan]

It's only simple if you twist words, play semantics and look for exceptions. It's general, and it's accurate. Nationalization is left-wing policy.

Sure, there might be an exception or two (though I don't concede the one given) and there are other imperfections... but the statement is by and large true.

No need to complicate things, unless of course, someone is trying to sidestep the authoritarian nature of left-wing economics.

Based on what you've said, and my prior understanding, you are suggesting that the left wing of the political compass is in the top left, while right wing is in the bottom right. This is despite the political compass representing the trend as having the opposite gradient to that. You also seem to suggest that all the sample compasses should have most political figures far further to the left than they are.

And you said that all nationalisation is under the guise of left wing economical ideology, but this certainly not the case for a totalitarian monarch, who will generally solely nationalise for the sake of power (which is not an economic point, it is social). On economic matters, they generally let the nobility handle it in near any way they choose.

 

[RedRalph]

From a private citizen's perspective, government taking control is authoritarian.

So is big business taking control. you are confusing 'control' with 'control by an entity you approve of'.

Private citizens having money or power does not affect me,

If you really believe that then you have literally no concept or understanding whatsoever of economics, and that has nothing to do with my personal ideology, its just as apparent as the nose on my face that it does affect you (and I had a big schnozz).

unless they start taking my stuff.

What, like through bailouts?

Now, every modern free-market has protection for people not to be exploited and defrauded so don't start with the tyranny of the market.

So, given that the government can enforce its will with a gun, and a private citizen cannot... I say a new authority is created.

Because violence is the only possible means of controlling peop.... oh, wait.

Say whatever you like, you are completely and utterly wrong Ecofarm. I had no idea you had so dim a comprehension of economics and politics.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

On the micro scale: Taking money away from me and deciding what YOU want to do with it is authoritarian. It's controlling my money, it's controlling my speech, it's controlling my ability to support various causes. It is forcing me to use my labor to do as the government wants. It's all about controlling my personal money/labor.

On the macro scale: nationalization and public ownership limits the free market and opportunities for private enterprise. It is all about controlling the means of production.

If you don't think that taking someone's money away and using it for a government decided purpose is authoritarian...

Sure, representation helps (and renders minimal taxation and state ownership tolerable), but it is authoritarian at its base. The government is taking my stuff/forcing me to do things with my labor.

So, it's authoritarian except for the things that make it authoritarian, because it's authoritarian at it's base. Or as I read it, it's authoritarian if you take it to it's utmost hyperbolical limit. And ignore a few key characteristics and write them off as side-show to what it is at it's base.

What about accountability?

edit: Jeebus, you guys go fast. This explains a lot of kneejerking.

 

[Ecofarm]

Based on what you've said, and my prior understanding, you are suggesting that the left wing of the political compass is in the top left, while right wing is in the bottom right.

No. I am speaking only of economic policy.

But feel free to note that the right wing is authoritarian (controlling) socially and the left wing is authoritarian (controlling) economically - in the US, at least. And all the cool kids are in Quad 4, which is liberal both socially and economically.

So is big business taking control. you are confusing 'control' with 'control by an entity you approve of'.

No. A company does not control me. The government does. They are different entities. If you cannot see the difference between private power and government power, that's your problem. If you would look into the 20th century, in western democracies, you would see that private citizens do not have authority over you.

What, like through bailouts?

And here your confusion becomes apparant. You think the business FORCED me to give them tax money? No, I don't think so. The government (in classic left-wing economic fashion) forced me to give them money. All they did was take what the government stole from me, as offered and with the government's blessing.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Look, I'll give you "has some authoritarian characteristics in a lesser extend" but you can't sit there and call it outraight authoritarian.

edit: Why not call it regulated? Because that term does not come with the same emotional goodiness?