CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[Imperialmajesty]

Probably more than you do. I'm guessing you probably equate fascism= evil due to the National Socialist regime and liberal media and brianwashing. I freely admit some of the worst crimes of the 20th century were commited by the Nazis. However they were a product of their times and the ealry fascists literally fought street battles against the communists in Germany and elsewhere. Do you really think pre war Nazi Germany was a worse pace to live than the USSR under Stalin? If you are Jewish I can understand a preference for the USSR, otherwise get your head read.

Communism failed and liberal democracy is on the process of failing. People vote for the easiest way out and the USA is essentially bankrupt. Europe is starting to fall as well with unemployment in France and Germany being very high and France had essentially ethnic based riots a few years ago.

Any liberal here want to move to the rough parts of LA or Detroit?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Zardnaar]

Feel free to refute my claims or provide a link I can read. I'm not exactly making up fairy stories am I? The "west" has become a pack of morally bankrupt, lazy, me first, cretins. Nice one liners though.

"I agree"

LOL.

 

[Princeps]

Your confusing the act with the intention.

Nationalizing is left wing economic policy and is always justified under their banner. Why someone really does it is a different story, if we want to include alterior motives and conspiracy theory.

When THE state that is privately owned and controlled (like the nazi regime, the stalinist regime, or the czarist regime) and it owns property, it is a form of private ownership. Nationalization is only a traditionally left wing position if the state is democratic (i.e. alterable by the public) and the policy is implemented with a focus on the welfare of citizens and the people as opposed to world conquest which seemed to be Hitlers idea. So, no, you're utterly wrong.

The stalinist USSR was not left wing because it was controlled by a narrow minority of people, who owned and controlled EVERYTHING through the state which they owned as well. Their power was largely unregulated and they themselves were unaccountable, free to dispose of the nation and its resources in any manner they saw fit (at least in theory). Furthermore, Hitler did not nationalize everything, his economic policies were sort of centrist in that manner. Instead, he intigrated large parts of the capitalist class into the regime through lavish contracts and cartelization. He also destroyed the labor movement and so forth. Indeed, the big businesses had heavily invested in his political career.

The nazi state was privately owned and controlled, indeed the traditional bureocratic class was largely phased out, so this had great practical implications in governance. Instead of traditional bureocrats, who Hitler perceived as weak and otherwise unworthy, Hitler granted power to his Gauleiters, or party buddies, who received their own turf (like an occupied country) and whose power was almost absolute like that of an unregulated private owner. Meanwhile, the traditional government institutions were becoming irrelevant.

For instance, I would say that Chavez's nationalization is under the left-wing economic banner... but he is probably only doing it for personal power.

Chavez is a different case, having been democratically elected several times (Hitler got power through backroom dealing and subsequently abolished the democratic public state). And furthermore, most of the economy in Venezuela remains under private control (more so than in many Scandinavian countries), even though Chavez probably could have run through a program of stalinism if had wanted to.

 

[Quackers]

When THE state that is privately owned and controlled (like the nazi regime, the stalinist regime, or the czarist regime) and it owns property, it is a form of private ownership. Nationalization is only a traditionally left wing position if the state is democratic (i.e. public) and the policy is implemented with a focus on the welfare of citizens and the people as opposed to world conquest which seemed to be Hitlers idea. So, no, you're utterly wrong.

Stalin's regime was the most left-wing in human history - believe me he didn't run industry for the good of the people.

 

[Imperialmajesty]

Feel free to refute my claims or provide a link I can read. I'm not exactly making up fairy stories am I? The "west" has become a pack of morally bankrupt, lazy, me first, cretins. Nice one liners though.

"I agree"

LOL.

I don't feel like wasting my time going line by line and refuting your "Fascism". If not feeling like wasting my time means you "win" and can do a victory dance, then so be it.

 

[Ecofarm]

Stalin's regime was the most left-wing in human history - believe me he didn't run industry for the good of the people.

I think you misunderstood him. He meant: left-wing is only good stuff, because left-wing = good. Any bad stuff is actually right wing, even if that doesn't make any sense. If you see left-wing policy as anything except good stuff, you're "utterly wrong". Whatever you thought was left-wing, whatever is commonly accepted as left-wing - and is bad - is actually right-wing.

Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Castro, Chavez... all right-wing.

Left-wing and "bad" do not go together. Ever. Under any circumstances.

 

[Princeps]

I think you misunderstood him. He meant: left-wing is only good stuff. And bad stuff is actually right wing, even if that doesn't make any sense.

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.

Stalin's regime was the most left-wing in human history - believe me he didn't run industry for the good of the people.

This is not an argument.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

No, forget it.

I like where this thread has gone.

 

[Ecofarm]

public ownership is traditionally a left-wing position

I'm glad we agree. Nationalization is left-wing.

public ownership is not left wing because leftist don't support the STATE per se, but the PUBLIC

I disagree. But nice semantics.

 

[Earthling]

Yes, and if, say, a king owns something, that is NOT public ownership, and hence not left-wing. Glad if everyone could agree on that.

 

[aelf]

Feel free to refute my claims or provide a link I can read. I'm not exactly making up fairy stories am I? The "west" has become a pack of morally bankrupt, lazy, me first, cretins. Nice one liners though.

Rather a high level of Fe there.

 

[Earthling]

Actually, it's more questionable how a painting can be considered a one liner, or maybe he just "aimee's fallcy" 'd my post.

 

[Ecofarm]

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.

 

[Princeps]

I'm glad we agree. Nationalization is left-wing.

State ownership is not inherently left-wing, because it doesn't prescribe public democratic state. The state can be privately owned and it was in the NS Germany and the USSR.

I disagree. But nice semantics.

They are not semantics. Semantics is about the interpitation of a meaning of a word. I offered a different interpitation of the theories and the realities, but also provided a deeper meaning to this term public which we usually freely use as a word for government, regardless of its form.

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

No, considerations like the purpose of state ownership and the control and ownership of the state itself are not irrelevant. They have been essential parts of political theorizing.

I'm sure Mao, Pol and Stalin al claimed that the state was of and for the people.

But that's irrelevant. Indeed, the Bolsheviks didn't come to power through the ballot box, which they ignored when the vote turned against them, but they came to power through violence and that was they way they imposed their rule. The "will of the people" is something they used to delude themselves and others.

The concentration of financial power in the state is patently leftist.

No, it is statist, which can be of many allegiances.

If leftists were worried about the public, they'd hand out tax breaks instead of consolidate power in the state.

That's a ridiculous presumption. "the leftards dont want public good, because they disagree with me, and i know what's good for the public!"112312".

First of all, leftists do promise tax cuts. Remember the middle class tax cut promises in the Obama campaign for instance? There are plenty of cases where social democratic and other left-wing governments have used lefist rhetoric to justify tax relief. But, generally, leftists believe that the government is necessary to overcome inequalities and other problems of laissez faire.

 

[Earthling]

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

Ecofarm, that's your own made-up definition of "left-wing," and certainly not true. Furthermore, it has pretty much never been true in the entire history of the use of the term, so you really have nothing to stand on. It doesn't get much wronger than this.

 

[Ecofarm]

Deny it all you want. Nationalization is left-wing. Always has been, always will be.

 

[aelf]

Actually, it's more questionable how a painting can be considered a one liner, or maybe he just "aimee's fallcy" 'd my post.

They say that a picture speaks a thousand words, but a one-liner is a one-liner even if it came with a "Disprove what I'm saying, suckers!" challenge before it.

 

[Masada]

Deny it all you want. Nationalization is left-wing. Always has been, always will be.

Suharto must always have been a left winger in disguise then!

 

[Earthling]

Deny it all you want. Nationalization is left-wing. Always has been, always will be.

...you ought to know that the origin of the terms "left-wing" versus "right-wing" began with French revolutionaries who opposed the monarchy basically owning and controlling everything. Unless you have an argument for why the French and other monarchies weren't "state ownership" you continue to be entirely wrong...and I suspect you don't, you just happen to know nothing of the history.



Also,

a one-liner is a one-liner even if it came with a "Disprove what I'm saying, suckers!" challenge before it.

I never said that aelf.

 

[Phlegmak]

Why would defecate into the eyes of forum goers by posting that garbage?

Any fascist here want to move to North Korea?

It would be beautiful if at least the Commies that support it would go there.