CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist
- Thread starter Zardnaar
- Start date
ComradeDavo
Formerly God
This is why I can never take your arguments seriously. Your thinking is so one dimensional, the typical 'i'm right, your wrong' approach.
Gotta pick up on this.....only certain brands of leftism promote expaning the state. 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, drugs...sex...cencorship etc. Whereas many rightists want to see more control in those areas. So in fact me, a leftwinger, values individually far more than concervatives and alike in my country. For a start how can someone say that the rightwing values individuality more than me when many rightists would ban homosexuality/gay marriage when I think ot should be the individuals choice? So your arguments is a bunch of rubbish really if you bothered thinking about it.
Princeps
More bombs than God
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2004
- Messages
- 5,265
That's sad.
How sad.
But that doesn't make you a fascist.
Most welfare recipients also seek work, so I dont see the problem.
Not really. Mostly its the opposite. The developing countries used to grow, but since they implemented right wing policies from the 70s and 80s onward, they've become more unstable, witnessed more frequent and destructive financial crises, their growth stagnated, and so forth.
Culture is a matter of personal choice. I don't care if my neighbour is a muslim or something, why should you?
,
There is generally no link between immigration and crime. There might be some. It takes time for law-enforcement to penetrate into immigrant communities effectively. It takes time for immigrants to develop the same degree of informal social networks that natives have (and since 80 % of jobs are filled through informal associations, it's important that they do). Etc.
No. A welfare state reduces poverty and dependency, which is partially why states which have no functioning weflare state usually have lots of both.
And the solution is to throw their parents into the street to sell trinkets to eek out a living?
I don't care.
Because the white folks inherited the wealth accumilated historically in conditions of privilege for the whites and discriminatory policies toward black folks which prevented them from accumilating roughly similar proportion of wealth. And these policies weren't just 'some' bad things, they were radical atrocities which backwarded an entire continent, rendered millions of people into property, and all the while, the folks who profited from this trade grew affluent or spectacularly rich (as in the case of the white southern plantation barons). The fact that blacks (and others and blacks elsewhere) were so harshly discriminated against, reduced the chances of their offspring to inherit estate, to receive quality education and therefore to succeed economically (in avarage compared to white folks). Compared to the radical violence and discrimination of the past, Affermative Action, for example, is quite small tweeking and it is compensatory in nature.
Except it isn't. I agree that any solutions that are forced to deal with the fact of racial division (since race is basically a social construct) are going to be ugly in some way. But Afrm. action, for example, seeks to compensate for historical trends that have come about because of past discriminatory policies. I believe that compensatory justice is very important.
Democracy, while not perfect, i'd argue has a far better record than any other form of government. Especially your fascism (and its close cousin, stalinism), which doesn't have a good record IN ANYTHING, at all, except perhaps in the production of guns.
If you dislike deficit spending, you should hate fascism. Of course, Hitler and Mussolini didn't spend on the people and their needs, irrelevant as they were to them as they are to you, but primarily on armaments production and war preparation, and supporting industries. Meanwhile, labor unions were brutally crushed, wages were deliberately dropped, industries were cartelized, big bosses and agrobusiness was pampered, and even the recovery from the great depression, lead by the housing sector, was deliberately sabotaged to provide labor for arms production.
I disagree. I think politicians have plenty of incentives. And when they don't, that's not the fault of democracy, but usually the lack of it. Meanwhile, fascist dictators and other totalitarians... well, i wont even bother to go over their sordid records. Princes, totalitarianists, dictotors and so forth also make promises, but they break them more frequently. (indeed, the fact that they have to impose their rule and be dictators is a more of a sign of their incompetence and weakness than strenght.
No, Rhodesia and other African countries are in the problems that they are today precisely because of western policies today and in the past. Slavery and colonialism can account for 90 % of Africa's backwardness in relation to other mid-income developing countries.
That's ridicolous. The reason why Africa's population increased greatly was due to the agricultural revolution there, which co-incided with the green revolution. The reason why this didn't lead to generally improved economy and industrialization was largely because of western policies.
The nazis are not hated because of media demonization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost
Yes, to be more specific, the Germans were welcomed as liberators in the Poland, Belarus and west Ukraine regions (etc), partially helping their quick advance. But further east they got, the more hostile the population grew.
But there is a darker side to this. The fact that the Germans were helped by the locals, actually allowed them to be so destructive toward Jews, Gypsies and other minorities. Local co-operation was vital in the holocaust. A lot of Jews, Gypsies and communists were rounded up by loyal village constaples.
Yes because they were lied to. Hitler might have called for European co-operation when he felt he was losing, but whenever he felt victorious and certain of German triumph, he'd quickly revert to a hostile and arrogant approach toward the occupied and his allies. He believed that any sign of solidarity or co-operation, instead of imperialist posturing, would be interpited as a sign of weakness. He called this 'realism'. He might have been more successful if he hadn't had this "realism".
So the idea that the nazi leadership, other than the weak and meaningless foreign affairs ministry, supported some kind of meaningful co-operation based on anti-bolshevik solidarity is a myth.
Actually, the German actions in the world war probably resulting in something like 60 million deaths, which is more than enough. And these were policies of vicious aggression, as opposed to misguided communist economics.
And Stalinist policies weren't that different from Hitlers, they just had different emphasis and priorities. Both regimes were murderous not because they were strong, but because they were weak, sinister and incompetent.
That's true.
Well, individual soverignity is a myth. The thing left and fascism has in common is that they both recgonize this. The difference is that the left seeks to improve the world for all, the fascists seek to destroy it for everyone else except their own.
No. The fascists concentrated economic control in the hands of their party bosses and cartels. Meanwhile, the labor unions were sacked, wages for the majority were diminished, higher ups pampered, the workers were whipped into arms production. Etc. The nazi regime was a regime of the bosses, not the workers. This is not leftism at all.
TheLastOne36
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2007
- Messages
- 14,045
CFC made me athiest!
Just to clear something up:
Obama is not right-wing. Even if Glenn Beck or whomever says Obama is a racist, he is not. Obama is not a racist, religious fundamentalist, anarchist, or many other related things. Obama is clearly left-wing. He may be considered a little rightist if you don't agree with calling him economically centrist though.
Obama is not right-wing. Even if Glenn Beck or whomever says Obama is a racist, he is not. Obama is not a racist, religious fundamentalist, anarchist, or many other related things. Obama is clearly left-wing. He may be considered a little rightist if you don't agree with calling him economically centrist though.
Leonel
Breakfast Connoisseur
Strange. I found that CFC OT got me leaning more to the left than the right.
But don't tell leonel from 2005 that.
But don't tell leonel from 2005 that.
Ecofarm
Deity
Of course it is. 100% left-wing economics.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Ummmm... Obama is right of center by US standards.
is not a sufficient argument to overcome the a priori case for Obama being left of center by US standards due to being the Democratic candidate and the Democratic Party being left of center by US standards.
But the Democratic party is to the right of the average American person. So the a priori case is that a Democratic pol is right of center for America. And since American politics is all far right compared to most European politics, Democrats are pretty much universally right of center.
Ecofarm
Deity
Nonsense. 1/2 the votes went right. If the average person was left of the democrats, conservatives would get few votes.
Considering the vote was pretty much split, I'd say the average USian is between the dems and repubs and leans according to particular issues.
Of course some people are so far left that Obama looks like Bush to them, and you end up with nonsense like the quote above.
Zardnaar
Deity
I never claim fascism was perfect and that was primarily its downfall was the racism and expansionism associated with the Germanic version of it. Hitler was an idiot. Fascism lasted until 1975 in Spain which is a better place than most of the communist countries became economically etc. Italy didn't persecute Jews for example until pressured into it by the Germans. World probably would have been a better place if the Germans won WW1. No Hitler, no communists and German imperial policy seemed more humane than the anglo version practiced.
As to a few other points. I don't mind deficit spending as such as long as the money isn't squandered. We never used to have a welfare state here and of course an extreme minority of people were poor, but they giot by. The welfare state has expanded the amountof people on poverty, not reduced it. Fascism doesn't seem opposed to welfare spending, but is opposed to universal handouts for doing nothing.
Multiculturalism has never done the world any favours. One ethnic group will always dominate or exploit another. Always has, and always will. Imperialism is a prime example of that or the Balkens, or the Roman Empire or China, or New Zealand or the destruction of the Native Americans. It just leads to ethnic strife or the discriminated minority usually had high crime rates
No it didn't.
Ecofarm
Deity
You're confusing social and economic policy. Collectivist economic policy is left wing - period.
Socially, both groups want control via government.
