CFC Off Topic Turned Me Into a Fascist

[ParkCungHee]

Government control of the means of production = left wing. Period.

So this I assume makes the Tsar of Russia, or the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire raving leftists, correct?
And the Tudor policy of surrender and regrant?

 

[Ecofarm]

They pursued left-wing economic policy. If to you that = "raving leftist", then that's your problem.

 

[Sofista]

Well, Erik's looking at early Fascism. This was a program drawn up by, sure, a bunch of Arditi, but those guys were outnumbered at the Milan meeting by students, syndicalists, and even Futurists. They were the ones who started the original Fasci di Combattimento as the third way opposing Socialists (who were unpopular for having to admit the failures of the war) and the Popolari (who were unpopular because lol reactionary papacy).

Within eight months the whole idea of a third way caught on so quick that the November 1919 elections had sixteen different 'Fascist' parties putting up candidates with platforms like Mussolini's and d'Annunzio's, which had little to do with the original manifesto. And the failure of the Fascist parties in 1919 meant that the ones who survived would determine what the term meant from then on out; enter the ras local "big man" leaders like Farinacci and Balbo, who took advantage of popular fear of the proposed expanded Socialist platform and ongoing strikes to remake the movement in their own image, and to a lesser extent the image of Mussolini. And then later Mussolini got to mold Fascism into the corporatist, centralized military display show it ended up being best known as.

Correct.

Another proto-Fascist text is D'Annunzio's Carta del Carnaro, combining Arditism and Esthetism.

 

[ParkCungHee]

They pursued left-wing economic policy. If to you that = "raving leftist", then that's your problem.

So you feel that a economic policy to the "left" of the soviet union is a moderate one?

 

[Earthling]

This is all kinda irrelevent, since Ecofarm changed his argument to pretend he only meant economic policy, and likely will argue he meant that the whole time when it's obviously not so to everyone else. Though in a sense, there are still some examples of nationalization that can't really be called anything economically on just a left-right basis because they're not about economics - war-related is a good start.

 

[Ecofarm]

This is all kinda irrelevent, since Ecofarm changed his argument to pretend he only meant economic policy, and likely will argue he meant that the whole time when it's obviously not so to everyone else.

I didn't change any argument. I have been clear from the beginning and on multiple occasions that I was referring to economic policy.


First post:

Of course it is. 100% left-wing economics.

Another post in this thread:

You're confusing social and economic policy. Collectivist economic policy is left wing - period.

Socially, both groups want control via government.

Another post in this thread:

Concentrating the means of production into the hands of the government is left wing economics.

Another post in this thread:

Any time property is nationalized, it happens under the left-wing economic banner. Period.

Another post in this thread:

Once again, let's note that we are discussing economic wings, not social policy.

Another post in this thread:

Government financial control = left wing.

Another post in this thread:

I laugh and laugh everytime some left-winger tries to tell me that left-wing economic policy is not authoritarian. It just shows how little they really understand politics.

Another post in this thread:

Right wing economic policy would have privatized it... aka, let the market decide.

Still this thread:

Nationalizing is left wing economic policy

You're excused. Go make BS up about someone else.

 

[Earthling]

That's not the first post on the topic. And you made posts using just the phrase "left-wing" without 'economics' mentioned at all, which doesn't even get started on the fact that using "left-wing" to describe solely economics even when you say 'economics' is stupid.

 

[Whomp]

I honestly don't give a toss for other ethnic groups. They can do what they want. I just don't believe letting the dregs of Africa or the middle east into Europe for example is a good thing. Or Mexicans in the USA. I'm not opposed to immigration as such but mass immigration of the 3rd world isn't doing anyone any good. I'm not racist in the extent I want to persecute other groups, but I'm not a naive fool that thinks you won't have ethnic strife and we can all live togather in happy happy la la land.

I do as involves alot of personal information. Boredom and apathy seems to have screwed it up and I'm not blameless in this regard.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5295073&postcount=71

Could your issue have anything to do with this?

 

[Earthling]

You're excused. Go make BS up about someone else.

Using the phrase "left-wing" at all from the start would mean to the average person you weren't using some vague definition of "total privatisation is right-wing, anything not is left-wing." Considering you never endeavored at the start to present your own made-up definition of "economic left-wing," and other posters would be assuming the real one (which also, other posters in the thread were already talking about) your argument wasn't clear at all until recently, when you just want to make some tautology that didn't make your earlier posts look foolish.

 

[Ecofarm]

I was very clear (as illustrated above). Your post (personal attack) against me was complete BS. Move on.

Inventing a bunch of extremes and blah blah is not making you look any better.

 

[Earthling]

So, you admit you were just wrong in your definition of left-wing then?

 

[Ecofarm]

This is all kinda irrelevent, since Ecofarm changed his argument to pretend he only meant economic policy, and likely will argue he meant that the whole time when it's obviously not so to everyone else.

I said good day.

 

[Earthling]

Your post (personal attack) against me was complete BS.

Smilies don't count as personal attacks, and I've done nothing of the sort. Like I said, your original contribution to this argument, which was already ongoing among various other posters discussing "left-wing" vs. "right-wing" was to make another assertion that nationalization was left-wing. Maybe you didn't change your argument when you presented your own (and unreasonable) definition of left-wing - a reasonable poster would assume before you were talking about what everyone else was talking about, but if not, and you'd thought you'd been using your own definition the whole time, that still doesn't change the fact that it's still silly and wrong to make these accusations about "left-wing."

 

[Imperialmajesty]

The OP makes me think the poster doesn't have a clue what fascism is.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wouldn't call it la la land, but the fact of the matter is my Father is a White man and my Mother is Mexican woman.

I can assure you that they were both very much in love together when they raised me.

Family is important. Are they still togather if you don't mind me asking? Over here the liberals threw the baby out with the bathwater and broken homes are very commen.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I'd kick my kid out if they turned into a fascist.

 

[Zardnaar]

The OP makes me think the poster doesn't have a clue what fascism is.

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?

 

[Earthling]

However they were a product of their times and the ealry fascists literally fought street battles against the communists in Germany and elsewhere.

 

[mechaerik]

I've also beome very disillusioned with demoracy. The USA is one example but a similar problem exists in all western democracy's. Basically the electorate votes for whats best for them, not whats best for the country. Election time is essentially an auction using your money to throw at some group the parasitic parlimentarians/senators/congressmen hope to entice for your vote. Essentially they borrow money to deficit spend- its like trying to keep the local alcoholic drunk all the time but paying for it using multiple credit cards and being in permanent debt to someone else. Doesn't matter if its a left/right government or Republican/Democrat or whatever. Theres no incentive for them to actually do a good job except at election time where they hope the voter forgets their previous crimes, or they can vilify the opposition enough to scare the voters into voting for them (Bush=evil, Obama = communist etc)

Yeah, this gets me too. Democracy, like Communism, works when people are willing to put the interests of the many over their own.

3. They were fighting against the Soviets, not for the Nazis.

Yes, some soldiers in the German Army fought not for Hitler, but for Germany. They fought for their country, because they thought it was the honorable thing to do.

5. The Communists (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot repression in post WW2 europe) killed alot more people than the Nazis ever did Holocaust included.
6. Not much focus on Allied war crimes (Dresden etc)

The Allies bombed Dresden not for military purposes, but to reduce morale in Germany. I hear Dresden is a beautiful city, shame what happened to it.

The liberals are trying to save the world, but they're destroying it more than the right ever did, then and now. I think my ideal state would be some sort of non racist neo fascist (pre WW2 Italy) state with an isolationist foreign policy like Switzerland. Tkae the good bits of Fascism and throw out the racist parts as glorified by Herr Hitler who has become a caricture. No i dopn't like Hitler (to stupid and militaristic) but I've been called a Nazi more than once by various *******s.

Well, I don't know about this part. Certainly, a strong central state is good, as it is more effective than a lot of people arguing, but with great power comes corruption. An ideal state cannot exist. The absolute ideal state would have a strong central authority (likely unitary), working for the good of the people. But the problem is, corruption could find a fertile breeding ground in such a State. I also don't agree with the word "*******". Liberalism in and of itself is not bad; it is the force of change, and has brought the concept of natural rights, equality, free speech, and many other concepts. Of course there are those who aren't so bright on it's side, but this is true for almost any cause.


I should also point out that the type of Communism seen in the world is not true Communism. It has many aspects of Fascist ideology (whatever that is). Economically, it's more "Your stuff is ours" than "It's everyone's stuff". Really, more deserving of the title Commufascism.

 

[Gustave5436]

So this I assume makes the Tsar of Russia, or the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire raving leftists, correct?
And the Tudor policy of surrender and regrant?

Bismarck was also a communist.

Innocent civilians being murdered by fascist traitors? Absurd, what nonsense.

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

Any fascist here want to move to North Korea?