1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Far-Right Ideology in the 21st Century

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hamid.H, May 18, 2019.

  1. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,265
    not what I was saying...
    maybe you think an absolute monarch with unchecked power was better... as you so opposed to your own Republics attempts at something different with how elections and Democracy work...
     
  2. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Vs Stalins mass murder the Tsar was an improvement. The Tsar was an idiot though.

    It's like Syria if your choice is Assad or Isis he doesn't look so bad.
     
  3. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,144
    I can't see a consistent point or stance you're actually trying to make here. You're waffling and being wishy-washy in your posts. What are you trying to say, here, exactly?
     
  4. Traitorfish

    Traitorfish The Tighnahulish Kid

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2005
    Messages:
    31,425
    Location:
    Scotland
    Explain what? My point was that militant anti-communism predates Stalinism, so cannot be explained in reference to it.

    There's a solid decade between Nicholas and Uncle Joe, so it doesn't really make a lot of sense to present a choice between one and the other.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  5. caketastydelish

    caketastydelish 49ers 2019

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2008
    Messages:
    7,559
    Gender:
    Male
    Then, in that case, I stand corrected. My point is that anti-communism did not predate Stalin because of my reasoning. Thank you for this; I like learning new things.
     
  6. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Well Lenin was bad as well. The main point being that anti communism was a perfectly rational choice in the 1920's. The Soviet execution of the Tsar did not play well internationally. Communist party membership in the West also went down in 1956 and 67 iirc after they cracked down on the Hungarians and Czechs.

    Before the holocaust and WW2 supporting fascists makes perfectly rational sense based on what the communists were up to.

    These days people will support populism due to immigration, out of touch elites, economic reasons etc.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  7. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,144
    By that reasoning, Monarchial reactionary policies were a rational choice in the 1810's because of what happened in France.

    The REAL question is, were either truly a RATIONAL choice, even given the context of the times? Or were both just fear-driven buffalo jumps by mass groupthink with no rationality, in truth, at all?
     
  8. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    It was they restored some monarchies after Napoleon was defeated. There was a reason why the surrounding nation's hated the French revolution.
     
  9. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,144
    That wasn't my question. Were the move to Monarchial reactionary policies in the 1810's, and the move to radical, Fascistic anti-Communist movements in the 1920's and 1930's RATIONAL, or merely fear-driven mass groupthink?
     
  10. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    IDK wasn't there. Probably a bit of both. We're looking back with the benefit of hindsight and different values.
     
  11. Patine

    Patine Warlord

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,144
    The question I'm posing is not about "values."
     
  12. Ironsided

    Ironsided Flower of happiness

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Messages:
    780
    Making the rich richer and the poor poorer is far more correctly contributed a modern day "liberal" agenda, intended or not.

    I do agree a liberal Social Democracy is a very potent cure for radicalisation. The key here is to define the liberal part – because done poorly like we do today – it will have an adverse effect. Popular radicalisation stems from - not a “sense of” - but very real unfair conditions in society, local and global. It always does. A society that tell people they are all equal but treat them nothing of the sort.

    There are ideologies behind radical movements and parties but they are not very palatable to ordinary people who are in a right state of mind and has a secure position in society. The honest to god radicals are about the same proportion as of psychopaths in society which I believe is maybe 3-4%. At least nowhere near 15%-30%. The lure to go radical is to give the establishment a wakeup call. It’s our new times, lazy, low key, protest manifestation. Sort of: “I work two jobs to make ends meet, I have to sell and tell on my friends to get ahead, and now we take in a million refugees, fudge that” That’s where radicalisation happens today in our liberal societies. Bless the French for actually actively protesting.

    I just think too many people have a hard time understanding what “liberal Social Democracy” is. It’s nothing like what we have in Sweden and it’s certainly not what you have in Norway. The most hopeful voices of real liberal Social Democracy comes from the counties that probably need it the most urgent. The USA via Bernie Sanders, AOC and the new grassroots movement they facilitate. Also in the UK where you have Corbyn shifting focus to the real issues of the country.

    Social Democracy is innately liberal without having to add the word, in fact far more liberal than your average “Liberal parties”. Liberal is a word that has lost but all meaning in politics because it’s been misused and stretched out of all proportion. In Sweden a core pillar of the liberal party agenda is for Sweden to join NATO. It’s pushed on every campaign they’ve had in the last 30 years. Because that’s where their "liberal" friends are. The ones who work for “us vs. them” mentality. The ones who rigged the world into a radical mess of inequality and unfair advantages.

    It’s extremely telling that you tally Russians, Chinese and Arabs as tyrants when some of the worst atrocities in modern times are committed by very coalition of idiotic and willing liberal nations in NATO.

    What we certainly do not need “more of” when fighting radicals is cotton candy liberals. We do need more Social democracy – like yesterday – and all the liberty and inclusion that Social democracy entails.
     
  13. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    I don't think far right economics are take from poor give to rich. That's neo liberal and I think that economic pressure is driving that hence the blowback against immigrants

    The cure I think broadly speaking is left wing economics but without the left wing social agendas. This means tough luck to mass immigrants, taxes on rich go up and a less focus on minories etc. When you focus on minorities the majority basically hears you don't care about us. White privilege exists but not so much for poor whites etc.

    Increased social spending on the poor via taxes on rich puts more money into the economy and makes the spending neutral even if poor minorities benefit disproportionally as they are poorer. It also helps out poor whites. You also need to help the middle class so they don't get to annoyed and vote for the right. That's probably things like working for families which we have here where you get money from the government for having kids even if you are not as poor as others.
     
  14. Peuri

    Peuri Game

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2005
    Messages:
    537
    Location:
    European Union
    Tsarist Russia was not as industrialized as it's western counterparts, but when compared to them, things were progressing nicely. Russia's population had quadrupled during the 19th century, tsarist Russia had enourmous possibilities and as such enjoyed a healthy level of immigration (which reversed in direction during the communist regime) and foreign investments, former serfs were slowly digging themselves out of dept slavery and it's GDP was also growing at almost the rate of 5-10% per annum. Tsarist Russia was as big as it was powerful. Russia had internal problems, sure, but the Bolshevik coup was by no means dictated by Kleio herself, nor was it necessary for Russia to industrialize. That was already happening at a good rate.
     
  15. BornInCantaloup

    BornInCantaloup A Shadow for the Warrior

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2010
    Messages:
    3,948
    Location:
    Cantaloupe Island
    A good third of Europe was communist in 1910. All of France, Germany, the UK could have elected communist governments around that time.
    I think the same holds true for the USA. It would have made the "Communist international" a lot more credible if the USSR hadn't been isolated.
    Hence the support from the big capital industries to fascist movements.

    @ WW II : isn't it until 1941, 1942 (?) that US industrials kept on trading with Germany (Ford and the like and loans from banks) ?
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2019
  16. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,468
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia

    :rolleyes: GDP is a ridiculous measure when it's applied to countries that have a virtual slave caste.
    It doesn't account for how "wealth" (inter alia: social, health, and financial) are distributed between all of the citizens of a country.
     
  17. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Russia abolished serfdom in 1863. Had they not overthrown the Tsar, and if the Tsar was a bit smarter with things like reform Russia would have industrialised fast and living standards were increasing.

    Apparently it was high enough that they would have outstripped Soviet production. No collectivization and mass murder of the people needed.

    This was assuming Russia stayed out of WW1.
     
  18. Ferocitus

    Ferocitus Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,468
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Adelaide, South Australia
    That is completely useless crystal-ball gazing.
    If all of those things happened, and nothing else happened that would upset the prediction, it would be perfect!
     
  19. Manfred Belheim

    Manfred Belheim Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    Messages:
    6,407
    Could we rename this thread "Far-Left Ideology in the 19th and 20th Centuries"?
     
    TheMeInTeam and Old Hippy like this.
  20. Zardnaar

    Zardnaar Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    3,718
    Location:
    Dunedin, New Zealand
    Main point was the Tsar wasn't that bad compared to what followed.

    People support the extreme right for a variety of reasons. In the 20s it was because of communism. A reaction against the extreme left these days is also a reason. To a lot of people Trump didn't look bad compared to Hilary in 2016. Buyers remorse in the 2018 mid terms.

    Same idea in 2020, any Democratic candidate is going to look good. There's 23 standing as they sense weakness and there's a good chance Trump is annihilated. Compare with 2016 and only Sanders really stood against Hilary.

    It came across as one of those smoke filled room type deals. Personally I would have voted for Hilary in 2016 if I was American but voting for Trump was entirely rational, Hilary was crap candidate.
     

Share This Page