Blame on both sides

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought you were all for freedom of speech? Why is it not good for the Guardian posting someone's opinion on a current affair? :p

That won't work on me Amp :p You're trying to trip me up, you know what i meant..

I asked you how you feel about Milo "doxxing" protestors to make their lives hell (his words) and how that fits with your opinion on the supressing freedom of speech. It's basically another form of supressing freedom of speech - threatening protestors with hell if they protest against him.

Errm, not good obviously, but he's been backed into a corner, don't be surprised if he bites i suppose, you mention the doxxing he did, i would suggest it started when he received death threats, if i remember, it wasn't Berkeley though, it was a different talk. Let's be honest, his talks aren't worthy of death threats, are they? so i suppose he's retaliated, although i don't agree and he should have just been the bigger person
 
All 30,000 were there to protest against freedom of speech? Nothing to do with the events in Charlottesville?

Yes, all 30,000 were there to protest against freedom of speech because that was the purpose and result of the protest.

Some of them might have thought that by protesting against freedom of speech they were doing something else, but that's irrelevant. They did what they did.

If by "they" you mean a small minority then perhaps I'd agree with you.

No, I mean all of them. An unknown number were useful idiots who were protesting against freedom of speech while thinking they were doing something else, but they were still protesting against freedom of speech. That's the point of using useful idiots - they do one thing while thinking they're doing something else. It increases the power of the people using them, giving them more support and numbers than they actually have.
 
Yes, all 30,000 were there to protest against freedom of speech because that was the purpose and result of the protest.

Some of them might have thought that by protesting against freedom of speech they were doing something else, but that's irrelevant. They did what they did.



No, I mean all of them. An unknown number were useful idiots who were protesting against freedom of speech while thinking they were doing something else, but they were still protesting against freedom of speech. That's the point of using useful idiots - they do one thing while thinking they're doing something else. It increases the power of the people using them, giving them more support and numbers than they actually have.

The vast majority were there to protest against Nazism and white supremacy. Admittedly that could arguably be a protest against free speech, but I doubt many would agree that thats the sort of free speech people should be protecting.

If your counter protest is so big that it drowns out the actual protest itself then that in itself is a form of free speech.

Also it turns out that that guy that was apparently stabbed for looking like an Neo Nazi was lying. He cut himself accidentally...

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/28/denver-area-arrest-neo-nazi-stabbing/
 
That won't work on me Amp :p You're trying to trip me up, you know what i meant..
More a light hearted joke than a trick, but :p

Errm, not good obviously, but he's been backed into a corner, don't be surprised if he bites i suppose, you mention the doxxing he did, i would suggest it started when he received death threats, if i remember, it wasn't Berkeley though, it was a different talk. Let's be honest, his talks aren't worthy of death threats, are they? so i suppose he's retaliated, although i don't agree and he should have just been the bigger person

Arguably no different than what many on the "left" are doing. People just "justify" specifics depending on whether it's "their side" or not. They both bounce off of each other.

I guess that leads to the question of if you're the "bigger person" does your voice get heard. I think one of the reasons there have been such large protests since Charlottesville. People decided to stand up and be heard, to try and push the Neo Nazis and KKK back into the shadows where they belong - the downside being sometimes they aim for the wrong targets.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/28/today-1930s-real-fascism-comes-left/amp/

I have being saying this for years, perhaps the tide is turning.

An opinion piece by Norman Tebbit, who I guess anyone left of Thatcher would look like a tree hugging hippy to him

Are we still trying to argue that Mussolini 'the father of modern fascism' was a 'lefty'? :D

As I keep saying, Fascism is not the preserve of the right or left, it is an authoritarian trait that is exhibited by both sides

A bit basic but let's see what Wiki has to say on Fascism in the 30's

Fascism in Europe was composed of numerous ideologies present during the 20th century which all developed their own differences from each other. Fascism was born in Italy; subsequently, several movements across Europe which took influence from the Italian faction emerged.

The most striking difference is the racialist and anti-Semitic ideology present in Nazism but not the other ideologies. Fascism was founded on the principle of nationalist unity, against the divisionist class war ideology of Socialism and Communism.

Fascism was founded on the principle of nationalist unity, against the divisionist class war ideology of Socialism and Communism...

Hmm, doesn't sound that 'lefty' to me


And back to the thread, even the United Nations condemned Trump for claiming there was some sort of moral equivalence over the Charlotesville protests

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...eo-nazis-kkk-anastasia-crickley-a7907876.html
 
Last edited:
Also it turns out that that guy that was apparently stabbed for looking like an Neo Nazi was lying. He cut himself accidentally...

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/28/denver-area-arrest-neo-nazi-stabbing/

Weirdly reminiscent of that story of a women who falsely claimed to have a B carved on her face by Democrat voters a few years back.

A lot of the photos of anti-fascists causing trouble at the Charlottesville rally have proven to be fake too. Most have actually been protesters from Greece a couple of years ago.
 
Hmm, doesn't sound that 'lefty' to me l

This is because people frequently misunderstand the meaning of the terms.

Traditionally, left meant revolutionary and right meant reactionary. Fascism can be seen as both reactionary and revolutionary depending upon the current socio-economic paradigm. Mussolini described it as both at different times.

Economically, left refers to social ownership and right wing refers to capitalist ownership. Again fascism could actually fall into either category as they do favour state ownership of many industries and a model of corporatism that is left wing compared to say neo liberal free market economies, but also they do also support capitalism.

And socially the left advocate "progressive" values, whereas the right favour traditional values. Again, fascism was relatively progressive in some elements whilst strongly traditional in others.

The authoritarianism element of has no place on the traditional left/right axis, as both left and right are authoritarian at the extremes.
 
Again fascism could actually fall into either category as they do favour state ownership of many industries and a model of corporatism that is left wing compared to say neo liberal free market economies, but also they do also support capitalism.

The Nazis pushed through aggressive privatisation, comparable to any modern government and way ahead of its time for the early-to-mid 20th century.

They were national socialistics in the same way that the Democractic People's Republic of Korea is democractic. The socialist aspect was a fabrication to appeal to a wider voter base.

To call fascism neither strictly left or right is to ignore its history completely. It's a right-wing ideology.
 
I think that's because people mix up Authoritarian and Fascism

Fascism is more a right wing political ideology whereas Authoritarianism is a trait that can be exhibited by either side.
 
I think that's because people mix up Authoritarian and Fascism

Fascism is more a right wing political ideology whereas Authoritarianism is a trait that can be exhibited by either side.
There's those political spectrum tests that use two axes - left/right and libertarian/authoritarian. It's far too simplistic to lump everything into left/right as most people seem to do.
 
The Nazis pushed through aggressive privatisation, comparable to any modern government and way ahead of its time for the early-to-mid 20th century.

They were national socialistics in the same way that the Democractic People's Republic of Korea is democractic. The socialist aspect was a fabrication to appeal to a wider voter base.

To call fascism neither strictly left or right is to ignore its history completely. It's a right-wing ideology.

The Nazi's were just one form of fascism though. I've explained where fascism sits within the left/right dichotomy depending on how you define it. Do you have any substantive response to that?

Which definition of the left/right dichotomy are you using?
 
The Nazi's were just one form of fascism though.

Yes, and of all the groups in the 30's and 40's that promoted fascism which of those were left leaning?

However, commonly the following European ideologies are also described as forms of, or strongly related to fascism:
The most striking difference is the racialist and anti-Semitic ideology present in Nazism but not the other ideologies. Fascism was founded on the principle of nationalist unity, against the divisionist class war ideology of Socialism and Communism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe


I've explained where fascism sits within the left/right dichotomy depending on how you define it. Do you have any substantive response to that?

Which definition of the left/right dichotomy are you using?

I know it's down to interpretation but I'm not so sure about that.

The way I see it, Fascism is a right wing political ideology, which is a subset of Authoritarianism - which Authoritarianism can be a trait of the right - Hitler, Mussolini etc or the Left - Stalin, Pol Pot
 
Which definition of the left/right dichotomy are you using?

I'm using the same as you but backing it up with examples from history. I think what Mussolini said should largely be ignored and we should concentrate on what he did. He smashed the unions and led a policy of corporatism.

Could you give us examples of large nationalism programmes initiated by fascists? Which fascist regimes had progressive social policies and what were they?
 
I'm using the same as you but backing it up with examples from history. I think what Mussolini said should largely be ignored and we should concentrate on what he did. He smashed the unions and led a policy of corporatism.

Could you give us examples of large nationalism programmes initiated by fascists? Which fascist regimes had progressive social policies and what were they?

As you say yourself, they had a policy of corporatism. Corporatism is hardly a right wing policy as it places industry at the disposal of the nation. This was generally true of all fascists states: private industry was subservient to the nation.
 
The vast majority were there to protest against Nazism and white supremacy. Admittedly that could arguably be a protest against free speech, but I doubt many would agree that thats the sort of free speech people should be protecting.

If your counter protest is so big that it drowns out the actual protest itself then that in itself is a form of free speech.

Also it turns out that that guy that was apparently stabbed for looking like an Neo Nazi was lying. He cut himself accidentally...

http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/28/denver-area-arrest-neo-nazi-stabbing/

And yet it will be shared endlessly by the alt-right on social media, despite it being a fabrication.
 
Yes, and of all the groups in the 30's and 40's that promoted fascism which of those were left leaning?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism_in_Europe




I know it's down to interpretation but I'm not so sure about that.

The way I see it, Fascism is a right wing political ideology, which is a subset of Authoritarianism - which Authoritarianism can be a trait of the right - Hitler, Mussolini etc or the Left - Stalin, Pol Pot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism

Structural Deficit, Public Works and Social Welfare[edit]
Referring to the economics of John Maynard Keynes as “useful introduction to fascist economics,” Mussolini spent Italy into a structural deficit that grew exponentially.[12] In Mussolini’s first year as Prime Minister in 1922, Italy’s national debt stood at 93 billion lire. By 1934, Italian historian Gaetano Salvemini, estimated Italy’s national debt had risen to 148,646,000,000 lire.[13] In 1943 the New York Times put Italy’s national debt as 405,823,000,000 lire.[14]

A former school teacher, Mussolini’s spending on the public sector, schools and infrastructure was considered extravagant. Mussolini “instituted a programme of public works hitherto unrivalled in modern Europe. Bridges, canals and roads were built, hospitals and schools, railway stations and orphanages; swamps were drained and land reclaimed, forests were planted and universities were endowed.”[15] As for the scope and spending on social welfare programs, Italian fascism “compared favorably with the more advanced European nations and in some respect was more progressive.”[16] When New York city politician Grover Aloysius Whalen asked Mussolini about the meaning behind Italian Fascism in 1939, the reply was: “It is like your New Deal![17]

By 1925 the Fascist government had “embarked upon an elaborate program” that included food supplementary assistance, infant care, maternity assistance, general healthcare, wage supplements, paid vacations, unemployment benefits, illness insurance, occupational disease insurance, general family assistance, public housing, and old age and disability insurance.[18] As for public works, “the Mussolini’s administration “devoted 400 million lire of public monies” for school construction between 1922 and 1942, compared to only 60 million lire between 1862 and 1922.[19]

If that isn't left wing, then i honestly don't know what you're smoking, every democratic socialist nation in Europe covered Keynes ideology in some part as well, so you'll have to argue rather hard here, and Mussolinis was the first fascist movement btw, conveniently left out of your quoted list.

I don't really care where fascism sits on the rather subjective wheel of politics, frankly the extremes all end up being the same in the end, tyranny for the many for the benefit of a few. The main issue is that after the war it was rather convenient to call fascism neither left or right, so it's a bit of a quandary.

Arguably the current trend in Britain is a fascist one, regardless of what side it's on, it's ultimately the product of a workers revolution (though Britain abhors revolution, so it's been rather stale in result of a single referendum), perhaps not strangely a lot of the 20th century is ultimately down to Marx and Engel's delightful words on capitalism, there certainly is a connection between them (with the marked breakdown between the Soviet's and Nazi's, which i actually believe is more to do with old nationalistic hatred between the nations rather than ideological issues).
 
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Italy_under_fascism



If that isn't left wing, then i honestly don't know what you're smoking, every democratic socialist nation in Europe covered Keynes ideology in some part as well, so you'll have to argue rather hard here, and Mussolinis was the first fascist movement btw, conveniently left out of your quoted list.

I don't really care where fascism sits on the rather subjective wheel of politics, but frankly the extremes all end up being the same in the end, tyranny. The main issue is that after the war it was rather convenient to call fascism neither left or right, so it's a bit of a quandary.

It wasn't conveniently left off, I just didn't notice it wasn't included as it had been mentioned in a separate sentence. Not that that changes anything, lets look at the description of his party the Partito Nazionale Fascista - Political position : Far-right


But let's go back to basics - what is Fascism

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce,[3] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before it spread to other European countries. Opposed to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum

Pretty black and white definition that says it's far right and against concepts such as Marxism (far left)

But you want to muddy the waters with economics, ok, from the same article

Economy
Main article: Economics of fascism

Fascism presented itself as a third position,[when?] alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism.[182] While fascism opposed mainstream socialism, it sometimes regarded itself as a type of nationalist "socialism", to highlight their commitment to national solidarity and unity.[183][184] Fascists opposed international free market capitalism, but supported a type of productive capitalism

There's plenty more to read there if you want to.

I have already acknowledged in previous posts the complexity of this and things just don't fit into simple Left / Right dynamics, hence the arguing against people who say simplistic things like "Fascism is a left wing thing because Mussolini was a lefty" and ignoring the whole context of the movement just like people arguing the Nazis were 'lefties' because they had Socialist in their name, without realising that was just part of the whole propaganda package.
 
The problem with the traditional left–right spectrum is that it takes big government for granted, if far left is communism and far right is fascism (both require big authoritarian governments) then where is anarchy located (no government)? I think the reason the traditional spectrum is used is because less government is unthinkable to the political elite.

The only spectrum that really exists is:

Big government/Authoritarianism/Collectivism-----------------------Centre-----------------------------No government/Anarchy/Individualism

The whole reason for government is that people wanted to give up some freedoms for security (think law in the wild west and sheriffs enforcing laws against murder/theft etc) but over the years it's obviously become a lot more than that, central economic control etc and basically controlling every aspect of peoples lives to the point where the EU dictates the shape of bananas.

Nationalism by itself is not fascism, those who fought and defeated fascism in WW2 and freed Europe were nationalists, they were a lot further right than Nazi's on the spectrum above (well apart from the Soviets but governments will fight each other regardless of their type). The USA was basically founded as far right and with as little government as necessary, the right to bear arms is basically for the people to defend themselves in case the government goes too far left into authoritarianism (communism/fascism/socialism etc) and all of the other big forms of government that are not compatible with individual freedom. Again, I think the reason that the traditional left–right spectrum is used is because whichever way you go big government exists and people are probably less likely to rise up and demand more freedom. Ask yourself over the last few decades have we become more or less free individually? are the 'liberal' leftists fighting for less government intervention in the lives of individuals or more?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom