Coup/protest in the US

wbot

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2017
Messages
3,481

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
18,135
Most failed African states have more in line with fascist states than they do with a communist states.

You are aware that fascism shares a lot in common with communism/socialism and on a political compass it would fall pretty close to centre authoritarianism?

There has never been a textbook communist state and what we have always labelled communist states have been murderous and oppressive authoritarian regimes lead by dictators. They're all the same really.
 
Last edited:

ilikepi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
231
I love it when people talk about fascism, because the definition seems to change depending on who you're talking to :) the most common element in people's definitions, is something that is inherently evil, but only by their own world view and perception.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
23,541
I love it when people talk about fascism, because the definition seems to change depending on who you're talking to :) the most common element in people's definitions, is something that is inherently evil, but only by their own world view and perception.
I have it as fascism is the dictatorship you didn't like.
Communism is the dictatorship you did like.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
26,896
Bra. Where? Fascism is bad almost alway except if you have to use it to get rid of the communist. Then it is still bad, but a necessary evil.
Fascism promotes racial/ethnic superiority. Similarities are in economy and governance.
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
19,782
You are aware that fascism shares a lot in common with communism/socialism and on a political compass it would fall pretty close to centre authoritarianism?

There has never been a textbook communist state and what we have always labelled communist states have been murderous and oppressive authoritarian regimes lead by dictators. They're all the same really.
What kind of Fong Kong political scale are you using?
 

ilikepi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
231
Fascism promotes racial/ethnic superiority. Similarities are in economy and governance.
It can do, and historically has done, although at it's core is more so an ultra-nationalistic, militarized, single leader government. Communism/Socialism and Fascism all share similar traits, Nazi's for example were at their core a socialist movement.
 
Joined
Mar 6, 2004
Messages
33,603
Can we talk about the coup of Big Tech against Trump?

Very good point made by Niall Ferguson here:

Various lawsuits over the years have conferred on big tech an unusual status: a public good, held in private hands. In 2018 the Southern District of New York ruled that the right to reply to Trump’s tweets is protected ‘under the “public forum” doctrines set forth by the Supreme Court’. So it was wrong for the President to ‘block’ people — i.e. stop them reading his tweets — because they were critical of him. Censoring Twitter users ‘because of their expressed political views’ represents ‘viewpoint discrimination [that] violates the First Amendment’.

In Packingham vs North Carolina (2017), Justice Anthony Kennedy likened internet platforms to ‘the modern public square’, arguing that it was therefore unconstitutional to prevent sex offenders from accessing, and expressing opinions on, social network platforms. ‘While in the past there may have been difficulty in identifying the most important places (in a spatial sense) for the exchange of views,’ Justice Kennedy wrote, ‘today the answer is clear. It is cyberspace —the “vast democratic forums of the internet” in general … and social media in particular.’

In other words, as President of the United States, Trump could not block Twitter users from seeing his tweets, but Twitter is apparently within its rights to delete the President’s account altogether. Sex offenders have a right of access to online social networks; but the President does not.
In essence, Section 230 gives websites immunity from liability for what their users post if it is in any way harmful, but also entitles websites to take down with equal impunity any content that they don’t like the look of. The surely unintended result of this legislation, drafted for a fledgling internet, is that some of the biggest companies in the world enjoy a protection reminiscent of Joseph Heller’s Catch-22. Try to hold them responsible as publishers, and they will say they are platforms. Demand access to their platforms and they will insist that they are publishers.

This might have been a tolerable state of affairs if America’s network platforms had been subject to something like the old Fairness Doctrine, which required the big three terrestrial TV networks to give airtime to opposing views. But that was something the Republican party killed off in the 1980s, seeing the potential of allowing more slanted coverage on cable news. What goes around comes around. The network platforms long ago abandoned any pretence of being neutral. Even before Charlottesville, their senior executives and many of their employees had made it clear that they were appalled by Trump’s election victory (especially as both Facebook and Twitter had facilitated it). Increasingly, they interpreted the words ‘otherwise objectionable’ in Section 230 to mean ‘objectionable to liberals’.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
26,896
It can do, and historically has done, although at it's core is more so an ultra-nationalistic, militarized, single leader government. Communism/Socialism and Fascism all share similar traits, Nazi's for example were at their core a socialist movement.
That changed once they usurped power from government.
 

ilikepi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
231
That changed once they usurped power from government.
Not at all, they were ultimately voted in democratically, only after Hitler was already in a position of power did they start to enact emergency powers (sound familiar? lol) in the country and start to transform the state and militarize.

There was a brilliant movie made about it a while ago, will see if I can find the title and link it here, very good reproduction.
 

surface

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 23, 2006
Messages
11,955
Not at all, they were ultimately voted in democratically, only after Hitler was already in a position of power did they start to enact emergency powers (sound familiar? lol) in the country and start to transform the state and militarize.

There was a brilliant movie made about it a while ago, will see if I can find the title and link it here, very good reproduction.
It is not well known yet but biden has already set up concentration camps for republicans. That is what Cyril meant when he wanted to help with US democracy as you probably know about concentration camps set up here for the pre94 people.

Now, I will change my IP and be back as ANC & hillary watch this forum quite a lot.
 

2021

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
9,444
Can we talk about the coup of Big Tech against Trump?

Very good point made by Niall Ferguson here:
It's a big old mess alright. With the dems in total power, I don't see it being addressed properly (in the USA) and will definitely cause more tensions as time goes on.
 

ForceFate

Honorary Master
Joined
May 18, 2009
Messages
26,896
Not at all, they were ultimately voted in democratically, only after Hitler was already in a position of power did they start to enact emergency powers (sound familiar? lol) in the country and start to transform the state and militarize.
They had already militarised at the time they seized power.

The Nazis were already powerful in the 30s, and took advantage of the chaos of the time to steal power from right under everyone's noses. It's during this time that they were showing their fascist leanings.
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
18,135
What kind of Fong Kong political scale are you using?

Mussolini's brand of Fascism blended far-left syndicalism (he championed worker's rights and embraced trade unions) with far-right hyper nationalism. His views on labour unions were close to that of Lenin's in that all trade unions should be nationalised. Mussolini essentially spent most of his political career balancing both left-wing and right-wing ideology, ergo the ideology ends up closer to the middle than people want to accept. Private ownership was a thing but at the same time the state effectively funded and directed the economy after bailing out the banking and industrial sectors in the early 20s.

Let us also not forget that the poster boys for ''communism'' (The USSR and China) are extremely nationalist and were and are genocidal and oppressive toward minorities. The USSR followed a policy of Russification and internally displaced and genocided minorities while we know what China is doing right now. China has also long followed a path of Sinicization (everybody becomes Han, basically).

The ideologies overlap in many areas and are far closer than you think.
 
Last edited:

ilikepi

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2019
Messages
231
They had already militarised at the time they seized power.

The Nazis were already powerful in the 30s, and took advantage of the chaos of the time to steal power from right under everyone's noses. It's during this time that they were showing their fascist leanings.
Oh yeh, the SA (brown shirts) had been around for a while rabble rousing and causing trouble trying to get the population's blood boiling and basically serving as the Nazi party 'thugs', with the change in direction and tactic to trying to capture power through the democratic system, they established the SS, and started to distance themselves from the brown shirts, by the time they came to power, the SS was well established.

Interesting side note, we also observe the change in the party ideology, where the SA were loyal to an idea and the SS were established to be loyal to Hitler, we start to see the shift over to a more 'deified' Nazi party.

When I talk the 'militarization', I mean the remilitarization of Germany rather than that of the party.

Interesting question, do you think some of the politics involved during the Great War period are doomed to repeat themselves? Do you think humanity has learned it's lessons or do you think we hunger for more of the same?
 

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
19,782
Mussolini's brand of Fascism blended far-left syndicalism (he championed worker's rights and embraced trade unions) with far-right hyper nationalism. His views on labour unions were close to that of Lenin's in that all trade unions should be nationalised. Mussolini essentially spent most of his political career balancing both left-wing and right-wing ideology, ergo the ideology ends up closer to the middle than people want to accept. Private ownership was a thing but at the same time the state effectively funded and directed the economy after bailing out the banking and industrial sectors in the early 20s.

Let us also not forget that the poster boys for ''communism'' (The USSR and China) are extremely nationalist and were and are genocidal and oppressive toward minorities. The USSR followed a policy of Russification and internally displaced and genocided minorities while we know what China is doing right now. China has also long followed a path of Sinicization (everybody becomes Han, basically).

The ideologies overlap in many areas and are far closer than you think.
The only thing communist about the current CCP is its name and the Sinicization has been the strategy of the Chinese for over 2200 years when they started to intergrate step barbarians into their Northern frontier. To apply that policy to communism is pretty ignorant.

At the of the day the underlying ideology of the Italian Government was a far right fascist ideology and they had to give concessions to other interests to keep the peace but doesn't change their underlying ideology.

Is it really that strange?
Touché
 

thestaggy

Honorary Master
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
18,135
At the of the day the underlying ideology of the Italian Government was a far right fascist ideology and they had to give concessions to other interests to keep the peace but doesn't change their underlying ideology.

Some more reading is required.

One of the biggest influences on the Italian fascist movement were the writings of Georges Sorel, a syndicalist who drew inspiration from Marx; supported Lenin and Bolshevism and influenced and spoke favourably of Mussolini.

A firm believer in the class struggle but a struggle that could only succeed through militancy and national pride. Left blending with right.
 
Last edited:

Polymathic

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
19,782
Some more reading is required.

One of the biggest influences on the Italian fascist movement were the writings of Georges Sorel, a syndicalist who drew inspiration from Marx; supported Lenin and Bolshevism and influenced and spoke favourably of Mussolini.

A firm believer in the class struggle but a struggle that could only succeed through militancy and national pride. Left blending with right.
Looks like you have been following a revisionist right wing pundit
 
Top