Leftists

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-22-2017, 08:33 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Porridge is a very broad category. Grits, cornmeal mush, groats, and oatmeal are all types of porridge and have been staples of my diet. I'm alsoe a big fan of kheer and congee. What we call oatmeal, though, is what is typically called porridge in the rest of the English speaking world.

I suppose I should add the definition of the porridge category. It's just a term for some type of grain in some sort of liquid.

I imagined it would be some kind of oatmealy thing.

I guess I'm a regular porridge eater as well.

[Vlad]

(08-22-2017, 01:55 PM)Dill Wrote: The labels "Hitler" and "fascism" are being moved around like counters in a game, totally separate from substance.  The negative connotations of Hitler and fascism can then, via neutral statements, be transferred to anyone who agrees with "what Hitler said."

If Hitler approved the building of a national highways system and you agree that highway systems are good then you "agree with Hitler." 

It is not clear whether the video actually worked on Vlad or he, like the people who made it, understands very well that it is propaganda.

In the overall scheme of things the analysis or dissection of each ideology is petty and irrelevant as it relates to addressing the current state of the violent left.

To preface ...Antifa is derived from Anti Fascism.

Leftist have been using "fascism" and "Nazism" interchangeably when referencing Hiltler...and wrongly so Trump.

There is some validity to that however. Hitler admired Italian fascism.
Nazism is a form of Fascism...although they have differences, the common denominator is that both ideologies answer to a supreme leader. 
It also has been said that Nazism is Fascism with racism added. The idea of a superior Aryan race as its core belief.
(too simplistic I agree)

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2017, 12:17 PM)Vlad Wrote: In the overall scheme of things the analysis or dissection of each ideology is petty and irrelevant as it relates to addressing the current state of the violent left.

It is not, however, irrelevant when address a fallacious attempt at playing "gotcha" that utilizes speech components that do not contain fascist ideology in an attempt to paint those cheering the speech components as fascist. Since that is what was being discussed, it is completely relevant.

Now, if you would like to discuss the overuse of the term fascist in our political discourse in society and how there has been a decades long history of it on both the right and the left, then I am very open to that. However, we must first establish what fascism is (authoritarian nationalism is the simplest definition and most broad), that it is not inherently left or right when looked at objectively, and that this has been an ongoing problem from the extreme mouthpieces from both parties for decades (I think the earliest one I can recall seeing this propaganda for from the left was Reagan, and I definitely remember it for Clinton, GW, and Obama afterwards).

[Vlad]

(08-23-2017, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is not, however, irrelevant when address a fallacious attempt at playing "gotcha" that utilizes speech components that do not contain fascist ideology in an attempt to paint those cheering the speech components as fascist. Since that is what was being discussed, it is completely relevant.

Would it have made you feel better had the word been "nationalist" rather than "fascist"?
It shouldn't.

Remember that "nationalism" to leftists is as evil as fascism or Nazism...just because the ambition to make their country great again is attributed to both Hitler and Trump.
There were many great world leaders who were nationalists but certainly not fascist.

Incidentally, the left has just succeeded in creating another bad word..."nationalist" to add to their list of bad words...

Capitalist
Profit
American exceptionalism
Religion
Corporations

What else?

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2017, 01:00 PM)Vlad Wrote: Would it have made you feel better had the word been "nationalist" rather than "fascist"?
It shouldn't.

Remember that "nationalism" to leftists is as evil as fascism or Nazism...just because the ambition to make their country great again is attributed to both Hitler and Trump.
There were many great world leaders who were nationalists but certainly not fascist.

Incidentally, the left has just succeeded in creating another bad word..."nationalist" to add to their list of bad words...

Capitalist
Profit
American exceptionalism
Religion
Corporations

What else?

Do you ever make statements that are not based in fallacious propaganda?

[Dill]

(08-23-2017, 12:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Now, if you would like to discuss the overuse of the term fascist in our political discourse in society and how there has been a decades long history of it on both the right and the left, then I am very open to that. However, we must first establish what fascism is (authoritarian nationalism is the simplest definition and most broad), that it is not inherently left or right when looked at objectively, and that this has been an ongoing problem from the extreme mouthpieces from both parties for decades (I think the earliest one I can recall seeing this propaganda for from the left was Reagan, and I definitely remember it for Clinton, GW, and Obama afterwards).

I agree with most of what you say here, only adding two quick points.

Authoritarian nationalism is not always fascism, though it may set the stage for it.  E.g., the Kaiserreich was certainly authoritarian and nationalist, but not fascist, as was Tsarist Russia.  I think elements of the US right embrace authoritarian nationalism to a great degree, but their anti-statism is also anti-fascist.

I disagree that fascism is not inherently left or right. Everywhere it appears, it is rooted in natural distinctions between human groups that "the left" always contests. All fascisms worship the state and subordinate the individual thereto in principle, whereas leftism (at least in its Western forms) retains the liberal valuation of the individual.  All fascisms also reject democracy to embrace some form of Fuehrer principle--a single leader thinking for the social body. I don't disagree that there have been socialist states which turned to fascism (NK being one) but that is a turn towards the right--away from the internationalism, racial/sexual equality, and democracy which characterize leftist politics.  If he pope starts praying in the direction of Mecca five times a day, he is no longer a Catholic, even if people still call him that.

I generally don't have a problem with anyone calling US politicians fascist if they know what fascism is and the terms of comparison are legitimate. But as a practical matter this doesn't usually go well, since people will often reject any analogy to fascism before looking at it. Also add that most voters don't know much about fascism except that it is a bad thing to call someone. Like the word "idiot" it has little specific descriptive power for most people.

[Dill]

(08-23-2017, 01:00 PM)Vlad Wrote: Would it have made you feel better had the word been "nationalist" rather than "fascist"?
It shouldn't.
Remember that "nationalism" to leftists is as evil as fascism or Nazism...just because the ambition to make their country great again is attributed to both Hitler and Trump.
There were many great world leaders who were nationalists but certainly not fascist.
Incidentally, the left has just succeeded in creating another bad word..."nationalist" to add to their list of bad words...
Capitalist
Profit
American exceptionalism
Religion
Corporations
What else?

Got a bit of history here for you, Vlad. But first I would like to remind you and everyone else that I am using the term "leftist" in reference to leftists, not liberals and other right wingers you generally disagree with.  One of the signal achievements of the New Right is to get a whole generation of people calling liberals and centrists "leftists"--as if all were the the direct intellectual and ideological heirs of Marx and Lenin.  They are not.  When I speak of leftists I am referring to actual Socialists and Communists, not people who simply want to keep their social security and capitalism, or just support liberal "inclusiveness" extended to new social groups.

Now to the history: "Nationalist" has been a bad word for the real left ever since the 2nd International broke up on the eve of WWI, when so many self-proclaimed socialists suddenly spurned internationalism to return home and fight for the capitalist class in their home countries.  Your namesake, to his credit, did not.

Another bad turn in the history of the left came when Stalin began promoting "socialism in one country." I understand the reasoning behind this, the need to consolidate in the face of capitalist aggression. But this turn quickly bled into a kind of Russian nationalism which contradicted the stated principles of the Soviets.

The critique of nationalism got its biggest boost when, barely 20 years after the first international disaster, the world went to war again, driven by authoritarian nationalism.  Over 60 million dead, and mostly horrible deaths. One unbroken ruin of cities from Antwerp to Stalingrad.  Over a hundred million with debilitating wounds. The greatest disaster in human history.

So the left has not "just succeeded" in making a nationalism a bad word. Nationalism made itself a bad word for an entire century--but only for those who know their world history. And leftists are concerned at its rehabilitation via a campaign based on hatred of liberals, immigrants and Muslims and a strengthened military. George Washington wanted to "make America great" too, but those were not his policy choices.

[Belsnickel]

(08-23-2017, 04:12 PM)Dill Wrote: I agree with most of what you say here, only adding two quick points.

Authoritarian nationalism is not always fascism, though it may set the stage for it.  E.g., the Kaiserreich was certainly authoritarian and nationalist, but not fascist, as was Tsarist Russia.  I think elements of the US right embrace authoritarian nationalism to a great degree, but their anti-statism is also anti-fascist.

I disagree that fascism is not inherently left or right. Everywhere it appears, it is rooted in natural distinctions between human groups that "the left" always contests. All fascisms worship the state and subordinate the individual thereto in principle, whereas leftism (at least in its Western forms) retains the liberal valuation of the individual.  All fascisms also reject democracy to embrace some form of Fuehrer principle--a single leader thinking for the social body. I don't disagree that there have been socialist states which turned to fascism (NK being one) but that is a turn towards the right--away from the internationalism, racial/sexual equality, and democracy which characterize leftist politics.  If he pope starts praying in the direction of Mecca five times a day, he is no longer a Catholic, even if people still call him that.

I generally don't have a problem with anyone calling US politicians fascist if they know what fascism is and the terms of comparison are legitimate. But as a practical matter this doesn't usually go well, since people will often reject any analogy to fascism before looking at it. Also add that most voters don't know much about fascism except that it is a bad thing to call someone. Like the word "idiot" it has little specific descriptive power for most people.

I would agree with you in your description of fascism. However, in the broadest sense of the term (and the Wikipedia definition, which is about as in depth as the knowledge goes for many topics around here) it is a more neutral system. Because of this (and some other reasons I won't lay out in public) I am going for that more broad, neutral definition in an attempt to actually have a real conversation about the topic rather than what usually occurs.

[Dill]

(08-23-2017, 05:35 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I would agree with you in your description of fascism. However, in the broadest sense of the term (and the Wikipedia definition, which is about as in depth as the knowledge goes for many topics around here) it is a more neutral system. Because of this (and some other reasons I won't lay out in public) I am going for that more broad, neutral definition in an attempt to actually have a real conversation about the topic rather than what usually occurs.

LOL well I applaud your efforts. I wish that people learned more about this topic in high school, enough so that people engaging in public political discussion could count on some widespread knowledge of basic elements of fascism.