"Fascism in Ukraine" Topic

Dragon Gunner You are one of the most entertaining! Ill visit you in the dog house. As long as the rules here are applied fairly that is. Anyway how do you feel about funding nazis?

@Nedd Ludd if the rules are applied fairly you will be there also…

By the way I thought you said you were bored and done responding to me but wait you are suddenly entertained. Once again poor feeble Ned cannot follow through with what he said he was going to do…

You are right gunner I can not follow through, although I suspect you regularly do. Im also sure other members are board of our spats and would rather read the more interesting posts. So I will do my best not to respond to your tomfoolery in future.

" So I will do my best not to respond to your tomfoolery in future."-Ned Ludd

Sounds good Nedd maybe you can contribute something to the forum other than insults because none of your posts are interesting, you add no value…

Firstly SBminisguy, I'm going to suggest you didn't have a very competent political science teacher.
Secondly, your continual attempt to shovel fascism to the left is just too simplistic and wrong. Your whole thing about marxists and national socialism above is just made up.
This quote, from Britannica, is a good starting point, and summarizes it better than I succinctly could:

"To say that Hitler understood the value of language would be an enormous understatement. Propaganda played a significant role in his rise to power. To that end, he paid lip service to the tenets suggested by a name like National Socialist German Workers' Party, but his primary—indeed, sole—focus was on achieving power whatever the cost and advancing his racist, anti-Semitic agenda. After the failure of the Beer Hall Putsch, in November 1923, Hitler became convinced that he needed to utilize the teetering democratic structures of the Weimar government to attain his goals."

I do agree that fascism and communism loop around to arrive at very similar results. But then, that's human nature for you.

SBminisguy you're just making up stuff to fit your view of the world. Do you have credible sources to back up what you assert? My guess is no.

Fascism is on the extreme right and Communism is on the extreme left of the political spectrum. That is Political Science 101 territory.

SBminisguy, control does not disappear anywhere in the so-called "democratic" state. It's just that here the hands that hold you by the throat are dressed in soft mittens))) Look around – a lot of people suffer in "democratic" countries for their dissent, and their opinions of many people are simply ignored by the ruling class. It's just that in bourgeois society it is not pressure that prevails, but manipulation.
Any state is an instrument of control and suppression of dissent for the ruling class. Look at the families of politicians who have headed states over the past three hundred years – a significant number of them come from the same families over the centuries.
Under socialism, social elevators are open and work great. Your family does not need to have money or power for you to make a political career (although, of course, the children of those who are already part of the "elite" have an advantage, but it is still much less than in a bourgeois society).
The problem with the first iteration of socialist states is the lack of real democracy. Everywhere. But without this condition, the construction of a real socialist state is impossible – such a state quickly degenerates. On the other hand, a state generated by a revolution (not necessarily a socialist one) will certainly encounter resistance from the losing part of society and will be forced to suppress it by force. And here the temptation will be extremely great to simply destroy or expel dissidents. A spiral of violence begins, preventing true democracy from emerging.
Therefore, I believe that any society must be ripe for socialism, and representatives of this ideology must come to power through legitimate means. And this will be extremely difficult, since the apparatus of propaganda and manipulation of the ruling class (especially those representing the interests of the exploiting class) is extremely powerful.

I don't see any problem in the fact that under socialism people who have distinguished themselves in working for the good of society will have certain privileges. This is normal if these privileges are given not by birthright, but by merit to society. Socialism is not equality in benefits, socialism is equality in opportunities. The society provides you with starting opportunities at its own expense – you are obliged to return this investment to it with interest. But these privileges are not inheritable. You can give your children an excellent education and promote their careers, but you cannot keep for them what you have earned. They will have to achieve a high standard of living on their own. Every time – from the very beginning.

Fascism in the Ukraine ? And Nazis too ? I'm shocked ! Shocked I tell you !!!

Next someone will be saying there is Communism in Russia !?!?!??! OMG !!!!!

These communists vs. fascists threads remind me of an old joke:

"An alcoholic is someone who drinks like you that you don't like".

And ironically probably the closest to an actual explanation, which is the 'human condition' and our unhappy ability to create an unhealthy attachment to particular ideas, be they political, philosophical, religious or "scientific" it really doesn't matter. The moment we cross that boundary to where the ideology is never wrong only people we're probably already flirting with the ends justifying the means. And the worst thing we do it too ourselves just look at all the grifters on the internet pushing everything from quack cures to the idea you can subsist on sunlight.

@OldContempt…

SBminisguy you're just making up stuff to fit your view of the world. Do you have credible sources to back up what you assert? My guess is no.

Not hard to actually find out Mussolini's background, or any of the Fascist thinkers. Also not hard to find what Mussolini and Gentile meant by "Socialism" -- they defined that in terms of the "Socialist International" movement, aka Communism. Not hard to search for Gentile and see his various writings, including the Philosophy of Marx (which was praised by Lenin) before he wrote the Philosophy of Fascism.

I went and spent $1.99 USD on Gentile's book -- in it he lays out his argument. He cites the works of George Sorel, French Socialist who criticized Marxism for failing to deliver and was obsessed with materialism to the point of fallacy (page 116). As Marxism's failings became evident Gentile describes how young Italian socialists flocked to thinkers like Sorel to find direction. Gentile also speaks to the spiritualism of man which he feels is expressed via nationalism, and while the Right is too obsessed with the Individual, the Left is too obsessed with the State and materialism to the point of being immoral -- and he felt there should be balance, so long as the Individual didn't impede the State's ability to deliver the promises of Socialism on the behalf of society.

Gentile describes how Mussolini left the Socialist Party in 1915 to strike out on this new form of Socialism, and that he had gone through his own thought journey from Marxism idealism to disillusionment.

Gentile states that under Fascism:

1. Individual "Rights" come from the State, and are the source of all social rights and rejects western liberalism.

2. The State is also the center of liberating spiritualism, equated with extreme nationalism, for only through service to the State can man be truly free and connected to the society.

3. The State is the embodiement of the People, and the People are expressed via the State

4. He descibes on page 231 how the State controls the economy via "Corporations of Syndicates," or "Corporatism" as Mussolini called it. Rather than seize corporations and run them from the State, Fascism controlled industry by co-opting and forcing industrial leaders to bend to the will of the Socialist State and become part of the State-managed Corporate Syndicate. The working class was represented by State-controlled Unions. Gentile describes how the State will "reduce" companies "to State discipline and make them an expression of the State's organism."

Gentile goes on to describe how "the individual exists as a specialized productive force…who is brought to unite with other individuals…and comes to belong to the one great economic unit which is none other than the nation."

Gentile goes on to explain how western liberalism is essentially immoral and destructive, and how Fascism resolves "the paradox of liberty and authority."

This is SOCIALISM. The express control of the Means of Production BY THE STATE. The express control of the Individual to serve the State.

This is all in one single book that any professor can read and discuss. But did you know this? Did you know that all of the political philosophers who founded Fascism were Socialists and Marxists? Did you know that Fascism explicitly calls for the STATE control of the means of production and rejects individualistic capitalism?

Probably not. Ask one of your professors about this one book by Gentile and ask him why a system created by Socialists that rejects western liberalism and individualism, and rejects capitalism in favor of explicit State control of the Economy and Society is "Right Wing."

And while you're at it -- ask them to justify their support of Socialism in general, and Communism specifically, given the unprecedented mass oppression, enslavement, immiseration and mass slaughter on a scale that is almost unfathomable.

The big difference between the leftists in this thread is that they are looking at old text books and theories but SB Minisguy is looking at the actual application of these "isms" in historical reality.

Like I said before totalitarians will pick and choose whether to be fascists or Communists depending on what's useful. I have examples of the Australian government doing just this is recent history, sometimes they're communists, sometimes fascists. The only goal is control.

I'm a true right wing radical. I believe in the individual and small government – I despise Communism and Fascism, one is not better than the other.

Did you know the USA was founded by true right wing radicals? They weren't fascists though.

They believed in private gun ownership and the freedom to say or believe anything you want. The ultimate individualist system, free from ANY government's tyrrany "left" or "right" wing.

Right now you have totalitarians in America using fascism and communism in a marxist style revolution to overturn society to replace it with themselves. I'm not sure why so many Westerners believe that only "right wing extremists" are capable of this in the modern west.

Of course TYRANTS do this and they use any and every ism or trick in the book to achieve it.

Here here!

But it is more than that.

The big difference between the leftists in this thread is that they are looking at old text books and theories but SB Minisguy is looking at the actual application of these "isms" in historical reality.

The evidence is clear when you read the words of the Fascist thinkers for yourself. Fascism is a leftist variant of totalitarian Socialism. The foundational thinkers of Fascism, people like Gentile, were all Leftists -- Marxists and Socialists. The system they developed to replace Communism was *their* view on how to implement Socialism. Indeed many Western Intellectuals lauded Fascism as the new "Third Way" between Communism and Capitalism and Mussolini twice made Time Magazine's "Man of the Year" cover.

Even Lenin flirted with Fascism! After the Soviet economy failed to recover, in 1921 he instituted his "New Economic Policy." While under State control and subject to State actions, the New Economic Policy legalized profit-oriented production, private ownership in the production of consumer goods, and the acquisition of wealth. It also incorporated peasants into the economic system through the introduction of a "natural tax." The Communists allowed state-owned enterprises to lease their factories to private individuals and to place the financing and logistics of entrepreneurial activities in private hands. In July 1921, freedom of trade was even restored for craftsmen and small industrial enterprises.

This was very contentious within the ranks of Soviet Communists, but nothing a few purges couldn't fix! Of course, when Stalin took over he ended many aspects of New Economic Policy and embarked on his own pogroms and purges – but when the NEP was in place -- when the Soviets were Facists, their economy recovered.

So I guess you could say that Communism = Not for Profit Socialism and Fascism = For Profit Socialism.

More strongly held opinions from a guy with old professors.

The original Nazi party name never stood for socialism. It just helped bring out the target crowds in the early days. There was no moral agenda for the people. Empty slogans were just that.

Hitler created a cult to exercise brute force control. It was based on Nazi social hierarchy, racial purity, and expansionist foreign policy. He did not want to own the means of production as long as it succumbed to these conditions. He did not care about semantics except as propaganda.
"Socialism! What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism"
In recent years moving fascism to the left has become popular. But Hitler's gang never owned the means of production. They controlled its ouput as needed and rewarded owners, or replaced them.
Fascism is an empty headed philosophy based on brute force. The mass cult followings of the classic narcissists like Hitler and Mussolini have only one real interest. The Leader. And the Leader preens and seizes on any buzz words that preserve their most prized asset – loyalty. Retribution comes to those who oppose.
This is not socialism or Marxism. It's just a big gang of thugs with a lot of phony store bought slogans and labels. It mortal enemy? Democracy. Hitler said it many times.

Sorry, that's the same old hand wave to make Leftists feel good about themselves. It's lazy and anti-intellectual, and you shouldn't accept it either. You even contradict yourself in your defense of the party line!

But Hitler's gang never owned the means of production. They controlled its ouput as needed and rewarded owners, or replaced them.

LOL! You just described Fascist Socialism! Socialism calls for the State CONTROL of the means of production, which Fascists do controlling the owners and managers of production, and using regulations to control all other aspects of production. For example, the Nazis enacted a wide-sweeping industrial policy that CONTROLLED all aspects of industry -- they controlled supply and transportation, they set prices for material inputs and the sale prices of goods, they set wage rates and hiring and firing policies, they forced all leading businesspersons to join the Nazi Party or be removed and even arrested.

So as you admit, the Nazis implemented the Socialist control of the German economy.

Fascism is an empty headed philosophy based on brute force.

Again, what a lazy answer. I had my professors give me the same shallow hand-waving lazy answers, and that wasn't good enough. They couldn't explain why all these Fascists wrote and said what they did in their meetings and speeches except for saying "Oh, they were all lying all the time," or they'd fall back on a lazy tautology "It is because it is, so stop asking why!!"

Like – why is Nationalism "Right Wing" when the Soviets used it all the time? When Castro used it all the time? It is because it is except when I say it isn't!

Pure intellectual hand waving lazyness!

Seriously, you need to examine this --I even went through the trouble of buying Gentile's stupid book and reading it for you, citing quotes and pages numbers for you to read yourself. His philosophy is rooted in Marxism and Hegelianism. Pure Leftism. You have to lie to yourself to believe otherwise.

Yikes,I will attempt to spend more time reading about this, as you suggest, but will also respond for now.

Ownership and control as needed are not quite the same to me. The owner industrialists got plenty rich. Somewhere lost in all this is the notion that socialism, such as in the post war UK, does not have the goals of a narcissistic brute force dictatorship at its core.I admit the Nazis controlled the economy, but for their own gain, to go to war, to murder millions of Jews, to serve the leader. I don't recall a definition of socialism that functions in service to such barbaric outcomes.

In a strictly semantic or even academic sense, you can set some definition boundaries and move these concepts around as you wish. I think Hitler did not care about any of this, as my quote above suggests. Just as I don't think Putin is a communist in the Marxist sense, nor a socialist. If somebody has made Marist communism work as an economic success, I am not aware of it. It just sounds good, like socialism did for Hitler. He made up his own crazy definitions based on unquestioned loyalty to him and his goals for the state. It's simple brute force control. No ethical or academic considerations.

Maybe next we could figure out what happened to the word "progressive" which was once a positive attribute for mankind. I notice we don't call people who are against progress reactionaries, backwards,unprogressives. Unless maybe these definitions are more moving targets than etched in stone.

SBminisguy. I see a difference between Fascist control of the economy and Communist.

In a fascist system (which Australia has become) large corporations cooperate with the government and keep their profits in exchange for towing the party line. I recall recently being in one of the big two Australian supermarkets and a recording coming over the PA advocating for a radical policy of the current government. I also recall the government withdrawing treatments that weren't from certain large pharmaceutical companies for Covid. Recently a foreign airline was blocked from entering the Australian market to protect Qantas which rips off Australians. In exchange Qantas paint their planes to promote current government radical policies and gives every government politician chairman's lounge status automatically.The executives in all these large Australians corps make megabucks if they politically advocate for the current government.

In a pure Communist economy there are no corporations, there is only the State. State supermarket, State bank, State clothing store. There are no private hospitals or schools. Everything is run centrally by the government and the "people". There is no competition and no market economy. There is no private ownership and a store clerk makes about the same money as a doctor. You are told where to live. Because of lack of competition or incentive standards reduce to almost zero.

In both systems people are oppressed, fascism just looks better on the surface and Australia's leaders have gone with it because they can get away with it. They hate freedom and hate their own people.

MilEFEX3030+1

@Torotella

Ownership and control as needed are not quite the same to me. The owner industrialists got plenty rich.

Yes. They can get quite rich as long as they are members of the Party and do what the Party says. Ultimately the State controls them and everything else. I think China seamlessly morphed from Communism under Mao to Fascism under Deng Xiaoping's reforms. Deng did the *same thing Lenin did* in the 1920s. He loosened State ownership of the economy and enabled individual property and wealth generation subject to State control. Just like Mussolini and the Nazis, everything is China is subject to State action at any time for any reason, and all businesses must serve and obey the State. BUT -- you can have a wealthy industrial class and people can make money within limits. Step outside those limits and the State will remove you. Remember what happened to Jack Ma? Jack Ma founded Alibaba, China's "Amazon" and he became a billionaire. But then one day he criticized the Central Bank's policies and he DISAPPEARED.

The CCP arrested Ma and put him into Soviet-style "Rehabilitation" -- he was committed to a mental hospital and reeducated. He was held for over two years, and when he came out he was paraded around giving speeches at schools about how awesome the CCP is. Now he has a "visiting professorship" at Beijing University teaching "sustainable agriculture" -- he literally gets to teach about sh1t as a lessen to the others! The CCP clearly communicated that you can get your billions, but we're in charge -- look what we did to the richest man in China, we broke him and we'll break you to if you step out of line.

Same goes for you Mr. My Pillow Guy! See, he's a western example.

And to MilEFEX3030's point, Fascism is a step away from us as well. Here in the US we call it "Crony Capitalism" and experience the same types of pains. Let's look at Nike Shoes, for example. Nike was always held out as the very model of evil capitalism, running exploitative 3rd world sweatshops -- oft investigated by Congress, often attacked by protestors and the media. Heck, in university for one political course I had to read the openly Marxist professor's poorly written doctoral thesis on how Nike impacted a town in Mexico when it opened a factory. I don't think I learned what he wanted me to learn -- instead of 12-16 hours a day in the fields they worked 10-12 hours in a factory, instead of $0.10 USD/hour effective wages they earned $0.25 USD/hour, and Nike opened a medical clinic and a school to keep the workers healthier and provide daycare or their kids. Awful for our standards, but a huge boon by theirs…

However, since Nike embraced leftist political positions and adopted Kaepernick as a brand ambassador, protesting the US and the American flag, the Betsy Ross flag ban recently, Nike has not been the subject of organized political protests against its sweatshop abuses. Democrats and Leftists in Congress even went so far as to block a bill that would penalize Nike and other companies for using Chinese Slave Labor to produce products!
So basically the Left intimidated Nike until it caved and adopted its positions – and now it is an "approved" company that spouts the Leftist party line and is no longer attacked.

And then there's My Pillow Guy. A private businessman who criticized the 2020 election and funded his own review of the election (which is really non-binding). The Biden Admin used the power of the State to harass and punish him. He was subjected to IRS audits and investigations, an FBI investigation was launched against him, the FEC filed against him for election interference, the Biden admin supported Dominion's lawsuit against him and was part of a coordinated media attack and commercial boycott of his products. He was personally bankrupted by this coordinated effort to punish a prominent dissenter, and the company may also go into bankruptcy.

We see this kind of tactic being used across the economy. But ultimately it's just as an oppressive dead end as Communism, it just takes longer to get there. All State-controlled economies stagnate -- people lose the incentive to work, the drive for innovation goes away since it is only rewarded if you are politically connected to the Party and the free transmission of ideas is impeded by the State, and the system winds down as people become impoverished and discontent. It's a Doom Spiral, just slower than Communism's Doom Cycle.

Just as I don't think Putin is a communist in the Marxist sense

Nope, Putin is actually a Right Wing Authoritarian who runs Russia like a Mafia boss, with no discernible motivating totalitarian ideology.

I don't recall a definition of socialism that functions in service to such barbaric outcomes.

ALL Socialism has barbarity baked in as a feature! The State can only assume control of the means of production by FORCE and INTIMIDATION can only maintain control via FORCE and OPPRESSION. Violence is inherent in Socialism. All Socialist systems are Totalitarian by nature because they assume the moral authority to be the arbiter of Good and Evil in order to create Utopia on Earth. It also declares it can change human nature itself to accept this new path of higher socialist morality. So it cannot tolerate challenges to its ideological authority and must crush Free Speech in order to maintain its aura of infallible rectitude and prevent dissent from threatening its authority.

2+2=5.

What about the UK? Fortunately, young Mick Jaeger and Keith Richards could listen to Little Richard on the radio in Luxembourg, cause he sure wasn't on the state controlled BBC, doing its evil best to stop rock n roll!

In investigations, I like evidence. Every criminal case revolves around what you can uncover for an AG /DA to prevail in court. The public can speculate as much as it wants, and I speculate that Garland was not going after the My Pillow Guy. I have no idea was his legal issues actually were.

The Biden Admin supported the Dominion lawsuit? Very unlikely, the case looked solid on the merits, some of the investigation played out in front of us and Rupert settled. I am not a lawyer, but I know some things about the system.

Maybe we are talking about theoretical vs real world. I consider Marx unreadable, pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! He makes great cover for fascist thugs.

We love socialism here. Medicare, social security, etc. Trump wrecked the soy bean market with the China tariffs and then sent billions to farmers. Free enterprise?

SB, I am not saying you are entirely wrong. I think some people still believe these systems can work. Fascists only believe in the Leader, and use these concepts for cover. You are right that to some extent Leaders may utilize some of the ideas. But they are narcissists first, don't really care, IMO.

I think some people still believe these systems can work. Fascists only believe in the Leader, and use these concepts for cover. You are right that to some extent Leaders may utilize some of the ideas. But they are narcissists first, don't really care, IMO.

I think history has shown that all Centralized systems -- from plain 'ol Right Wing Juntas to Totalitarian Socialism, are subject to being captured by a Great Leader type who engenders a Cult of Personality. There's no check on their power, other than the oligarchy that supports them.

As CS Lewis once said:

And perhaps this is why CS Lewis' reputation and works are under assault now in the UK…

@SBMinisGuy. Rudyard Kippling might be in roughly the same category these days too.

Great examples of fascism (the cooperation of large corporations and the state to oppress the people). Another example in the US was Twitter effectively being a branch of the FBI and the US Government being able to direct censorship through it. Cue Musk takeover and the establishment flipping out over it. (Although there's growing evidence that Musk staged a fake takeover and the control is still there) Kind of like when the CIA took over QANON very early and controlled the "opposition". When Q-anon's message became "don't do anything, just sit back because there are people in the background that will fix everything for you." at the same time as making subscribers to its message look like nutjobs. Huge psyop.

I'm pretty much on the Lizard People in human suits theory these days. There's no way humans could be as over the top and obvious about wanting to destroy the West.

I agree with Lewis, except….it is never better to live under robber barons.because they never sleep, always want more for themselves, and we never, ever run out of them.

The do-gooder moral busybodies are more subliminal in their control, but because you may not realize what they are doing, they are far creepier.

The CIA and QAnon could use a little documentation! Meanwhile I will make myself a tin foil hat.

Here ya go ! Everyone should have one just in case …

Geesh, now I feel like I need to play a game of Illuminati!

link

😮

Don't worry.In 2024 it's real.

Legion,I am impressed with your skills! You did not learn this in Ranger training! Mine looks like it should go over a pot roast! Which is about what my brain has turned to lately…

Always glad to be a Mench !!!!

The communists and nazis share the same spiritual father and guiding force, Lucifer. Both systems work to implement his goals: to kill, steal and destroy. If you miss the spiritual element to the great darkness in the world you miss the key puzzle piece.

I have to agree that … in many cases what these people are doing is just pure evil. The examples are many .. too many …

Putin is someone who has a vision for Russia, and it is a vision that has to do with the great historical past. Russia as a power, which defends itself in an aggressive world. Russians always saw themselves that way, even when they were Soviet. What he is doing is recovering the honor and security that the Russian Empire once knew how to have, and for that he needs not only its borders, but what lies beyond the borders, the contiguous countries. He says that he is responding to NATO's provocation, which spread to the East. If this is so, it is a total failure, because the income from Sweden and Finland brings two militarily powerful countries, which also have 1,300 kilometers of border with Russia. That is to say, if NATO is a threat to Russia today, Russia is more insecure than it was two years ago when the war began. Because Ukraine was not a candidate for NATO membership, there were informal talks, but it had the veto of Germany and France. Ukraine was not going to join NATO, and neither were Sweden and Finland. So if the goal was to contain NATO, it failed miserably. What many believe is that it is not the objective; The objective is to return Russia to an empire, to return to the Russian Empire. Anyway, this is more imperialism than defense and I am not making a value judgment, it is an analytical description…

Armand