• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

I Think I'm Done With The Hill Rising

Being 'far-left' doesn't automatically make one a communism just as being far-right doesn't automatically make one a fascist. If you misuse words they lose their impact.

If you agree that she is far-left then I am confused about your "too little too late" comment about her "where's my coup?" The events on the 6th wasn't done by the left.
 
I provided plenty of facts, and you didn't dispute a single one.

You haven't shown any facts. You call these facts?

1. You really think infrastructure spending is left-wing? So the biggest infrastructure project in this country, the Highway System, which was started by a Republican WWII Veteran, was socialism? Please.

2. You know who started the very first welfare state in Europe? Otto Von Bismark. Go ahead, call him left wing, and reveal to everyone just how truly little you know about history. Because, in reality, none of what you listed here is unique to left wing governments and numerous right wing states have instituted welfare programs. How do you think Orban is keeping his grip on power?

3. The fact that you think this is socialism is cute. And also proof you have never read a history book in your life.

4. Nationalization has been instituted by both right and left wing governments throughout history. Seriously dude, read a ****ing book instead of getting all your talking points from a video essay on youtube.

Also, " By 1939, Fascist Italy attained the highest rate of state ownership of an economy in the world other than the Soviet Union, " is meaningless, because nothing actually changed.

What actually happened was the Italian government bought a majority stake ownership in failing businesses, but this was only done for failing industries and did not result in any changes in leadership, direction, or purpose. The Italians never restructured their economy anywhere near the extent the Soviets did, and the same can be said for the Nazis.
 
They were right wing because they're right wing? You're gonna need a little bit more than that. How about we look at what they actually did?

No, that's what the political left did, as an attempt to distance themselves from yet another leftist mass murderer.

Name one communist country that did that.

Failed communism can become fascism, as can failed capitalism. But communism as a movement is the opposite of fascism. The problem is: when it fails (as it always does) it leaves a power vacuum that is quickly filled by a dictator. Capitalism has the same vulnerability.

Fascism is, (usually,) the end result of any form of government. Eventually, one person manages to collect the majority of resources and gains enough support to install himself as a fascist dictator and suppress the majority. When one person is deciding where the resources are spent, it is not communism. It is a dictatorship.

As of 1/6/2021, suppressing the will of the majority to install a dictator through a non-democratic process is the purview of the right wing conservative Republican Party, not the left wing liberal Democratic Party.
 
They were right wing because they're right wing?

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were right wing fascists because they embodied traits associated with those ideologies; nationalism, militarism, imperialism, while rejecting Marxist principles like the abolition of private property and the class struggle above all else.

It's almost like there's an actual set of political beliefs and standards that are associated with specific ideologies and movements.
 
The problem is that "pure" fascism, "pure" communism, and "pure" socialism (as they have played out when humans use them) is that they eventually intersect. In the United States political system, fascism is associated with being "right wing." But the reality is that "right wingers" in the US still believe that civil rights, etc. should exist. They think they should be limited, but I don't see an extreme right winger disagreeing with the right to vote (in fact, they just want to restrict it so their vote matters the most, the thought of which has been brought on by another political problem, which is beyond the scope of where this conversation seems to be going.).

In a "pure communism" state, you forfeit the right to property. Here again, as much as extreme right wingers (And, to some extent, extreme left wingers) believe that only certain people can earn or are entitled to success, property is not forbidden.

In a "pure socialism" state, you forfeit the right to make more money than your neighbors and, in some cases, even forfeit the right to choose the job that you want as your career. Both the extreme right and the extreme left, disagree on how much money you should make, or what jobs should exist, but they still think you should be able to do anything you want as a job within reason.

But, when we implement this, the "pure" communism or socialism state is anything but. They bring elements of fascism, and sometimes communism has elements of socialism, and vice-versa.

So, really arguing left and right of socialism and communism is one of those things that it's neither aligned with the extreme left or the extreme right. There certain elements that both sides approve of, but neither one is purely on one side of the other.

Thus, Geoist's position and lwf's position are the most correct.

Everyone is saying that 1/6/2021 was this attempted coup. In many cases, I don't think many of those people knew what a "coup" actually was. I see a bunch of undereducated people brainwashed by a de-facto cult leader and who had no ability to critically think through their actions and ruined their lives as a result (and in some cases, killed others on their way down doing it). They were possibly mentally ill, which means that Trump manipulated at least a few mentally ill people into doing some really stupid things.
 
Sometimes it's really hard to find political commentators who provide a good balance of criticism of both Democrats and Republicans. Kyle Kulinski is... okay, but too much of an irrational purist at times.
Here's a question...Why are you trying to find political commentators that tell you things you already seem to agree with?

I can honestly say I don't have a favorite political commentator or even a source. I follow the Hill, I'll watch CNN, but I'll switch to ABC or CBS here and there for big events. Every once in a while I even flip over to Fox just to see what kind of crazy shit they got going on.
Maybe your problem in finding someone that speaks to you is that you're not really looking for information as much as you're looking for validation?
 
Sometimes it's really hard to find political commentators who provide a good balance of criticism of both Democrats and Republicans. Kyle Kulinski is... okay, but too much of an irrational purist at times. Jimmy Dore is even more of a purist, but also very cringey and obsessed with AOC's 'betrayal' because she doesn't like his strategy for M4A. And then there's Krystal Ball (and Saagar) on The Hill Rising. For a while now I've been getting increasingly annoyed with their 'both-sides-isms', the smugness, and their obsession with the media. But last month's On My Radar segment combined with the events of yesterday was the final straw.

This aged sooo well:


Snugness doesn't begin to describe Krystal Ball. I remember when she was on MSNBC when her opinions weren't quite so cynical and obnoxious.

Surprisingly, I think RT gives better commentary than all them....except when they're talking about Russia.
 
That's a myth spread by left-wing history professors, but that myth is slowly dying. It will die because nobody, including you, disputes the evidence, and there is a ton of evidence. If you don't disagree with the evidence, then anyone with half a brain can see that fascists were left wing (although I agree that would exclude 90% of today's progressives).

I didn't even talk about the Nazi government, but check my sig for a tiny, tiny taste.

Conservative morons claim that fascists were “left wing”, but that’s because they A) don’t know any actual history and B) are morons. It’s always amusing watching people claim that the regimes which killed or enslaved any leftists they could catch were secretly “left wing”.
 
Here's a question...Why are you trying to find political commentators that tell you things you already seem to agree with?

I listen to many political commentators I don't agree with. I grew up watching The McLaughlin Group. I've watched hours of clips of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell. I used to listen to Charlie Sykes every once in a while. But sometimes I want to hear perspectives from the left. Is that so wrong if I happen to generally agree with many of their perspectives?

I can honestly say I don't have a favorite political commentator or even a source.

Well... good for you?


I follow the Hill, I'll watch CNN, but I'll switch to ABC or CBS here and there for big events. Every once in a while I even flip over to Fox just to see what kind of crazy shit they got going on.
Maybe your problem in finding someone that speaks to you is that you're not really looking for information as much as you're looking for validation?

Maybe you didn't fully read my original post, but I made it clear the reasons why I'm not a big fan of the commentators I mentioned: 1. lack of pragmatism 2. smugness and 3. content. It has nothing to do with 'validation'.
 
If you agree that she is far-left then I am confused about your "too little too late" comment about her "where's my coup?" The events on the 6th wasn't done by the left.

My 'too little too late' comment is directed to her angry response to the Capitol Hill riots. Almost two months ago she played down the idea of Trump being as dangerous as the media was making him out to be and thus her sarcastic segment title, 'Where's My Coup?'
 
Conservative morons claim that fascists were “left wing”, but that’s because they A) don’t know any actual history and B) are morons. It’s always amusing watching people claim that the regimes which killed or enslaved any leftists they could catch were secretly “left wing”.

it’s just a fire exit for them to avoid holding the dumpster blaze of radical right politics accountable.

they’ll say Mussoliniwas a socialist without acknowledging he was kicked out of the socialist party.

point to Hitlers adoption of the word as a label while ignoring he campaigned on stopping communism
 
The problem is that "pure" fascism, "pure" communism, and "pure" socialism (as they have played out when humans use them) is that they eventually intersect. In the United States political system, fascism is associated with being "right wing." But the reality is that "right wingers" in the US still believe that civil rights, etc. should exist. They think they should be limited, but I don't see an extreme right winger disagreeing with the right to vote (in fact, they just want to restrict it so their vote matters the most, the thought of which has been brought on by another political problem, which is beyond the scope of where this conversation seems to be going.).

Anything taken to an extreme is dangerous. Unfettered freedom is dangerous, pure democracy is mob rule, too much water is poisonous, etc. When someone asks to turn up the temperature, they do not necessarily want a super nova. These are not revelatory ideas, they are foundational to communication.

I think your radar is off a bit with regards to the right-wing. By default they want to limit the right to vote. On the extreme end they support outright dictatorships. The reason right-wing populism has fascist tendancies is because elements of fascism are popular with the right-wing.
 
@Geoist

I just heard but lost a blogger mentioned by Janine Jackson on "CounterSpin." "The view from the left" or something like that. I'm planning to post the current episode link, and I'll find the correct name. CounterSpin is excellent!
 
@Geoist

I just heard but lost a blogger mentioned by Janine Jackson on "CounterSpin." "The view from the left" or something like that. I'm planning to post the current episode link, and I'll find the correct name. CounterSpin is excellent!

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out. :)
 
Failed communism can become fascism,

Hello, absolutely correct.
Russia is NOT even remotely communist anymore, and it is closer to fascism now albeit with a large dose of mobster rule, just like here...only bigger and much more entrenched. The Russian mob basically BECAME the Russian government.
 
Anything taken to an extreme is dangerous. Unfettered freedom is dangerous, pure democracy is mob rule, too much water is poisonous, etc. When someone asks to turn up the temperature, they do not necessarily want a super nova. These are not revelatory ideas, they are foundational to communication.

I think your radar is off a bit with regards to the right-wing. By default they want to limit the right to vote. On the extreme end they support outright dictatorships. The reason right-wing populism has fascist tendancies is because elements of fascism are popular with the right-wing.

Purity does not exist in Nature.
But that doesn't stop mankind from fetishizing it.
 
Conservative morons claim that fascists were “left wing”, but that’s because they A) don’t know any actual history and B) are morons. It’s always amusing watching people claim that the regimes which killed or enslaved any leftists they could catch were secretly “left wing”.

Literally BILLIONS were spent to propagate the revisionist view on fascism....for a reason.
It was done to INOCULATE the invaders from responsibility and accountability, hence why they now insist that 1-6-2021 was "the work of Antifa".
Pattern recognition, people...what happened to everyone's ability to recognize history repeating itself.
This was our Reichstag Fire and, just as then, it is being blamed on "the Left" when in reality Hitler's own people started it and if that guy with the eleven Molotov cocktails had succeeded in gaining entry we'd be looking at a horror beyond comprehension, the Capitol reduced to ashes.
 
Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were right wing fascists because they embodied traits associated with those ideologies; nationalism,

Nationalism is a form of collectivism, and while Lenin said he was opposed to it, many other famous commies have been nationalists - Mao was a nationalist, as was Pol Pot. The pledge of allegiance in the US was written by a socialist - Francis Bellamy. Progressive hero Teddy Roosevelt was also a nationalist:


Commie Ho Chi Minh was a nationalist:


Nationalism is not right wing.

militarism,
The military itself is a socialist institution - it is public ownership of means of production regarding national defense. National defense is a public good:

public good.jpg

If we define militarism as "the belief or the desire of a government or a people that a state should maintain a strong military capability and to use it aggressively to expand national interests and/or values", then many commie countries fit. The USSR, North Korea's policy of songun, Venezuela under Chavez, and note how all the commie dictators Bernie Sanders luvs are always dressed in military garb.

In short, there is nothing "right wing" about militarism, and the loudest voices against conscription are those on the far right, while leftists luv the idea.


imperialism,

The Bolsheviks were imperialists:


China was and is imperialist:


Imperialism has been going on for millennia, and to claim that it is "right wing" is absurd.

Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy were right wing fascists because they embodied traits associated with those ideologies; nationalism, militarism, imperialism

To summarize: nationalism, militarism, imperialism, are not right wing. Nationalism is form of collectivism, and militarism is socialism, both of which are core left wing ideals.

while rejecting Marxist principles like the abolition of private property

Fascists were extremely hostile to private property. Both Hitler and Mussolini could not have have done what they did if either of them recognized and respected private property rights.

and the class struggle above all else.

Here are some words from Marx regarding the class struggle between the workers and the greedy bourgeois business owners:

"Therefore it is evident that if the individual workman is to have any chance at all of winning through in the struggle he must be grouped with his fellow workmen and present a united front before the individual employer, who incorporates in his own person the massed strength of the vested interests in the industrial or commercial undertaking which he conducts... It was difficult to discuss this problem with the average bourgeois employer. He had no understanding (or did not wish to have any) for either the material or moral side of the question. Finally he declared that his own economic interests were in principle opposed to every kind of organization which joined together the workmen that were dependent on him."

Oh wait, that's not Marx, that's the "right winger" Adolf Hitler, and note that Mussolini would wholeheartedly agree with the above, since he was a socialist for his entire life.

It's almost like there's an actual set of political beliefs and standards that are associated with specific ideologies and movements.

There are differences, but the differences between communism and fascism are trivial. Diarist Victor Klemperer had the misfortune to live under both, and he found little difference between the two.
 
You haven't shown any facts. You call these facts?

1. You really think infrastructure spending is left-wing? So the biggest infrastructure project in this country, the Highway System, which was started by a Republican WWII Veteran, was socialism? Please.

The first transcontinental highway in the US was built with private money:


And yes, expanding government ownership of infrastructure is left wing. It increases both the size and scope of government, which is something leftists virtually always approve of and right wingers are against.

2. You know who started the very first welfare state in Europe? Otto Von Bismark. Go ahead, call him left wing, and reveal to everyone just how truly little you know about history. Because, in reality, none of what you listed here is unique to left wing governments and numerous right wing states have instituted welfare programs.

I'll let Bismarck speak for himself and let the reader decide:

"The social insecurity of the worker is the real cause of their being a peril to the state."

"I will further every endeavour which positively aims at improving the condition of the working classes. ... As soon as a positive proposal came from the Socialists for fashioning the future in a sensible way, in order that the lot of the working-man might be improved, I would not at any rate refuse to examine it favourably, and I would not even shrink from the idea of State help for the people who would help themselves."

"Many measures which we have adopted to the great blessing of the country are Socialistic, and the State will have to accustom itself to a little more Socialism yet. ... I am glad that this Socialism was adopted, for we have as a consequence secured a free and very well-to-do peasantry, and I hope that we shall in time do something of the sort for the labouring classes. ... The establishment of the freedom of the peasantry was Socialistic; Socialistic, too, is every expropriation in favour of railways; Socialistic to the utmost extent is the aggregation[aka soviet collectivism] of estates—the law exists in many provinces—taking from one and giving to another, simply because this other can cultivate the land more conveniently; Socialistic is expropriation under the Water Legislation, on account of irrigation, etc., where a man's land is taken away from him because another can farm it better; Socialistic is our entire poor relief, compulsory school attendance, compulsory construction of roads, so that I am bound to maintain a road upon my lands for travellers. That is all Socialistic, and I could extend the register further; but if you believe that you can frighten any one or call up spectres with the word “Socialism,” you take a standpoint which I abandoned long ago, and the abandonment of which is absolutely necessary for our entire imperial legislation."

"If an establishment employing twenty thousand or more workpeople were to be ruined...we could not allow these men to hunger. We should have to resort to real State Socialism and find work for them, and this is what we do in every case of distress. If the objection were right that we should shun State Socialism as we would an infectious disease, how do we come to organise works in one province and another in case of distress—works which we should not undertake if the labourers had employment and wages? In such cases we build railways whose profitableness is questionable; we carry out improvements which otherwise would be left to private initiative. If that is Communism, I have no objection at all to it; though with such catchwords we really get no further."

Those quotes from the book linked below. You read it and then tell me Bismark was "right wing":

 
No, fascism is not right wing. You quoting a Wikipedia definition is not an argument.

fascism is a philosophy steeped in modernity. Every constituent element came out of enlightenment thinking.
It is true that fascism had left-wing elements, but it was far more right-wing than e.g. the Republican Party (then or now).
 
Lenin and Stalin didn’t attempt to exterminate communism, or kill and or enslave anyone to the left of Pinochet......unlike Hitler and Europe‘s other right wing dictators.

Hitler did not want to exterminate communism (whatever that means). He hated Marxism and the Bolsheviks, because he noticed most of the Bolsheviks were Jews, and Marx himself was a Jew, and in case you didn't know, Hitler didn't like Jews very much.

But Hitler had no problem with communism itself, as evidence by the Nazi 25 point program which was loaded with commie policies.

Furthermore, if you believe fascists hated communists, then why did Mussolini often refer to himself as the "Lenin of Italy"?

Or why did Hitler allow thousands of communists into the Nazi party?
 
Nationalism is not right wing.

Nonsense. Nationalism is directly rejected by Marxist and socialist works, literature, and doctrine, while it is embraced by right wing groups. You are speaking nonsense.

The military itself is a socialist institution

What a stupid statement. The military is not a socialist institution. You are speaking nonsense.

The Monarchs for tens of thousands of years who raised armies were not creating socialist institutions. You are literally just making shit up because you don't understand what words mean.

Fascists were extremely hostile to private property.

Which is why they both abolished it, right? Oh no? They didn't?

Oh wait, here's what Hitler actually said:

DaypFtCVwAEqNNF.jpg


and note that Mussolini would wholeheartedly agree with the above, since he was a socialist for his entire life.

He abandoned socialism after becoming a fascist and made that very clear in his statements and writing. Just because you don't know about them doesn't meant they didn't happen.

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle."

-Benito Mussolini
 
Back
Top Bottom