1
   

Jesus In Heaven Don't We Have Enough On Our Plates?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 05:50 pm
Atavistic, how would you classify Spain's dictator, Francisco Franco?
I've always thought of Hitler (Franco's ally) and Stalin to be on the right and left respectively. They certainly were ideological opponents.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 06:11 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Atavistic, how would you classify Spain's dictator, Francisco Franco?
I've always thought of Hitler (Franco's ally) and Stalin to be on the right and left respectively. They certainly were ideological opponents.


Enemies for sure, but ideological opponents? I have always believed that Marx was the spiritual father of Lenin, and Lenin provided the model for Stalin and also Hitler and Mussolini. When you study their individual methods, they were very similar and contained similar goals.

So, if my take on it is right, Atavistic's observation becomes intriguing. I'll let him answer re Franco, however.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 06:17 pm
I'm not familiar with Hitler's brand of national socialism, but I don't think it is Marxist in the least. I'm sure Stalin would agree. Mussolini was a self-declared facista. But who knows precisely how people use terms?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 06:24 pm
JLNobody wrote:
I'm not familiar with Hitler's brand of national socialism, but I don't think it is Marxist in the least. I'm sure Stalin would agree. Mussolini was a self-declared facista. But who knows precisely how people use terms?


I think there isn't a lot of difference however when you boil each dictator's philosophy, process, and ambition down to the bare essentials. So semantics aside, you're dealing with totalitarian socialism in all. That's what made me think about Atavistic's comment as socialism is not normally associated with the "Right" at least in this country.

At any rate it's certainly not any big deal. Just interesting to think about.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 06:30 pm
Fascism and communism are rivals, not enemies. They both emerged as a rebellion against monarchy and classical liberalism. They both believe in the good of the state over the individual.

The National SOCIALISTS despised capitalism. Hitler himself said it was "immoral." They had a planned economy. They opposed the nobility and implemented a classless society. Communists were the easiest recruits.

The right and left as experienced in American politics is completely topsy-turvy. A true right-wing perspective is essentially that ALL ideologies are leftist. A Monarch has no need for ideologies.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 06:51 pm
A good statement, Atavistic, but in what sense were Stalin and Hitler rivals but NOT enemies? And do not most monarchies base their legitimacy on some mythology (ideology)?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 06:53 pm
The only people who want to think of fascism and communism as "the same thing"...are right-wingers...who have a vested interest in trying to place anything they perceive as "wrong" in the laps of the liberals.

Fascism and communism are not the same thing.

Brandon was wrong to say that Cuba was a fascistic dictatorship.

Both fascism and communism function under dictatorships.

But because both function under dictatorships does not mean that they are the same thing or even similar. They just happen to share a common trait.

Cuba has been identified...BY CUBANS...as a communist country for 50 years now.

Try to get a grip on it folks.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 06:56 pm
Frank's statement that "The only people who want to think of fascism and communism as "the same thing"...are right-wingers...who have a vested interest in trying to place anything they perceive as "wrong" in the laps of the liberals" sounds right to me.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 07:12 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Frank's statement that "The only people who want to think of fascism and communism as "the same thing"...are right-wingers...who have a vested interest in trying to place anything they perceive as "wrong" in the laps of the liberals" sounds right to me.


In what way do you suggest that Brandon, by labeling Castro's Cuba a "fascist dictatorship, was trying to place Fidel Castro "in the laps of liberals"?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 07:37 pm
JLNobody wrote:
Frank's statement that "The only people who want to think of fascism and communism as "the same thing"...are right-wingers...who have a vested interest in trying to place anything they perceive as "wrong" in the laps of the liberals" sounds right to me.


Nobody said they are the same thing, but a system that calls itself Communist can also be facist as was demonstrated by Stalin and Castro, both of whom pretended communist systems but had no qualms about quickly dispatching any in their governments who presumed to criticize or oppose them. A Communist system can operate with an authoritarian leader but does allow for consensus on government matters, and the Head of State operates by the consent of the government if not the governed.

Remember that Germany supported Lenin and helped finance the Bolshevik revolution, and Germany and Russia were allies right up to the time that Hitler invaded Russia. Even when warned, Stalin refused to believe Hitler was actually going to invade until it was already a done deal.

If you study the modus operendi of Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin, you will find very close parallels in their goals, processes, and methodology.

However, I think those who insist on making an interesting idea or concept into an insult are generally Left Wingers. Smile
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 07:45 pm
If your memory is honest you will also remember that many americans (such as the Bush family) supported the ideology of Hitler to the point of financing much of his adventurism.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 07:46 pm
atavistic wrote :
"The National SOCIALISTS despised capitalism. Hitler himself said it was "immoral." They had a planned economy. They opposed the nobility and implemented a classless society."

while hitler said that capitalism was "immoral" , he certainly embraced many capitalists who were his helpmates - just think of the "krupp" family , and there were plenty other capitalists that supported him .
as for opposition to nobility , again he had many "nobles" that were party members .
it is interesting to note that austria did away with all titles of nobility after WW II , but in germany they remained untouched . even in this day-and-age you'll see many titles showing up in government , industry and the newspaper business , and i believe none of them been willing to give up their titles .
and finally ... germany certainly was NOT a classless society under hitler . as a matter of fact , hitler himself liked to surround himself with titled personalities .
(to qualify : not all titled personalities were under hitler's spell , but plenty liked the idea of keeping the 'ordinary citizens' at bay ).
hbg
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 07:59 pm
I am not informed enough about Franco to make an accurate assessment.

On the surface, Hitler and Stalin might seem ideologically opposed, but their ideological origins are the same, imo. They were both strongly influenced by the social upheaval of the French Revolution. They were both basically peasants who resented nobility and privelege. They both exalted the "working man" and the state. Being that the Jews were viewed as the embodiment of the bourgeois, was it just a coincidence that they both hated Jews?

Most monarchies do indeed base their legitimacy on some sort of divine right, but an aristocracy is not necessarily based on religion.

I wouldn't describe fascism and communism as the same thing, merely that they both have the same origins as rebellions against Christian traditionalism and are essentially leftist in nature.

The following is a quote from one of my favorite authors, Erik Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, who articulates this point much better than I:

"The fatal year is 1789, and the symbol of iniquity is the Jacobin Cap. Its heresy is the denial of personality and of personal liberty. Its concrete realizations are mass democracy, all forms of national collectivism and statism, Marxism, which produces socialism and communism, fascism, and national socialism-in short, leftism in all its modern guises and manifestations. It is to this that in America the old familiar term 'liberalism,' perversely enough, is being applied. The issue is between man being created in God's image and the termite in a human guise."
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 08:08 pm
Atavistic, I suggest you read some factual history re the Count Leo Tolstoy.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 08:28 pm
hamburger wrote:
atavistic wrote :
"The National SOCIALISTS despised capitalism. Hitler himself said it was "immoral." They had a planned economy. They opposed the nobility and implemented a classless society."

while hitler said that capitalism was "immoral" , he certainly embraced many capitalists who were his helpmates - just think of the "krupp" family , and there were plenty other capitalists that supported him .
as for opposition to nobility , again he had many "nobles" that were party members .
it is interesting to note that austria did away with all titles of nobility after WW II , but in germany they remained untouched . even in this day-and-age you'll see many titles showing up in government , industry and the newspaper business , and i believe none of them been willing to give up their titles .
and finally ... germany certainly was NOT a classless society under hitler . as a matter of fact , hitler himself liked to surround himself with titled personalities .
(to qualify : not all titled personalities were under hitler's spell , but plenty liked the idea of keeping the 'ordinary citizens' at bay ).
hbg




As far as Hitler and nobilities, it was a marriage of convienence, to say the least. Hitler needed the noblemen because they made up the bulk of the military hierarchy and he knew they were the best. He would have gladly got rid of them if he could. For their part, they cynically reffered to Hitler as "the corporal" in private and viewed him as a peasant. If you recall, it was primarily noblemen who were involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler in July 1944.

I hardly consider the fact the the Krupps manufacutured most of Germanys armaments to mean that Germany was in any way capitalistic. The Krupps had no choice in the matter.

And yes, Hitler did desire a classless Germany. All young men were forced to serve in the National Labor Service before they moved on to their respective military branch. This was to build comradeship, and erase any individuality or class-ties.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 08:29 pm
dyslexia wrote:
Atavistic, I suggest you read some factual history re the Count Leo Tolstoy.


Why is that?
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Aug, 2006 11:11 pm
Am I wrong in recalling Sweden as a country with socialism, capitalism, nobility, and democracy?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 02:58 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
There's only one way for you to prevail in this argument - show me in what way Cuba fails to fit the definition of fascism. If it fits the definition, then my use of the term was correct. If I apply an adjective accurately to a noun, then I am correct. You, in saying that I have applied the term improperly, are incorrect. Defend your statement or forfeit, your bad behavior notwithstanding.


Obviously you have major problems with logic, Brandon.

A fascistic regime is indeed a totalitarian regime.

But that does not mean that EVERY totalitarian regime is a fascistic one.

Some totalitarian regimes are communistic...not fascistic.

The come from opposite sides of the political spectrum, Brandon...with fascism usually associated with right wing or conservative politics...and communism with left wing or liberal politics.

It is not really all that hard to understand...and the fact that you have a habit of constantly declaring "victory" in these discussions will not change that.

Try to use your brain.

If you have one.

Does Cuba fit this definition from the American Heritage Dictionary or does it not?

Quote:
1. often Fascism a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.


If it fits the definition of fascism, then I'm right and you're wrong. In my opinion, it definitely qualifies under definition number 2. Do you disagree?


Yes I do.

But you are too pig-headed to see the light...so I really shouldn't bother.

But...

...if you are silly enough to suppose that ALL "oppressive dictatorial control" must be fascist...go for it. It is the kind of thing a stupid person would do...but go for it.

You fit in.

But anyone with a brain would realize that while ALL fascist societies are oppressive dictatorial controlled societies...NOT ALL oppressive dictatorial controlled societies are fascist. Some are communistic.

Cuba is such a place.

Cuba is NOT a fascist country...and only a truly ignorant person would consider it to be one.

Yes, ignorant enough to accept the dictionary definition, which I have posted twice now.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 06:18 am
The President of Cuba is elected by those elected to government and those elected to government are pretty much who he says will be elected. Nobody has challenged or run against Castro since he came to power though elections are held every few years. According to the CIA factbook, Castro receives 100% of the vote in every election. The government controls all commerce and industry. The people are not allowed to have internet access, at least legally, there is no freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or really any other freedoms. Visitors to Cuban resort hotels are allowed very limited internet access.

If Castro is/was not facist, then neither was Saddam Hussein.
0 Replies
 
Atavistic
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Aug, 2006 07:16 am
JLNobody wrote:
Am I wrong in recalling Sweden as a country with socialism, capitalism, nobility, and democracy?


Don't they also have the highest suicide rate in the world?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/26/2024 at 08:56:35