NationStates

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

North German Realm wrote:I don't think creating a fascist state for a peoples with a culture like that of the Arabs would be a good idea. It'd be even worse than a normal fascist state, in fact.

Socialism =/= Fascism. Are you going Ben Shapiro on us rn?

Cerinda wrote:

North German Realm wrote:I don't think creating a fascist state for a peoples with a culture like that of the Arabs would be a good idea. It'd be even worse than a normal fascist state, in fact.

>Thinks Fascism and Socialism are the same.
Steven Crowder? Is that you?

I'm sorry, I'm too much of an idiot to realize a highly ethnic nationalistic ideology, mixed with collectivist policies mistakenly assumed to be socialism is not how you generally define fucking national socialism. It's not even in disguise. It's almost like you guys have never even studied the Ba'ath (Which is... almost consistently accepted to be fascist when its collectivist policies are successfully implemented alongside its ethnic supremacist irridentism)

North German Realm wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Socialism =/= Fascism. Are you going Ben Shapiro on us rn?

Cerinda wrote:>Thinks Fascism and Socialism are the same.
Steven Crowder? Is that you?

I'm sorry, I'm too much of an idiot to realize a highly ethnic nationalistic ideology, mixed with collectivist policies mistakenly assumed to be socialism is not how you generally define fucking national socialism. It's not even in disguise. It's almost like you guys have never even studied the Ba'ath (Which is... almost consistently accepted to be fascist when its collectivist policies are successfully implemented alongside its ethnic supremacist irridentism)

Is pan-Arab Socialism ethno-Nationalistic by necessitity? I guess it could be argued to be. Still, theren's more to Fascism than racism and collectivist ecomonomics.

North German Realm wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Socialism =/= Fascism. Are you going Ben Shapiro on us rn?

Cerinda wrote:>Thinks Fascism and Socialism are the same.
Steven Crowder? Is that you?

I'm sorry, I'm too much of an idiot to realize a highly ethnic nationalistic ideology, mixed with collectivist policies mistakenly assumed to be socialism is not how you generally define fucking national socialism. It's not even in disguise. It's almost like you guys have never even studied the Ba'ath (Which is... almost consistently accepted to be fascist when its collectivist policies are successfully implemented alongside its ethnic supremacist irridentism)

That's not what Ba'athism is at all, Jesus Christ. Ba'athism is a Socialist left-wing nationalist movement that calls for Pan-Arabism, nothing about it is fascist, fascism privatises the economy while Ba'athist governments have nationalised it and brought it under the control of the workers. Also the Syrian government is allies with communist groups and was allies with the Soviet Union, hell it's still allies with Cuba and North Korea, but yeah it's totally "fascist."

Cerinda wrote:

North German Realm wrote:




I'm sorry, I'm too much of an idiot to realize a highly ethnic nationalistic ideology, mixed with collectivist policies mistakenly assumed to be socialism is not how you generally define fucking national socialism. It's not even in disguise. It's almost like you guys have never even studied the Ba'ath (Which is... almost consistently accepted to be fascist when its collectivist policies are successfully implemented alongside its ethnic supremacist irridentism)

That's not what Ba'athism is at all, Jesus Christ. Ba'athism is a Socialist left-wing nationalist movement that calls for Pan-Arabism, nothing about it is fascist, fascism privatises the economy while Ba'athist governments have nationalised it and brought it under the control of the workers. Also the Syrian government is allies with communist groups and was allies with the Soviet Union, hell it's still allies with Cuba and North Korea, but yeah it's totally "fascist."

Funny how a "Socialist" movement doesn't support seizing the means of production:

"A Ba'athist state supports socialist economics to a varying degree and supports public ownership over the heights of the economy, but opposes the confiscation of private property."

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Is pan-Arab Socialism ethno-Nationalistic by necessitity? I guess it could be argued to be. Still, theren's more to Fascism than racism and collectivist ecomonomics.

Yes. By its very nature, Pan-Arabism is ethno-centric, because there is no "civic" culture for any non-ethnic nationalism to originate from among Arab Cultures. And... kinda, not really? At its core, economic or social collectivist policies, the existence of a "master race" (or "master culture"), and a totalitarian state is all you need to deduce a state is roughly "Fascist".

Cerinda wrote:That's not what Ba'athism is at all, Jesus Christ. Ba'athism is a Socialist left-wing nationalist movement that calls for Pan-Arabism, nothing about it is fascist, fascism privatises the economy while Ba'athist governments have nationalised it and brought it under the control of the workers. Also the Syrian government is allies with communist groups and was allies with the Soviet Union, hell it's still allies with Cuba and North Korea, but yeah it's totally "fascist."

1- Ba'athism is only left-wing in the same sense Strasserism is left-wing. It has proto-collectivist economic principles hidden behind layers and layers of ethno-centric hate and spite. It is Nationalist first and foremost, and by very design only implements collectivist economic policies (and not socialist either. As Torocca so-eloquently put, it is no fan of collectivisation beyond what is necessary for the Arab State to survive) because it is "What the Arab People Need". Kinda like how early post-syndicalist Fascists thought about socialism, which is of course no surprised as its early founders were either fascists or heavily influenced by fascists.

2- Depending on the Fascist State in question, your "privatizes the economy" can have no leg to stand on. Early Fascists were no fan of privatization, but rather "collectivisation". Not full control of everything, but "anything that can Help" the ethno-state in question.

3- I'm not sure if you realize how diplomatic principles work. People, contrary to popular belief, don't make alliances based on political or social opinions, but on common benefits.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Cerinda wrote:TFW everyone is supporting Rojava but you want Syria to be part of a socialist pan-Arab State.

Arabs do not need Socialism, they first and foremost need liberalism, in order to temper fundamentalism and suppression.

The last thing any part of the world needs is western liberalism tbh

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Arabs do not need Socialism, they first and foremost need liberalism, in order to temper fundamentalism and suppression.

The last thing any part of the world needs is western liberalism tbh

Would you prefer the theocratic, authoritarian fundamentalism the Arab world has now?

North German Realm wrote:
1- Ba'athism is only left-wing in the same sense Strasserism is left-wing. It has proto-collectivist economic principles hidden behind layers and layers of ethno-centric hate and spite. It is Nationalist first and foremost, and by very design only implements collectivist economic policies (and not socialist either. As Torocca so-eloquently put, it is no fan of collectivisation beyond what is necessary for the Arab State to survive) because it is "What the Arab People Need". Kinda like how early post-syndicalist Fascists thought about socialism, which is of course no surprised as its early founders were either fascists or heavily influenced by fascists.

"Ethno-centric hate and spite" lol, I guess being against Israel is hate and spite. Also the founder Michel Aflaq was a communist, so no he wasn't a "fascist", unless you think communism and fascism are the same.

2- Depending on the Fascist State in question, your "privatizes the economy" can have no leg to stand on. Early Fascists were no fan of privatization, but rather "collectivisation". Not full control of everything, but "anything that can Help" the ethno-state in question.

All Fascist states privatized the economy, just because early fascists were "no fan of privatization" doesn't mean anything. Also Ba'athism doesn't call for an ethno-state, it uses Pan-Arabism as a way for the Arab world to not be oppressed by foreign imperialists, non-Arabs can live peacefully in the state.

3- I'm not sure if you realize how diplomatic principles work. People, contrary to popular belief, don't make alliances based on political or social opinions, but on common benefits.

Nice doge there, you would think if the Syrian government were fascist then they wouldn't be allies with communist states, because, you know? Fascism is anti communist.

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The last thing any part of the world needs is western liberalism tbh

Would you prefer the theocratic, authoritarian fundamentalism the Arab world has now?

As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Would you prefer the theocratic, authoritarian fundamentalism the Arab world has now?

As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

I know which one I'd rather live under.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Would you prefer the theocratic, authoritarian fundamentalism the Arab world has now?

As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

how callous. "as long as it's not happening to me and mine, it doesn't matter"

Crysuko wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

how callous. "as long as it's not happening to me and mine, it doesn't matter"

The overwhelming majority of the Muslim population worldwide supports Shariah law and other such things. Would you instead prefer western imperialism to go around and destroy the cultures and beliefs of the third world?

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Crysuko wrote:how callous. "as long as it's not happening to me and mine, it doesn't matter"

The overwhelming majority of the Muslim population worldwide supports Shariah law and other such things. Would you instead prefer western imperialism to go around and destroy the cultures and beliefs of the third world?

I C O N O C L A S M

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Would you prefer the theocratic, authoritarian fundamentalism the Arab world has now?

As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

The Arab world is significantly larger than the United States (particularly if you exclude Alaska, which barely even exists) and has about 100 million more people. It's hardly a "little corner of the world" unless you'd also consider the entire US to be a little corner of the world.

Crysuko wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The overwhelming majority of the Muslim population worldwide supports Shariah law and other such things. Would you instead prefer western imperialism to go around and destroy the cultures and beliefs of the third world?

I C O N O C L A S M

N O, iconoclasm is a shit

Cekoviu wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

The Arab world is significantly larger than the United States (particularly if you exclude Alaska, which barely even exists) and has about 100 million more people. It's hardly a "little corner of the world" unless you'd also consider the entire US to be a little corner of the world.

T'was just a figure of speech.

Also no hate on Alaska plz, it's a wonderful place

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:The Arab world is significantly larger than the United States (particularly if you exclude Alaska, which barely even exists) and has about 100 million more people. It's hardly a "little corner of the world" unless you'd also consider the entire US to be a little corner of the world.

T'was just a figure of speech.

Also no hate on Alaska plz, it's a wonderful place

Alaska has like 3 people in it; it doesn't count as part of the US. Pretty though

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Crysuko wrote:I C O N O C L A S M

N O, iconoclasm is a shit

Cekoviu wrote:The Arab world is significantly larger than the United States (particularly if you exclude Alaska, which barely even exists) and has about 100 million more people. It's hardly a "little corner of the world" unless you'd also consider the entire US to be a little corner of the world.

T'was just a figure of speech.

Also no hate on Alaska plz, it's a wonderful place

replace Sunnis and Shias killing each other with religious groups not killing each other. sounds good to me.

Cerinda wrote:1- "Ethno-centric hate and spite" lol, I guess being against Israel is hate and spite. Also the founder Michel Aflaq was a communist, so no he wasn't a "fascist", unless you think communism and fascism are the same.

2- All Fascist states privatized the economy, just because early fascists were "no fan of privatization" doesn't mean anything. Also Ba'athism doesn't call for an ethno-state, it uses Pan-Arabism as a way for the Arab world to not be oppressed by foreign imperialists, non-Arabs can live peacefully in the state.

3- Nice dodge there, you would think if the Syrian government were fascist then they wouldn't be allies with communist states, because, you know? Fascism is anti communist.

It'... kinda not just Israel. I could pretend to understand if it was just Israel. I mean, it would still be hateful and spiteful as fuck, but it wouldn't be as bad as what it is in reality. Pan-Arabism, by its very nature, is against the very existence of non-Arabs in """""""""rightful""""""""" Arab territory. Depending on its veneer, the Ba'ath in particular is antisemitic and Anti-Persian too. Not "Anti-Israel and Anti-Iran" like apologists such as yourself like to pretend. Antisemitic (genocidally so) and Anti-Persian. The track record of the Ba'ath's treatment of non-Arabs in territories it held is also not very impressive. But that's still irrelevant, because it is a red herring in your pretense of apologia that is either borne of your lack of understanding of what the Ba'ath is or what the historical and modern geo-politics of MENA are like.

And fucking Please. Aflaq was famous for being "Critical" of both Capitalism and Communism. Kinda like every other collectivist-oriented third-positionist if you think about it.
To wit:

... The last tenet, 'socialism', did not mean socialism as it is defined in the West, but rather a unique form of Arab socialism. Aflaq coined the word Arab socialism for his variant of socialism. Socialism, in its original form in the Arab world had, according to Aflaq, first come into being under the rule of Muhammad. The point of Arab socialism was not to answer questions such as: how much state control was necessary, or economic equality; but instead Arab socialism was a system that freed the Arab people from oppression and enslavement, which in turn created independent individuals.

Aflaq opposed Marx's view that dialectical materialism was the only truth, but believed that the "importance of material economic conditions in life" was one of the greatest discoveries in modern history.[70] Even so, Aflaq was critical of both capitalism and communism, and did not want either of the two power blocs to collapse during the Cold War – believing that the Cold War was a sort of check and balance on their power.

Aflaq himself was no Communist or Marxist. He bore no love for collectivism as anything other than a means to "Better" the Arab Race. Just because the race is pretended to have been victim of Imperialism and muh oppression doesn't make the ideology any less fascistic.

And once again. People have the ability not to blind themselves with ideology when needs must. Especially when a tenant of the ideology in question is "We must make sure neither side collapses because that would be bad for us". For a fascist that realizes the fall of either Communism or Capitalism will mean the survivor will inevitably gun for his own posse, being allied with Communists (because, you know, their main enemies in the region were, at the time, generally aligned with the US) makes perfect sense. Just because you're a blind ideologue who can't diplomacy for shit doesn't mean the fucking politicians in charge of the Arab States were like that too.

Crysuko wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

how callous. "as long as it's not happening to me and mine, it doesn't matter"

Rawl's ''Veil of ignorance'' is not too popular it seems.

Epicurustan wrote:

Crysuko wrote:how callous. "as long as it's not happening to me and mine, it doesn't matter"

Rawl's ''Veil of ignorance'' is not too popular it seems.

is it such an alien concept to be troubled by the difficulties others are having? half the reason i'm a leftist is because i'm a sympathetic person by nature.

Crysuko wrote:

Epicurustan wrote:Rawl's ''Veil of ignorance'' is not too popular it seems.

is it such an alien concept to be troubled by the difficulties others are having? half the reason i'm a leftist is because i'm a sympathetic person by nature.

Even if you're not sympathetic Rawls makes a good point. Naturally, society should be designed so that every person would have equal opportunities (or results depending how extreme you go) no matter race, sex or whatever variable. Reason is is that you, as an ego, would want the best for yourself and therefore minimize the maximum amount of distress you can be put in as a society.

The only flaw to this theory however is that - we already live in a society and people who have it good don't feel the need to overthink this. Which is completely logical in itself as well. Aside of that people who encounter other problems might not even think about the problems of others at all.

It's a privileged position to be able to think about other people's problems.

New yugoslavaia wrote:

The Xenopolis Confederation wrote:Socialism =/= Fascism. Are you going Ben Shapiro on us rn?

Arab normies DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC!

Care to play a game of horseshoes?

Cekoviu wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
As long as it remains isolated to their little corner of the world I wouldn't care.

The Arab world is significantly larger than the United States (particularly if you exclude Alaska, which barely even exists) and has about 100 million more people. It's hardly a "little corner of the world" unless you'd also consider the entire US to be a little corner of the world.

What we should take from this is that Alaska doesn't exist. I knew it.

Washington Resistance Army wrote:

Crysuko wrote:how callous. "as long as it's not happening to me and mine, it doesn't matter"

The overwhelming majority of the Muslim population worldwide supports Shariah law and other such things. Would you instead prefer western imperialism to go around and destroy the cultures and beliefs of the third world?

One only needs to surgically remove the troublesome parts.

Kowani wrote:

Washington Resistance Army wrote:
The overwhelming majority of the Muslim population worldwide supports Shariah law and other such things. Would you instead prefer western imperialism to go around and destroy the cultures and beliefs of the third world?

One only needs to surgically remove the troublesome parts.

If you do not live in a nation that practices Shariah law, they are not troublesome parts to you.