War Gears wrote:Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.
In what way? If anything, I thought fascism was a reaction against socialism.
Advertisement
by Esheaun Stroakuss » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:46 pm
War Gears wrote:Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.
by Internationalist Bastard » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:47 pm
Uxupox wrote:Kash Island wrote:
not really, if the soviets had kicked off WW2(hell, they had there own plans and were also responsible for dividing Poland) it would have been the other way around.
People just want to hear what they want to hear...
A very interesting line of thought. Would let's say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is never signed, would the Axis at this point in time defend Poland?
The Allies wouldn't have (See secret clause in the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty).
by Uxupox » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:47 pm
Baltenstein wrote:FDR wanted to go to war with Japan and Germany both. He had laid out a coordinated strategy with Churchill on the matter, he had already authorized naval warfare against Germany in the Atlantic. The one and only thing hindering him from fully entering the war was the non-interventionist sentiment in the American populace and government, which pretty much disappeared in one night after Pearl Harbor.
I don't see why and how FDR would have gone to war with Japan but shied away from confronting Germany.
by Kash Island » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:47 pm
Uxupox wrote:Kash Island wrote:
not really, if the soviets had kicked off WW2(hell, they had there own plans and were also responsible for dividing Poland) it would have been the other way around.
People just want to hear what they want to hear...
A very interesting line of thought. Would let's say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is never signed, would the Axis at this point in time defend Poland?
The Allies wouldn't have (See secret clause in the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty).
by Kash Island » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:48 pm
by Celestini » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:49 pm
Novowarsawianka wrote:Liriena wrote:Probably because socialism has a pretty decent philosophical backing, some success stories, and doesn't necessarily entail the sort of horrifying tyranny that is one of the core features of fascism? Contemporary socialists who unironically, actively support and advocate for totalitarianism and gross human rights violations are rare. The same cannot be said for fascists.
The horrors of fascism are a core feature, not a bug. The horrors of some socialist movements and regimes, on the other hand, could be argued to be historical specificities founded on a very particular school of socialist thought, rather than the core of all socialism. Maoism and Stalinism are not synonymous with all socialism ever; they represent their own varieties of socialism, and have little to do with variants like Luxemburguism and democratic socialism.
Decent philosophical backing? It is insanity to believe that we are all equal or that we should all be given according to our need. It is insanity to want to abolish money, which has been and always will be the best way to trade goods.
The core ideals of socialism are based on theft. How can you view any ideology which, in all aspects, is based on stealing people's property? You worked hard to build your company, but some lowlife suddenly comes to steal it away from you because he thinks all capitalists are that guy from the box of Monopoly?
by War Gears » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:49 pm
by Internationalist Bastard » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:50 pm
Kash Island wrote:Uxupox wrote:
A very interesting line of thought. Would let's say the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is never signed, would the Axis at this point in time defend Poland?
The Allies wouldn't have (See secret clause in the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty).
it's speculation, but I don't think so, however if the soviets had kept going west then I believe you would have the same situation except it would be Axis/Allies vs Soviets
again, the "hate" of Fascism in America is vastly overblown, the west wasn't that critical of it, they were critical of Germany and National Socialism.
Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.
by Esheaun Stroakuss » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:52 pm
by Kash Island » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:54 pm
by War Gears » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:55 pm
Kash Island wrote:Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.
You’re the top!
You’re a Coolidge dollar.
You’re the nimble tread
Of the feet of Fred Astaire,
You’re Mussolini,
You’re Mrs. Sweeney.
by Genivaria » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:58 pm
Internationalist Bastard wrote:Kash Island wrote:
it's speculation, but I don't think so, however if the soviets had kept going west then I believe you would have the same situation except it would be Axis/Allies vs Soviets
again, the "hate" of Fascism in America is vastly overblown, the west wasn't that critical of it, they were critical of Germany and National Socialism.
Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.
Yeah, we're still debating on if there was nearly a fascist coup against FDR
by Kash Island » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:59 pm
War Gears wrote:Kash Island wrote:Italian Fascism wasn't seen very badly until it became involved in the war.
I would say that Mussolini was seen a lot like Putin is today. People had no desire to emulate his political system but he still evoked awe for his personality and achievements.You’re the top!
You’re a Coolidge dollar.
You’re the nimble tread
Of the feet of Fred Astaire,
You’re Mussolini,
You’re Mrs. Sweeney.
by Genivaria » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:59 pm
Kash Island wrote:Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:
In a way, it is revolutionary like socialism. They are both rallying against the same status quo, but look at it from a different angle and for a different purpose.
essentially yes, both revolutionary ideas of a future, one born out of class struggle, the other out of the horrors of ww1.
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:59 pm
War Gears wrote:Ironically Fascism could be considered a form of socialism.
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:02 pm
by Genivaria » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:03 pm
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:03 pm
Genivaria wrote:Ceannairceach wrote:Only if you don't know what words mean.
Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.
All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.
by Kash Island » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:05 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:Genivaria wrote:Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.
All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.
And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic standpoint.
by Esheaun Stroakuss » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:06 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:Genivaria wrote:Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.
All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.
And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:06 pm
by Ceannairceach » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:07 pm
Esheaun Stroakuss wrote:Ceannairceach wrote:And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.
I take it you don't see eye to eye with Uncle Joe's socialism in one country shtick.
Why can't socialism be nationalistic as well as internationalist?
by Kash Island » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:07 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:Kash Island wrote:
the soviet union under Stalin was immensely nationalist and also socialist
nationalism itself is not left or right wing
Marxist-Leninism and its bizarre "socialism in one country" theory is an exception to the rule, not the rule itself, and I'd argue that it doesn't quite fit the bill of nationalism.
by Genivaria » Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:09 pm
Ceannairceach wrote:Genivaria wrote:Well it kinda could be, it would be a decidedly right-wing version of it but the idea of a 'national' socialism is just as possible as was national syndicalism.
All it takes is combining a certain economic philosophy with nationalistic rhetoric and policies.
And once you incorporate nationalism, it ceases to be socialism. Socialism is an inherently internationalist ideology and economic theory.
Socialist politics has been both centralist and decentralised; internationalist and nationalist in orientation; organised through political parties and opposed to party politics; at times overlapping with trade unions and at other times independent of—and critical of—unions; and present in both industrialised and developing countries
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aggicificicerous, Decapoleis, Nermias, Shazbotdom, Tungstan
Advertisement