Poll
Question:
In your opinion, is Trump a fascist?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 9
Option 2: No
votes: 21
Option 3: It's more complicated than that because...
votes: 11
I think given everything Trump has said, that not only is it fair, but it is the responsibilty of every reasonable person and especially every other candidate to call him out as a Fascist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCQhBYEMRQI&feature=player_embedded
I don't think he's a fascist. I do, however, think that he's consciously appealing to fascists, of which there are a fair number among the right wing in US. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much what Trump personally believes, what matters is that he's making fascist sentiment more mainstream, and for that he should burn in hell.
Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2015, 10:21:36 PM
I don't think he's a fascist. I do, however, think that he's consciously appealing to fascists, of which there are a fair number among the right wing in US. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much what Trump personally believes, what matters is that he's making fascist sentiment more mainstream, and for that he should burn in hell.
Does it matter? If a populist wins power by appealing to fascists or communists, and then governs in the way his base wishes, does it matter if he personally thinks it's all a crock of shit? That person is still a fascist/communist dictator.
It's more complicated than that because...
The American public has more sense and will drag him back to the random right-centre. :cool:
I don't want to be the kind of person who goes around calling people fascists. They tend to be the sort I don't want to associate with.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 25, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
I don't want to be the kind of person who goes around calling people fascists. They tend to be the sort I don't want to associate with.
Yes, it is very unfortunate that this word has been so grossly overused in the past that when a real fascist comes around, you really can't denounce him properly. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that real fascists don't exist.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 25, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
I don't want to be the kind of person who goes around calling people fascists. They tend to be the sort I don't want to associate with.
When a politician explicitly calls for the state to round up 11 million people, and they call for the state register a religious minority for government surveillance, and they call for protesters to be beaten, what else can you call him?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2015, 10:47:15 PM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 25, 2015, 10:35:40 PM
I don't want to be the kind of person who goes around calling people fascists. They tend to be the sort I don't want to associate with.
When a politician explicitly calls for the state to round up 11 million people, and they call for the state register a religious minority for government surveillance, and they call for protesters to be beaten, what else can you call him?
Errant, misguided, dumb?
Quote from: mongers on November 25, 2015, 11:22:27 PM
Errant, misguided, dumb?
But he's not dumb, he's not misguided because he knows what he's doing, and he's not errant because his falsehoods are part of maskirovka-like strategy of deliberately drowning everyone in torrent of bullshit.
I've wondered about Trump.
In my heart I really really really want to believe he is just trolling America.
I think he is clearly not a fascist. Xenophobic? Yes. Populist? Big time. Absurd? Oh yeah. But--he is a capitalist, and he doesn't seem to be especially pro military or with an aggressive foreign policy. He is missing some really big elements of traditional fascism, and also I don't see any signs he wants to get rid of democracy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2015, 10:47:15 PM
When a politician explicitly calls for the state to round up 11 million people,
That is not fascism. Stupid, cruel, xenophobic, tinged with racism, counter productive? Yes. But aggressive enforcement of immigration laws does not constitute a fascist state.
Quoteand they call for the state register a religious minority for government surveillance,
He apparently didn't really call for this. To my knowledge, he ambiguously answered some vague questions that could have led people to that conclusion--and then refused to publicly back down but he refuses to publicly back down on anything. He has retweeted at least one person saying he didn't call for a muslim database and never explicitly called for one.
Quoteand they call for protesters to be beaten, what else can you call him?
I don't think he called for this. He said a protester that was mildly roughed up had it coming. That is very different from calling for protestors to be beaten, and in this case is a really low bar for fascism.
Do Trump's political ideas and platform both conform with what Fascism and Falangism were?
It's a serious question; being a self-inflated jerk who spout anything over his head to appeal to both AFCs and the lowest common denominator isn't Fascism, but opportunistic populism. Totalitarian authorianism based on reactionary jingoism, nationalistic family-based values, corporatism and subservience of all individuals to the State as cogs of a war machine is Fascism, in its classical sense.
That said, nothing excludes Trump being America's own brand of "fascism" (hence called Trumpism or Donaldism).
You don't have to actively want to dismantle democracy to dismantle democracy. Russian citizens didn't want to overtly dismantle their democracy either, as flawed as it was, until long after they stopped having their say in the matter. But they in fact did aid Putin in dismantling it by valuing their preferences for intolerance and iron-fisted action over democratic institutions.
Quote from: Drakken on November 26, 2015, 12:07:03 AM
Do Trump's political ideas and platform both conform with what Fascism and Falangism were?
It's a serious question; being a self-inflated jerk who spout anything over his head to appeal to both AFCs and the lowest common denominator isn't Fascism, but opportunistic populism. Totalitarian authorianism based on reactionary jingoism, nationalistic family-based values, corporatism and subservience of all individuals to the State as cogs of a war machine is Fascism, in its classical sense.
That said, nothing excludes Trump being America's own brand of "fascism" (hence called Trumpism or Donaldism).
Can't cut and paste where I'm at right now, but he checks off 5 out of 9 of Paxton's passions (he wrote The Anatomy of Fascism).
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/donald-trump-a-fascist.html
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 12:14:33 AM
You don't have to actively want to dismantle democracy to dismantle democracy. Russian citizens didn't want to overtly dismantle their democracy either, as flawed as it was, until long after they stopped having their say in the matter. But they in fact did aid Putin in dismantling it by valuing their preferences for intolerance and iron-fisted action over democratic institutions.
It is something of a stretch to call Putin a fascist.
But I think a minimum qualification to qualify as a fascist is to replace democracy with a strong central government devoid of checks and balances and protected from bad election results. Or at least try to do so.
Putin is an a much easier state to do that--Russia never really had a democratic tradition to corrupt, so fixing elections, controlling the media, and "disappearing" opponents really just required operating the levers of power already there. The US president is distantly removed from counting votes--that is done at the state and local level--and of course can't control the media very effectively. To get Putin level power in the US would require actual legal changes that Trump isn't advocating.
So maybe Trump isn't advocating such things out of political considerations. But the rest of his agenda doesn't conform to fascism either. Xenophobic isolationism with heavy support for capitalism is not fascism.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 12:32:02 AM
Can't cut and paste where I'm at right now, but he checks off 5 out of 9 of Paxton's passions (he wrote The Anatomy of Fascism).
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/donald-trump-a-fascist.html
The test is so vague a Soviet Communist could end up with a perfect score under that system.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2015, 10:27:32 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 25, 2015, 10:21:36 PM
I don't think he's a fascist. I do, however, think that he's consciously appealing to fascists, of which there are a fair number among the right wing in US. Ultimately, it doesn't matter that much what Trump personally believes, what matters is that he's making fascist sentiment more mainstream, and for that he should burn in hell.
Does it matter? If a populist wins power by appealing to fascists or communists, and then governs in the way his base wishes, does it matter if he personally thinks it's all a crock of shit? That person is still a fascist/communist dictator.
:hmm:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 12:50:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 12:32:02 AM
Can't cut and paste where I'm at right now, but he checks off 5 out of 9 of Paxton's passions (he wrote The Anatomy of Fascism).
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/donald-trump-a-fascist.html
The test is so vague a Soviet Communist could end up with a perfect score under that system.
Which is not at all absurd. I have no idea where the concept of communism being an antithesis of fascism came from, but that is the absurd notion. There are far more similarities than differences between the two systems.
I love that we first bemoan that the term "fascist" has been so devalued it essentially became meaningless and then proceed to apply the fascism "test" that makes the description essentially meaningless. :D
Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Kaczynski, Trump all practice (or in Trump's case, preach) some form of jingoistic right wing populism. None of them is fascist (yet).
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2015, 10:47:15 PM
When a politician explicitly calls for the state to round up 11 million people, and they call for the state register a religious minority for government surveillance, and they call for protesters to be beaten, what else can you call him?
I don't see how calling for enforcement of existing law makes one a fascist.
Yeah, seriously. I guess anyone who supports over 2 million of people being locked up currently in the US prisons (as opposed to being let out) is a fascist too.
If I were an American I would be more worried by the likes of Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio, who claim that "God's laws" are above "human laws". This is much more dangerous and anti-democratic than calling for a vigorous enforcement of law against people who break it.
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2015, 01:08:48 AM
I love that we first bemoan that the term "fascist" has been so devalued it essentially became meaningless and then proceed to apply the fascism "test" that makes the description essentially meaningless. :D
Putin, Erdogan, Orban, Kaczynski, Trump all practice (or in Trump's case, preach) some form of jingoistic right wing populism. None of them is fascist (yet).
Okay, then why don't you come up with a synonym for "authoritarian" that rolls off the tongue quite as easily as "fascist"?
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2015, 01:24:39 AM
If I were an American I would be more worried by the likes of Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio, who claim that "God's laws" are above "human laws". This is much more dangerous and anti-democratic than calling for a vigorous enforcement of law against people who break it.
It comes from more or less the same mindset. These people feel like they should not be bound by laws they disagree with, or accept the democratic legitimacy of the president they don't like.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 01:27:44 AM
Quote from: Martinus on November 26, 2015, 01:24:39 AM
If I were an American I would be more worried by the likes of Mike Huckabee or Marco Rubio, who claim that "God's laws" are above "human laws". This is much more dangerous and anti-democratic than calling for a vigorous enforcement of law against people who break it.
It comes from more or less the same mindset. These people feel like they should not be bound by laws they disagree with, or accept the democratic legitimacy of the president they don't like.
What about the mindset where you feel like other people should not be bound by laws you disagree* with? Say, 11 million of other people? :P
*Mind you, I am not even sure most of those who accuse Trump of fascism and racism for wanting to enforce US immigration laws go as far as to disagree with those laws.
Well, the problem of illegal immigration is more of a practical problem. It's not so much that people argue that immigration law doesn't matter, but rather decades of lax enforcement created facts on the ground that cannot be ignored.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 01:05:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 12:50:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 12:32:02 AM
Can't cut and paste where I'm at right now, but he checks off 5 out of 9 of Paxton's passions (he wrote The Anatomy of Fascism).
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/donald-trump-a-fascist.html (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/donald-trump-a-fascist.html)
The test is so vague a Soviet Communist could end up with a perfect score under that system.
Which is not at all absurd. I have no idea where the concept of communism being an antithesis of fascism came from, but that is the absurd notion. There are far more similarities than differences between the two systems.
Well, with any luck you'll get to experience both first hand.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 01:18:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2015, 10:47:15 PM
When a politician explicitly calls for the state to round up 11 million people, and they call for the state register a religious minority for government surveillance, and they call for protesters to be beaten, what else can you call him?
I don't see how calling for enforcement of existing law makes one a fascist.
Trump used Operation Wetback as his model, which result in the deportation of American citizens, and the deaths of many.
I wonder how much of this stuff he feels strongly about himself and how much he is just saying to appeal to the worst of people (the Republican right) and try and trick his way into government so he can pull some dodgy libertarian bollocks.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 01:05:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 12:50:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 12:32:02 AM
Can't cut and paste where I'm at right now, but he checks off 5 out of 9 of Paxton's passions (he wrote The Anatomy of Fascism).
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/donald-trump-a-fascist.html
The test is so vague a Soviet Communist could end up with a perfect score under that system.
Which is not at all absurd. I have no idea where the concept of communism being an antithesis of fascism came from, but that is the absurd notion. There are far more similarities than differences between the two systems.
It is absurd. There may be lots of similarities between the systems in practice and they may not be the antithesis of each other, but communism is not a synonym for fascism.
I'm a layman, but isn't, though the system may function similarly, Fascism rooted in national exceptionalism, whereas Communism pays at least lip service to the equality of races and nations?
Depends what you mean by communism.
Stalinism certainly is just fascism with a bit of red paint. Many other forms of communism (real and especially theoretical)...rather different.
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 10:51:39 AM
I'm a layman, but isn't, though the system may function similarly, Fascism rooted in national exceptionalism, whereas Communism pays at least lip service to the equality of races and nations?
Nationalist struggle in fascist countries can be substituted with class warfare in communist ones.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 01:25:46 AM
Okay, then why don't you come up with a synonym for "authoritarian" that rolls off the tongue quite as easily as "fascist"?
Quote from: TyrI wonder how much of this stuff he feels strongly about himself and how much he is just saying to appeal to the worst of people (the Republican right) and try and trick his way into government so he can pull some dodgy libertarian bollocks.
This sounds a bit like projecting. Guller and Tim are civil libertarians so they see Trump as a Nazi, Tyr is old school Labour, so he sees Trump as a vestige of the Gilded Age.
Quote from: Tyr on November 26, 2015, 10:54:20 AM
Stalinism certainly is just fascism with a bit of red paint.
Stalin was a Georgian, I hardly think his guiding philosophy was one of Russian exceptionalism.
Above all, what does Trump believe in? Draconian immigration stances get the headlines, but what Trump's career has really been about, and what he continues to lobby for today, is capitalism. He strongly advocates capitalism and is proposing slashing taxes to an even more massive extent than most of the "starve the beast" advocates in the republican party.
My take on Trump is that he lacks any sort of coherent ideology, aside from consistent self-aggrandizement as a business promoter and belittling of opponents. The problem is that he will say (and, presumably, do) whatever he feels at the time, regardless of how stupid, offensive, or lacking in factual or rational basis it may be. ;) Thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11? Trump remembers seeing that, and if you claim it did not in fact happen, he'll mock you. That's about as deep as his political philosophy goes.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 10:51:39 AM
I'm a layman, but isn't, though the system may function similarly, Fascism rooted in national exceptionalism, whereas Communism pays at least lip service to the equality of races and nations?
Nationalist struggle in fascist countries can be substituted with class warfare in communist ones.
That is a major difference, and that's the only one. The reason Russians at home and abroad are so fascist in their politics is that it isn't a great leap from where they started.
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2015, 11:14:29 AM
My take on Trump is that he lacks any sort of coherent ideology, aside from consistent self-aggrandizement as a business promoter and belittling of opponents. The problem is that he will say (and, presumably, do) whatever he feels at the time, regardless of how stupid, offensive, or lacking in factual or rational basis it may be. ;) Thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11? Trump remembers seeing that, and if you claim it did not in fact happen, he'll mock you. That's about as deep as his political philosophy goes.
I would again say that what Trump believes may not matter that much. What matters is the people he appeals to, and how he appeals to them. You can't stir up the ugliness in people on demand. Once you go there, you touch off processes that will continue going on their own.
Trump isn't himself a fascist, but he's running on a fascist-ish platform because it works and he likes the attention.
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 11:19:44 AM
Quote from: Malthus on November 26, 2015, 11:14:29 AM
My take on Trump is that he lacks any sort of coherent ideology, aside from consistent self-aggrandizement as a business promoter and belittling of opponents. The problem is that he will say (and, presumably, do) whatever he feels at the time, regardless of how stupid, offensive, or lacking in factual or rational basis it may be. ;) Thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrated 9/11? Trump remembers seeing that, and if you claim it did not in fact happen, he'll mock you. That's about as deep as his political philosophy goes.
I would again say that what Trump believes may not matter that much. What matters is the people he appeals to, and how he appeals to them. You can't stir up the ugliness in people on demand. Once you go there, you touch off processes that will continue going on their own.
It's a good point. The popularity of Trump is very concerning.
Trump is not a fascist.
Fascism did have an identifiable political ideology, and was not merely synonymous with "bad right-wing politician". Fascism believed in nationalism, but also believed in the national struggle. That warfare did not weaken a country, but in fact would make it stronger, both socially and militarily. Fascism believed in might makes right, and that the strong should dominate the weak.
(obviously a definition in three lines is incomplete at best, but it's a good starting point)
What Trump is is a demagogue. He has no identifiable political philosophy at all. He gains attention by appealing to voters emotions, fears and prejudices.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 10:47:54 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 01:05:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 12:50:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 12:32:02 AM
Can't cut and paste where I'm at right now, but he checks off 5 out of 9 of Paxton's passions (he wrote The Anatomy of Fascism).
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/donald-trump-a-fascist.html
The test is so vague a Soviet Communist could end up with a perfect score under that system.
Which is not at all absurd. I have no idea where the concept of communism being an antithesis of fascism came from, but that is the absurd notion. There are far more similarities than differences between the two systems.
It is absurd. There may be lots of similarities between the systems in practice and they may not be the antithesis of each other, but communism is not a synonym for fascism.
But what occurred in Soviet Russia was at times much closer to fascism then communism if you insist on a characterizing is as one or the other rather than accepting that Soviet Russia had significant fascist elements to it.
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 11:41:27 AM
Trump is not a fascist.
Fascism did have an identifiable political ideology, and was not merely synonymous with "bad right-wing politician". Fascism believed in nationalism, but also believed in the national struggle. That warfare did not weaken a country, but in fact would make it stronger, both socially and militarily. Fascism believed in might makes right, and that the strong should dominate the weak.
(obviously a definition in three lines is incomplete at best, but it's a good starting point)
What Trump is is a demagogue. He has no identifiable political philosophy at all. He gains attention by appealing to voters emotions, fears and prejudices.
Dguller's observation is more to the point. It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist. He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 11:51:48 AM
Dguller's observation is more to the point. It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist. He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.
But what D
:hmm: It didn't sound like that "but" was going to be good for me, so I'm glad you stopped there.
Meh, what the D!
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 11:51:48 AM
Dguller's observation is more to the point. It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist. He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.
But what the hell are "fascistic tendencies"?
Looking at that fairly vague Fascist checklist", I (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points, namely:
Quote"The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it."
It should perhaps not be a surprise that a career public servant thinks that people of a country owe a duty to that country? And that duty, while perhaps not superior, is equal to the country's duty to it's citizens?
and
Quote"Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences."
Again it should perhaps not be a surprise that myself as a classical conservative think that we should try to be a more cohesive and unified society, that in some cases excessive liberalism harms this country, and that while welcoming immigrants (and refugees) we should make some attempts to encourage people to integrate into our society and adopt Canadian values?
If someone speaks to those points does that mean they are appealling to "fascistic tendencies"?
Quote from: DGuller on November 26, 2015, 12:01:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 11:51:48 AM
Dguller's observation is more to the point. It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist. He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.
But what D
:hmm: It didn't sound like that "but" was going to be good for me, so I'm glad you stopped there.
Trump's non-fascist (but definitely nasty) Gestapo got him mid-sentence! :cry:
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 11:51:48 AM
Dguller's observation is more to the point. It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist. He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.
But what the hell are "fascistic tendencies"?
Looking at that fairly vague Fascist checklist", I (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points, namely:
Quote"The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it."
It should perhaps not be a surprise that a career public servant thinks that people of a country owe a duty to that country? And that duty, while perhaps not superior, is equal to the country's duty to it's citizens?
and
Quote"Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences."
Again it should perhaps not be a surprise that myself as a classical conservative think that we should try to be a more cohesive and unified society, that in some cases excessive liberalism harms this country, and that while welcoming immigrants (and refugees) we should make some attempts to encourage people to integrate into our society and adopt Canadian values?
If someone speaks to those points does that mean they are appealling to "fascistic tendencies"?
Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time :P
If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground. That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.
I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism". I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance. Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 12:33:36 PM
Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time :P
If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground. That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.
I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism". I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance. Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.
Whatever happened to:
QuoteAsk not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?
I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.
And if you're using quotes, quote correctly. I said "excessive liberalism". See safe spaces, microagressions, etc. And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 12:43:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 12:33:36 PM
Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time :P
If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground. That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.
I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism". I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance. Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.
Whatever happened to:
QuoteAsk not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?
I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.
And if you're using quotes, quote correctly. I said "excessive liberalism". See safe spaces, microagressions, etc. And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.
I was quoting directly from the bits you said you agreed with and highlighted it.
"and the subordination of the individual to it" was part of the quote you said you agreed with. That is a long way off from ask not... Once one starts talking about subordination to the state that is an indicia of fascism.
Perhaps this is a case of you more carefully reading a statement before agreeing with it ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 12:43:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 12:33:36 PM
Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time :P
If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground. That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.
I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism". I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance. Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.
Whatever happened to:
QuoteAsk not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?
I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.
And if you're using quotes, quote correctly. I said "excessive liberalism". See safe spaces, microagressions, etc. And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.
I was quoting directly from the bits you said you agreed with and highlighted it.
"and the subordination of the individual to it" was part of the quote you said you agreed with. That is a long way off from ask not... Once one starts talking about subordination to the state that is an indicia of fascism.
Perhaps this is a case of you more carefully reading a statement before agreeing with it ;)
Perhaps you should read a statement more carefully before criticizing it. :contract:
What I said was:
QuoteI (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 12:05:34 AM
and he doesn't seem to be especially pro military or with an aggressive foreign policy.
https://deadline.com/2015/06/donald-trump-isis-bill-oreilly-jeb-bush-hillary-clinton-video-1201445840/
Quote"I say that you can defeat ISIS by taking their wealth," Trump told the Fox News Channel star. "Take back the oil. Once you go over and take back that oil, they have nothing. You bomb the hell out of them, and then you encircle it, and then you go in. And you let Mobil go in, and you let our great oil companies go in. Once you take that oil, they have nothing left."
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 11:41:27 AM
Trump is not a fascist.
Fascism did have an identifiable political ideology, and was not merely synonymous with "bad right-wing politician". Fascism believed in nationalism, but also believed in the national struggle. That warfare did not weaken a country, but in fact would make it stronger, both socially and militarily. Fascism believed in might makes right, and that the strong should dominate the weak.
(obviously a definition in three lines is incomplete at best, but it's a good starting point)
What Trump is is a demagogue. He has no identifiable political philosophy at all. He gains attention by appealing to voters emotions, fears and prejudices.
Fascists were rather elastic with their beliefs and often intentionally vague. Their policies were rarely coherent. They did have some solid beliefs and Trump is hitting those notes.
He is
However, he is also, and more importantly, a troll.
The more he goes on the more I agree with the crazy theory that he's a democrat mole.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 10:59:51 AM
Quote from: Syt on November 26, 2015, 10:51:39 AM
I'm a layman, but isn't, though the system may function similarly, Fascism rooted in national exceptionalism, whereas Communism pays at least lip service to the equality of races and nations?
Nationalist struggle in fascist countries can be substituted with class warfare in communist ones.
it's not without reason that communism is called red-lacquered fascism
Trump would certainly have an agressive foreign policy if he were made aware of just out expansionist your average Canadian is.
Ask not what your country can do to you, ask that they'd rather not do it, please.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 12:42:21 AM
But I think a minimum qualification to qualify as a fascist is to replace democracy with a strong central government devoid of checks and balances and protected from bad election results. Or at least try to do so.
not many leaders today would try to do that at once.
But if you look at Chavez, Erdogan, Putin, they all were moving toward that. Chavez died before completing his act. The other two are still reshaping their countries into more authoritarian and less democratic nations.
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 01:19:01 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 01:11:30 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 12:43:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 12:33:36 PM
Well you were a member of the Reform party for a time :P
If you really believe in the subordination of the individual to the interests of the state then I think you are at least on some difficult ground. That leads to not questioning the group/state leadership which in turn... well I think you know where that ends up.
I guess that also goes hand in hand with an opposition to "individualistic liberalism". I tend to think that individual rights and freedoms guaranteed in a liberal democracy are a great importance. Frankly it surprises me that you are so far right on these issues.
Whatever happened to:
QuoteAsk not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"?
I believe I said that your duty to the state is equal, not superior, to the state's duty to you.
And if you're using quotes, quote correctly. I said "excessive liberalism". See safe spaces, microagressions, etc. And remember that our Charter of Rights is not absolute - there are limitations to those rights found in s. 1, s. 24, and s. 33.
I was quoting directly from the bits you said you agreed with and highlighted it.
"and the subordination of the individual to it" was part of the quote you said you agreed with. That is a long way off from ask not... Once one starts talking about subordination to the state that is an indicia of fascism.
Perhaps this is a case of you more carefully reading a statement before agreeing with it ;)
Perhaps you should read a statement more carefully before criticizing it. :contract:
What I said was:
QuoteI (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points
Yeah and then you quoted the ones you agree with and one of those points contained the bit about subservience to the group. ;)
Subservience to a group is all very well, but only between consenting adults. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 12:04:00 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 26, 2015, 11:51:48 AM
Dguller's observation is more to the point. It really doesn't matter if Trump is himself a fascist. He certainly appeals to fascist tendencies which a demagogue like Trump has apparently no hesitation to exploit.
But what the hell are "fascistic tendencies"?
Looking at that fairly vague Fascist checklist", I (more or less) agree with a couple of those nine points, namely:
Quote"The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether individual or universal, and the subordination of the individual to it."
It should perhaps not be a surprise that a career public servant thinks that people of a country owe a duty to that country? And that duty, while perhaps not superior, is equal to the country's duty to it's citizens?
and
Quote"Dread of the group's decline under the corrosive effects of individualistic liberalism, class conflict, and alien influences."
Again it should perhaps not be a surprise that myself as a classical conservative think that we should try to be a more cohesive and unified society, that in some cases excessive liberalism harms this country, and that while welcoming immigrants (and refugees) we should make some attempts to encourage people to integrate into our society and adopt Canadian values?
If someone speaks to those points does that mean they are appealling to "fascistic tendencies"?
Just to be clear BB, this is one of the points you said you agree with, in bold
That bolded point is the bedrock of fascist belief. It is not just a duty to country but that the individual is subordinate to the state.
Quote from: Tyr on November 26, 2015, 02:47:32 AM
I wonder how much of this stuff he feels strongly about himself and how much he is just saying to appeal to the worst of people (the Republican right) and try and trick his way into government so he can pull some dodgy libertarian bollocks.
:huh:
Trump has never flirted with anything resembling libertarianism. He was for a strong state when he was a liberal democrat and he's for one now.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 26, 2015, 01:18:18 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 25, 2015, 10:47:15 PM
When a politician explicitly calls for the state to round up 11 million people, and they call for the state register a religious minority for government surveillance, and they call for protesters to be beaten, what else can you call him?
I don't see how calling for enforcement of existing law makes one a fascist.
I'm sure there's still a law on the book in some state from the colonial era that says Indians are to be shot on sight, and if a governor actually enforced it with the national guard, will that just be "enforcing the law"? :rolleyes:
To round up 11 million people (and that's not even counting all their children who are citizens who Trump says he will send back with them) and deport them, would require turning the US into a police state complete with concentration camps.
Wouldn't be the first time we had camps. :Embarrass:
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 11:13:41 AM
Above all, what does Trump believe in? Draconian immigration stances get the headlines, but what Trump's career has really been about, and what he continues to lobby for today, is capitalism. He strongly advocates capitalism and is proposing slashing taxes to an even more massive extent than most of the "starve the beast" advocates in the republican party.
He doesn't actually believe in that though. If one assumes the political stances he held for decades before he decided the GOP base was gullible enough to elect him are his real beliefs, his real economic beliefs are closer to Sanders than to Clinton. He was for universal single payer health care.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 06:40:45 PM
I'm sure there's still a law on the book in some state from the colonial era that says Indians are to be shot on sight, and if a governor actually enforced it with the national guard, will that just be "enforcing the law"? :rolleyes:
Your excellent analogy has devastated me. The rolly eyes was the coup de grace.
QuoteTo round up 11 million people (and that's not even counting all their children who are citizens who Trump says he will send back with them) and deport them, would require turning the US into a police state complete with concentration camps.
You mean like deportation centers?
This guy's got it. :yes:
http://theweek.com/articles/590497/donald-trumps-alarming-skid-toward-outright-fascism
QuoteDonald Trump's alarming skid toward outright fascism
Ryan Cooper
I made the case just a couple months back that Republican presidential frontrunner Donald Trump is a sort of fledgling Mussolini, nurturing an incipient fascist movement. As the first primaries approach, and Trump's lead in the polls is actually widening, his development toward outright fascism is progressing faster than I feared.
As of August, Trump had most of the ingredients for a fascist movement: the victim complex, the fervent nationalism, the obsession with national purity and cleansing purges, and the cult of personality. He was missing the organized violence, a left-wing challenge strong enough to push traditional conservative elites into his camp, support for wars of aggression, and a full-bore attack on democracy itself. He's made much progress on all but the last one.
It's clear now that the Paris attacks enormously energized the Trumpist movement. He's now speculating openly about invading Syria. Trump's proposals have gone from overt prejudice to things literally taken out of late Weimar history — closure of mosques and a national Muslim database. The rank-and-file have both fed off and stoked this behavior. When a lone protester started chanting "black lives matter" at a Trump rally, Trumpists jumped him (he was luckily not badly injured). Trump later said, "Maybe he should have been roughed up." Hours later he lied about witnessing Muslim crowds celebrating 9/11, and retweeted nonsense racist garbage from a literal neo-Nazi.
Conditions are clearly fertile to start organizing a Trumpist paramilitary wing, a key fascist institution. A pack of heavily armed white nationalist militants recently popped up at a mosque in Irving, Texas, announcing their intention to intimidate local Muslims. Trump's personal security squad is already made up of goons, assaulting people and threatening reporters. With an incomprehensible number of guns floating around the country, all Trump needs is a Röhm to get the organizing started — except probably with Carhartts and camouflage instead of imitation military uniforms. (After that, watch for the next step: starting fights at Bernie Sanders rallies.)
The attacks also increased Trump's effective elite support. Many mainstream reporters have been working hard to normalize Trumpist ideas by attacking their colleagues for "unfair" treatment of Trump (like seeing what sort of Nazi ideas he'll disagree with). CNN's editorial practices are basically overt anti-Muslim bigotry. Other reporters, like Chris Cillizza, shrug and argue that refugee-baiting is simply smart politics. As Carl Diggler explained, "it would be a death sentence for any candidate to abandon these voters by coming out against the pogroms and race war they fervently want."
However, conservative elites are still pretty suspicious of Trump. Barring a recession (gulp), he probably would not do well in a general election, and so most conservative elites seem to be hoping that Marco Rubio will eventually consolidate the anti-Trump Republican vote to challenge Hillary Clinton. But should Trump win, and I see absolutely no reason at this point to think he is not the tentative favorite, things could change quickly. Should Clinton win the nomination, her milquetoast, status quo platform will be quickly internalized on the right as a devious plot to destroy (white) America. I would thus wager that most of the elite conservative power structure would back Trump versus Clinton if they each secure the nomination.
That brings us to Trump himself. As the pseudonymous blogger Billmon observes, Trump has instinctively discovered the Joe McCarthy sweet spot for maximum attention and momentum. It is pitifully easy to roll the mainstream media with a constant stream of insane, racist bile. Outlets are either too cowardly to call a spade a spade, or are simply wrong-footed by Gish Gallop tactics. Left-leaning media, meanwhile, has no purchase in the fever swamps. And conservative media, clearly taken aback at Trump's massive success with conservative base voters, are largely reduced to either studiously ignoring him, validating parts of his arguments, or howling about "illiberal" college students as a distraction.
Trump was writing pro-Obama blog posts in 2009. He is pretty clearly in this for the self-aggrandizement and ego trip, not because he's wants to achieve anything in particular. That's likely why he has not yet attacked the fundamental idea of a democratic electoral system (the last major missing fascist ingredient) — it simply hasn't occurred to him yet.
Yet the seeds he is sowing are poisonous indeed. Violent white nationalism has not been so effectively mainstreamed since the 1920s. If Trump wins the nomination and the economy turns down next year, I'd give him a decent chance of victory. Even if he is only a sort of "fascist idiot savant" without much true organizing ability or program, he clearly has a good instinct for the basic psychological impulses underlying previous fascist success. It's time to start taking this seriously.
Can we agree if the next steps from Tim's article are followed, namely the creation of Trump loyal paramilitary organization and the starting of fights at Bernie Sanders rallies that it's accurate to call Trump a fascist?
If not, what additional ingredients are missing before the label could be reasonably applied?
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:12:41 PM
Can we agree if the next steps from Tim's article are followed, namely the creation of Trump loyal paramilitary organization and the starting of fights at Bernie Sanders rallies that it's accurate to call Trump a fascist?
If not, what additional ingredients are missing before the label could be reasonably applied?
Fascism is an ideology, not a set of political tactics. Ryan Cooper is selling clicks, not news analysis. His work is LOL-worthy, but I believe Tim thinks he is deep.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:12:41 PM
Can we agree if the next steps from Tim's article are followed, namely the creation of Trump loyal paramilitary organization and the starting of fights at Bernie Sanders rallies that it's accurate to call Trump a fascist?
If not, what additional ingredients are missing before the label could be reasonably applied?
I think it's a pointless exercise. Do we know once he does those things that reoccupation of the Rhineland and extermination of the Jews is inevitable?
I think it's more useful to focus on what he does and says that puts him beyond the Pale (or the things that don't).
Quote from: grumbler on November 26, 2015, 08:32:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:12:41 PM
Can we agree if the next steps from Tim's article are followed, namely the creation of Trump loyal paramilitary organization and the starting of fights at Bernie Sanders rallies that it's accurate to call Trump a fascist?
If not, what additional ingredients are missing before the label could be reasonably applied?
Fascism is an ideology, not a set of political tactics. Ryan Cooper is selling clicks, not news analysis. His work is LOL-worthy, but I believe Tim thinks he is deep.
I don't think he's "deep". I think he's accurate.
deporting all illegal immigrants isn't fascist (unless fascist-like methods were used), but it'd be an incredibly stupid move due to the harm it would cause to the economy.
Quote from: Jacob on November 26, 2015, 07:12:41 PM
Can we agree if the next steps from Tim's article are followed, namely the creation of Trump loyal paramilitary organization and the starting of fights at Bernie Sanders rallies that it's accurate to call Trump a fascist?
If not, what additional ingredients are missing before the label could be reasonably applied?
As grumbles said, that would be a question of tactics, not ideology.
I said what I thought would be necessary for Trump to be a fascist - to call out the glory of national struggle against other countries. Instead he's called for the opposite - essentially American isolationism. He's all for turning Syria over to the Russians, for example.
I'd disappointed that my suggestion of the "demagogue" label didn't garner much attraction: it seems most appropriate to me.
Quote from: Barrister on November 26, 2015, 09:39:20 PM
I'd disappointed that my suggestion of the "demagogue" label didn't garner much attraction: it seems most appropriate to me.
Demagogue is fine, but doesn't describe any particular ideology.
Quote from: viper37 on November 26, 2015, 03:28:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 12:42:21 AM
But I think a minimum qualification to qualify as a fascist is to replace democracy with a strong central government devoid of checks and balances and protected from bad election results. Or at least try to do so.
not many leaders today would try to do that at once.
But if you look at Chavez, Erdogan, Putin, they all were moving toward that. Chavez died before completing his act. The other two are still reshaping their countries into more authoritarian and less democratic nations.
Chavez is clearly not a fascist. Authoritarian socialist and possibly communist, but not fascist. He was really just another south american caudillo.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 06:46:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 11:13:41 AM
Above all, what does Trump believe in? Draconian immigration stances get the headlines, but what Trump's career has really been about, and what he continues to lobby for today, is capitalism. He strongly advocates capitalism and is proposing slashing taxes to an even more massive extent than most of the "starve the beast" advocates in the republican party.
He doesn't actually believe in that though. If one assumes the political stances he held for decades before he decided the GOP base was gullible enough to elect him are his real beliefs, his real economic beliefs are closer to Sanders than to Clinton. He was for universal single payer health care.
He doesn't really believe in capitalism and tax cuts? You think he is a socialist?
Fuck tim, that is dumber than the ebolapocolypse that you predicted.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 27, 2015, 01:32:43 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 26, 2015, 06:46:20 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 26, 2015, 11:13:41 AM
Above all, what does Trump believe in? Draconian immigration stances get the headlines, but what Trump's career has really been about, and what he continues to lobby for today, is capitalism. He strongly advocates capitalism and is proposing slashing taxes to an even more massive extent than most of the "starve the beast" advocates in the republican party.
He doesn't actually believe in that though. If one assumes the political stances he held for decades before he decided the GOP base was gullible enough to elect him are his real beliefs, his real economic beliefs are closer to Sanders than to Clinton. He was for universal single payer health care.
He doesn't really believe in capitalism and tax cuts? You think he is a socialist?
Sanders isn't a socialist, so no. I don't think people who agree with him on universal health care are socialists either.
Just going by decades worth of public statements by the Donald. Unless he was visited by the ghost of Barry Goldwater after a near death experience, I'm going to attribute his recent and very convenient about face on the subject to be the act of a political chameleon rather than a scincere conversion.
QuoteSanders isn't a socialist, so no. I don't think people who agree with him on universal health care are socialists either.
:unsure:
Isn't he the guy who isn't just on the American left but might actually count as a left wing candidate in other countries too?
The one who says "Yes I'm a socialist"?
Yeah, I don't get where Jimmy is coming from. Sanders repeatedly refers to himself as a "democratic socialist".
He even gave a whole speech on what that means recently.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762028/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2015, 02:12:06 PM
Isn't he the guy who isn't just on the American left but might actually count as a left wing candidate in other countries too?
That would be most of them, unless you think every Democrat is part of "the American left".
And yeah, Sanders is a [mccain] :o
socialist :o :o :o [/mccain]
Quote from: Tyr on November 27, 2015, 02:12:06 PM
QuoteSanders isn't a socialist, so no. I don't think people who agree with him on universal health care are socialists either.
:unsure:
Isn't he the guy who isn't just on the American left but might actually count as a left wing candidate in other countries too?
The one who says "Yes I'm a socialist"?
Politicians lie.
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2015, 02:16:05 PM
Yeah, I don't get where Jimmy is coming from. Sanders repeatedly refers to himself as a "democratic socialist".
He even gave a whole speech on what that means recently.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762028/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism
We have had this discussion on Languish before. The American understanding of the word "socialist" is a bit confused. When they use it, they don't mean it to mean the person advocates socialism. It is more like what would be accepted as mainstream social democratic values in any other country. Sanders has made that point repeatedly.
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2015, 02:16:05 PM
Yeah, I don't get where Jimmy is coming from. Sanders repeatedly refers to himself as a "democratic socialist".
He even gave a whole speech on what that means recently.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762028/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism
Sander's version of socialism probably wouldn't be considered socialist at all by any actual socialists. Sanders' socialism is about restoring the middle class. "True" socialism is about uplifting the working class and rural poor.
So, Saunders may call himself a "socialist," but he's only a socialist in the sense that, say, Tony Blair was a socialist.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 27, 2015, 01:36:35 AM
Just going by decades worth of public statements by the Donald. Unless he was visited by the ghost of Barry Goldwater after a near death experience, I'm going to attribute his recent and very convenient about face on the subject to be the act of a political chameleon rather than a scincere conversion.
At least he's being honest about being an insufferable jerk though. :P
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 10:51:52 AM
Sander's version of socialism probably wouldn't be considered socialist at all by any actual socialists. Sanders' socialism is about restoring the middle class. "True" socialism is about uplifting the working class and rural poor.
So, Saunders may call himself a "socialist," but he's only a socialist in the sense that, say, Tony Blair was a socialist.
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Sanders labels himself a socialist, and is well within the mainstream of european socialist parties belonging to the socialist international. Tony Blair belonged to a party that had such an affiliation, but Blair also moved his party to the right and ultimately it left behind the affiliation.
I think the distinction you draw between "restoring the middle class" and "uplifting the working class and rural poor" is semantic. Sanders is for expanding the middle class, and I strongly suspect his version of such an expansion would have it include the working class and rural poor.
Quote from: crazy canuck on November 27, 2015, 04:48:13 PM
Quote from: Barrister on November 27, 2015, 02:16:05 PM
Yeah, I don't get where Jimmy is coming from. Sanders repeatedly refers to himself as a "democratic socialist".
He even gave a whole speech on what that means recently.
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762028/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism
We have had this discussion on Languish before. The American understanding of the word "socialist" is a bit confused. When they use it, they don't mean it to mean the person advocates socialism. It is more like what would be accepted as mainstream social democratic values in any other country. Sanders has made that point repeatedly.
The American understanding of "socialist" is somebody who is a Democrat but otherwise has no policies at all that could be considered "socialist" because it is a partisan slur rather than a reference to anything in particular.
Proving Donald Trump a fascist is only going to increase his poll numbers.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
QuoteSanders labels himself a socialist, and is well within the mainstream of european socialist parties belonging to the socialist international. Tony Blair belonged to a party that had such an affiliation, but Blair also moved his party to the right and ultimately it left behind the affiliation.
Saunders is not a member of a party that belongs to the Socialist International, nor is Blair (thus the comparison). It doesn't really matter what Saunders calls himself.
QuoteI think the distinction you draw between "restoring the middle class" and "uplifting the working class and rural poor" is semantic. Sanders is for expanding the middle class, and I strongly suspect his version of such an expansion would have it include the working class and rural poor.
Your re-wording of Saunders' definition of socialism sounds like semantics. If Saunders has ever advocated in Congress for the nationalization of large US corporations, I haven't heard of it. It certainly isn't in his current platform, nor any of his platforms since he was in the LUP in the 1970s.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 10:51:52 AM
Sander's version of socialism probably wouldn't be considered socialist at all by any actual socialists. Sanders' socialism is about restoring the middle class. "True" socialism is about uplifting the working class and rural poor.
So, Saunders may call himself a "socialist," but he's only a socialist in the sense that, say, Tony Blair was a socialist.
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Sanders labels himself a socialist, and is well within the mainstream of european socialist parties belonging to the socialist international. Tony Blair belonged to a party that had such an affiliation, but Blair also moved his party to the right and ultimately it left behind the affiliation.
I think the distinction you draw between "restoring the middle class" and "uplifting the working class and rural poor" is semantic. Sanders is for expanding the middle class, and I strongly suspect his version of such an expansion would have it include the working class and rural poor.
By the same token, if Trump isn't a fascist, who are the "actual fascists"?
There aren't any. Fascism is in the dustbin of history.
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
So you don't consider Hollande a socialist?
Certain European far-right parties like Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the LDPR are clearly fascist. One could make a case for ISIS and North Korea, too.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
So you don't consider Hollande a socialist?
Not really. Mitterrand nationalized a bunch of industries when he took power, that is a socialist.
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
So you don't consider Hollande a socialist?
Definitely not. That's moronic. I have seen him trying to nationalise means of production. Chavez could be seen as socialist.
To say socialists are only the extremists who demand a 100% Marx-defined socialist society tomorrow is like saying only the really far right hate filled tea party types are conservatives.
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 03:01:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
So you don't consider Hollande a socialist?
Not really. Mitterrand nationalized a bunch of industries when he took power, that is a socialist.
Wow, I would never see Mitterand as socialist. You Americans really have a distorted view. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Wow, I would never see Mitterand as socialist. You Americans really have a distorted view. :lol:
Valmy spelled the man's name properly. :P
Anyway, if a man calls himself one, people tend to take him at his word. :lol:
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 03:01:51 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
So you don't consider Hollande a socialist?
Definitely not. That's moronic. I have seen him trying to nationalise means of production. Chavez could be seen as socialist.
But he a member of a socialist party, that is (i think) in the socialist international, and (I think) is a party with a socialist tradition back over 100 years. Whether or not he meets the definition of a socialist from 100+ years ago, it seems he meets the modern day definition of one.
I don't buy into the Yuro logic that one is not a true socialist until one advocates for, and pursues, the nationalization of all industry. I see socialism as a contiuum. One can be a little bit socialist and one can be very socialist.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Wow, I would never see Mitterand as socialist. You Americans really have a distorted view. :lol:
A distorted view is that nationalizing industries in socialism? Ok what is a non-distorted view of socialism then? :mellow:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 28, 2015, 03:47:22 PM
I don't buy into the Yuro logic that one is not a true socialist until one advocates for, and pursues, the nationalization of all industry. I see socialism as a contiuum. One can be a little bit socialist and one can be very socialist.
True. One can be a little bit socialist, and only desire to nationalize the "commanding heights of the economy," or one can be very socialist and desire to nationalize every means of production.
Social Democrats are not, generally speaking, socialists. Sanders is a social democrat, whether he calls himself socialist or not.
Obama's a socialist.
Also a Muslim I hear.
And Kenyan.
I think someone is cyber-squatting this website, guess it'll get real valuable in the next few months:
http://www.stoptrump.com/ (http://www.stoptrump.com/)
Oh, because Hitlary Clinton is soo not facists.
Languish is out of touch with reality.
Trump will be the next president, unless the Democrats can cheat chicago style and steal the election.
Trump, Cruz, or lose.
I will stay home on election day if one of those two is not the Republican candidate.
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
Trump, Cruz, or lose.
I will stay home on election day if one of those two is not the Republican candidate.
What did Marco do to Rubio the wrong way? :sleep:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2015, 02:16:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
Trump, Cruz, or lose.
I will stay home on election day if one of those two is not the Republican candidate.
What did Marco do to Rubio the wrong way? :sleep:
:bleeding: :bleeding: :bleeding:
:yeah:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2015, 02:16:09 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
Trump, Cruz, or lose.
I will stay home on election day if one of those two is not the Republican candidate.
What did Marco do to Rubio the wrong way? :sleep:
Somewhere, BB is banging his head against the wall, and he doesn't know why. :P
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
Oh, because Hitlary Clinton is soo not facists.
Of course she is but in a comfortable conventional manner we are accustomed to.
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 03:01:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
So you don't consider Hollande a socialist?
Not really. Mitterrand nationalized a bunch of industries when he took power, that is a socialist.
Wow, I would never see Mitterand as socialist. You Americans really have a distorted view. :lol:
not really, as Mitterand really was a socialist. Then reality hit him in the face and he had to backtrack on a lot of policies.
Okay here's something I find perplexing. Trump claims he saw video of evil Muslims celebrating in Patterson, New Jersey He is countered that that no such video exists. He responds that he knows he saw it and that he has a good memory. His supporters accept this, and believe it as well. 9/11 didn't occur to in the 1950's, if someone broadcast it, the video is somewhere. It should be trivially easy to find. I do remember some kids celebrating in Gaza, but that's not quite the same as New Jersey.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 04:41:48 PM
Okay here's something I find perplexing. Trump claims he saw video of evil Muslims celebrating in Patterson, New Jersey He is countered that that no such video exists. He responds that he knows he saw it and that he has a good memory. His supporters accept this, and believe it as well. 9/11 didn't occur to in the 1950's, if someone broadcast it, the video is somewhere. It should be trivially easy to find. I do remember some kids celebrating in Gaza, but that's not quite the same as New Jersey.
I give Trump the benefit of the doubt on that - driving through Newark, it is easy to see how one could legitimately mistake New Jersey for Gaza. :D
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
Trump, Cruz, or lose.
I will stay home on election day if one of those two is not the Republican candidate.
Siege! My favourite Zionist!
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
Trump, Cruz, or lose.
I will stay home on election day if one of those two is not the Republican candidate.
It's nice to see so dedicated a Hilary supporter.
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:04:04 PM
Trump, Cruz, or lose.
I will stay home on election day if one of those two is not the Republican candidate.
Check out Zoltan Istvan (http://www.zoltanistvan.com/) before you say that. If ever there was a candidate for you, it's him.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 04:41:48 PM
Okay here's something I find perplexing. Trump claims he saw video of evil Muslims celebrating in Patterson, New Jersey He is countered that that no such video exists. He responds that he knows he saw it and that he has a good memory. His supporters accept this, and believe it as well. 9/11 didn't occur to in the 1950's, if someone broadcast it, the video is somewhere. It should be trivially easy to find. I do remember some kids celebrating in Gaza, but that's not quite the same as New Jersey.
I think you are missing the essence of the fascist zeitgeist (I know this seems like I am contradicting what I said earlier). Facts aren't relevant. This is team A vs. team B. Christian America vs. muslims. Trump is framing the battle lines and putting himself on the side of Christian America, that is what is important to his supporters. Trump has defined an enemy, shown himself to be against that enemy--his supporters want to rally around him to defeat that enemy, not carefully consider facts (or even consider facts at all).
What you are doing is similar to standing up in the middle of a football pep talk right before a game and asking, "Coach, is this really the most important moment of our lives? Does the other team really lack respect for us?"
It is the same reason that Putin is popular in Russia despite putting out statements that are 100% nonsense by any objective standard.
And no, I still don't think Trump is a fascist.
I don't think Trump is a Fascist by political science standards.
Are there a number of parallels that can be drawn between Trump's political direction and Fascism? Yeah, I think so. Are they useful parallels? Maybe, depends on context... probably not, in most cases.
I think it's possible to disapprove of Trump without calling him a Fascist.
Trump is a loudmouth.
Assigning him a political worldview, even a really crappy one, is crediting him with more mental coherence than is warranted.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2015, 07:35:47 PM
Trump is a loudmouth.
Assigning him a political worldview, even a really crappy one, is crediting him with more mental coherence than is warranted.
But Dee Snyder of Twisted Sister says he's a self-deprecating intelligent sort of fellow in private.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2015, 07:35:47 PM
Trump is a loudmouth.
Assigning him a political worldview, even a really crappy one, is crediting him with more mental coherence than is warranted.
He's a loudmouth with very keen political instincts, and a loudmouth that happens to energize and validate an extremely unpleasant part of the electorate.
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2015, 08:02:46 PM
But Dee Snyder of Twisted Sister says he's a self-deprecating intelligent sort of fellow in private.
Somehow I'm not surprised that Dee Snyder is a Donald Trump fan. Snyder struck me as an ass, and I have never been able to figure out why anyone is a Twisted Sister fan. The music blows. Along with KISS, Twisted Sister's popularity is an enigma to me.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2015, 04:16:32 PM
Quote from: Siege on December 01, 2015, 02:01:46 PM
Oh, because Hitlary Clinton is soo not facists.
Of course she is but in a comfortable conventional manner we are accustomed to.
Elaborate
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 04:41:48 PM
Okay here's something I find perplexing. Trump claims he saw video of evil Muslims celebrating in Patterson, New Jersey He is countered that that no such video exists. He responds that he knows he saw it and that he has a good memory. His supporters accept this, and believe it as well. 9/11 didn't occur to in the 1950's, if someone broadcast it, the video is somewhere. It should be trivially easy to find. I do remember some kids celebrating in Gaza, but that's not quite the same as New Jersey.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpicture-quotes%2Fquote-if-you-tell-a-lie-big-enough-and-keep-repeating-it-people-will-eventually-come-to-believe-joseph-goebbels-83-20-28.jpg&hash=295dc97979982fe3636a2dcb6650fd06714b316c)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 01, 2015, 07:35:47 PM
Trump is a loudmouth.
Assigning him a political worldview, even a really crappy one, is crediting him with more mental coherence than is warranted.
But fascism isn't really a worldview. It's intellectual incoherence is part of the appeal.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 02, 2015, 04:33:50 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 01, 2015, 04:41:48 PM
Okay here's something I find perplexing. Trump claims he saw video of evil Muslims celebrating in Patterson, New Jersey He is countered that that no such video exists. He responds that he knows he saw it and that he has a good memory. His supporters accept this, and believe it as well. 9/11 didn't occur to in the 1950's, if someone broadcast it, the video is somewhere. It should be trivially easy to find. I do remember some kids celebrating in Gaza, but that's not quite the same as New Jersey.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpicture-quotes%2Fquote-if-you-tell-a-lie-big-enough-and-keep-repeating-it-people-will-eventually-come-to-believe-joseph-goebbels-83-20-28.jpg&hash=295dc97979982fe3636a2dcb6650fd06714b316c)
I prefer Göring. He was also more fabulous.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fapi.ning.com%2Ffiles%2F8c8n0hXpi4gywB0p3UqaWpxc9dSU-A5n9BejVkKNCfMUHq2ayrIXbkMwWfwG1QBroo0Jpvp544%2ARlQe4EGmb2brFC%2AZqjp84%2FGoering.jpg&hash=e131b13ba47fb3dd4fe48287301fcb67b86a1aef)
Didn't these guys lose the war? Not exactly the most competent people to talk, now aren't they? :rolleyes:
But seriously, don't the nazi quote memes sorta follow an implied premise: "you should listen to us because Goerring and Goebbels said the same"? :P
Just because they were evil people that lost the war doesn't mean what they said couldn't be effective.
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2015, 05:24:46 AM
But seriously, don't the nazi quote memes sorta follow an implied premise: "you should listen to us because Goerring and Goebbels said the same"? :P
Next you're going to disagree with Hitler's assessment of Poland. :rolleyes:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpicture-quotes%2Fquote-germany-has-concluded-a-non-aggression-pact-with-poland-we-shall-adhere-to-it-unconditionally-adolf-hitler-55-34-69.jpg&hash=cc029c0ba841359205ac50d7c892226e4ec8b8c9)
Well, having met many Poles, I disagree with this assessment. :P
Quote from: Martinus on December 02, 2015, 05:24:46 AM
But seriously, don't the nazi quote memes sorta follow an implied premise: "you should listen to us because Goerring and Goebbels said the same"? :P
Not really, the Goebbels quote was appropriate because Raz asked how people could swallow the Donald's outrageous lies.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 01, 2015, 04:36:30 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 28, 2015, 03:03:36 PM
Quote from: Valmy on November 28, 2015, 03:01:39 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:59:54 PM
Quote from: grumbler on November 28, 2015, 02:46:52 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on November 28, 2015, 02:19:48 PM
Who are these "actual socialists"?
Those who call for social ownership of the means of production (as opposed to private ownership); you know, the ones who subscribe to the defining characteristic of socialism.
So you don't consider Hollande a socialist?
Not really. Mitterrand nationalized a bunch of industries when he took power, that is a socialist.
Wow, I would never see Mitterand as socialist. You Americans really have a distorted view. :lol:
not really, as Mitterand really was a socialist. Then reality hit him in the face and he had to backtrack on a lot of policies.
Mitterrand came from the right, if not extreme right. In his youth, he even showed up in demonstrations against the "l'invasion des métèques" (damn foreigners invasion). His pro-Vichy period is also well-known, got a Francisque award from Pétain, an award which required "Aryan" heritage. Later on, he went a bit more centre to centre-left à la Guy Mollet (atlantist and pro French Algeria), organised his own kidnapping (affaire de l'Observatoire) during his long opposition period.
Thing is, he did have a socialist spell between 1981 and 1983. In 1983, to cover his severe backtrack, if not outright betrayal, he came up with the idea of using the Front National as a scapegoat and a way to weaken the conservatives. His politician skills were indeed great....
PS: Mitterrand is also one of the earliest examples of champagne left in France.