Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Was Joesph Stalin a Fascist? discussion and poll

Page 6 of 6 [ 92 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Previous topic | Next topic

Is Joseph Stalin a fascist?
Not on your life 32%  32%  [ 7 ]
mmmmm... could be. 68%  68%  [ 15 ]
Total votes : 22

Guppy
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2012
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 188
Location: Somewhere below the North Sea

05 Aug 2012, 2:19 pm

Quote:
also what is the real difference between Corporatism and Syndicalism , a lefty thought of it?


As a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism... quite a lot, I would say.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

05 Aug 2012, 2:25 pm

Guppy wrote:
Quote:
also what is the real difference between Corporatism and Syndicalism , a lefty thought of it?


As a supporter of anarcho-syndicalism... quite a lot, I would say.


I too am a supporter and would like the real distinctions laid out.
The Georges Sorel we have been speaking of certianly bridges the gap between Syndicalism and Facsism.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

05 Aug 2012, 6:01 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:

But like Joe or anyone else this Corporatist would be internally inconsistent.
Loves the poor, loves the Jews, loves folks from other countries but just thinks corporatism is the way to go.

Well, I guess some conservatives 'love' the poor but subscribe to the idea of big benevolent capitalism. 'Red tories' as they are sometimes known in this country, or Disraeli conservatives.- "A net which all may rise above, but which none may fall under".
It largely subscribes to the idea of theory of trickle-down economics, where wealth would eventually find its way to the bottom through the invisible hand of the market. The problem with trickle down, is that its absolute BS. You see, wealth doesnt behave that way, it gravitates towards the wealth controllers. The reason being, the rich don't distribute wealth; they hoard it. Hence why they are rich.

but no, 'Red conservatives' aren't progressives, not by a long shot. As despite their well meaning intentions, their ideology still protects the biased distribution of wealth and resources to the rich.

JakobVirgil wrote:

the BNP are distributionists are they not fascists?


The BNP is a fascist party with nazi members.

Their official party line is classic fascism - Heavy emphasis on nationalist themes, militarisation and right-wing anti communist dogma.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

05 Aug 2012, 6:09 pm

thomas81 wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:

But like Joe or anyone else this Corporatist would be internally inconsistent.
Loves the poor, loves the Jews, loves folks from other countries but just thinks corporatism is the way to go.

Well, I guess some conservatives 'love' the poor but subscribe to the idea of big benevolent capitalism. 'Red tories' as they are sometimes known in this country, or Disraeli conservatives.- "A net which all may rise above, but which none may fall under".
It largely subscribes to the idea of theory of trickle-down economics, where wealth would eventually find its way to the bottom through the invisible hand of the market. The problem with trickle down, is that its absolute BS. You see, wealth doesnt behave that way, it gravitates towards the wealth controllers. The reason being, the rich don't distribute wealth; they hoard it. Hence why they are rich.

but no, 'Red conservatives' aren't progressives, not by a long shot. As despite their well meaning intentions, their ideology still protects the biased distribution of wealth and resources to the rich.

JakobVirgil wrote:

the BNP are distributionists are they not fascists?


The BNP is a fascist party with nazi members.

Their official party line is classic fascism - Heavy emphasis on nationalist themes, militarisation and right-win g anti communist dogma.


the BNP is a fascist party with nazi member but is not corporatist.

is corporatism just syndicalism done by folks we don't like?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

05 Aug 2012, 6:24 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
the BNP is a fascist party with nazi member but is not corporatist.

is corporatism just syndicalism done by folks we don't like?


the BNP is indifferent or at least mildly supportive to capitalism, large or otherwise. Corporatism is generally support of big business. I have not seen the BNP distance themselves from that idea. Even before you consider their blatant racism, their dogma of putting indigenous interests first, anti-communism and class unity is why they deserve the fascist label.

If you look at conventional past fascist parties there are clear parallels. They've only recently distanced themselves from classical fascism to appear more respectable.

Syndicalists, at least in the context i understand is usually a left wing phenomenon.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

05 Aug 2012, 7:22 pm

thomas81 wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
the BNP is a fascist party with nazi member but is not corporatist.

is corporatism just syndicalism done by folks we don't like?


the BNP is indifferent or at least mildly supportive to capitalism, large or otherwise. Corporatism is generally support of big business. I have not seen the BNP distance themselves from that idea. Even before you consider their blatant racism, their dogma of putting indigenous interests first, anti-communism and class unity is why they deserve the fascist label.

If you look at conventional past fascist parties there are clear parallels. They've only recently distanced themselves from classical fascism to appear more respectable.

Syndicalists, at least in the context i understand is usually a left wing phenomenon.


A lot of the American far-right call themselves Libertarian. I am not talking about Objectivists, the Libertarian Party or Ron Paul enthusiasts but full on White Power, Arm Band wearing Neo-Nazi's.

Link to their group on stormfront a hate website

I think one can not expect intelligence from fascists it is a politic of "truthyness"


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

06 Aug 2012, 2:52 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Syndicalists, at least in the context i understand is usually a left wing phenomenon.


True, but Italian fascism had its roots in syndicalism.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

06 Aug 2012, 3:08 pm

edgewaters wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Syndicalists, at least in the context i understand is usually a left wing phenomenon.


True, but Italian fascism had its roots in syndicalism.


That is the problem with politics.

Neo-Conservatives are largely former marxists.
Il Duce was a socialist at first.
Sorel started as an anarchist.
that is way I don't like the genetic definitions of politics.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

06 Aug 2012, 3:25 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
Neo-Conservatives are largely former marxists.


Lot of them were Trotskyists, to be precise. Stephen Schwartz, Wolfowitz, and of course the grandfather of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol.



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 51
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

06 Aug 2012, 4:03 pm

edgewaters wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Neo-Conservatives are largely former marxists.


Lot of them were Trotskyists, to be precise. Stephen Schwartz, Wolfowitz, and of course the grandfather of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol.


I know crazy eh?


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

06 Aug 2012, 7:07 pm

JakobVirgil wrote:
edgewaters wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Neo-Conservatives are largely former marxists.


Lot of them were Trotskyists, to be precise. Stephen Schwartz, Wolfowitz, and of course the grandfather of neo-conservatism, Irving Kristol.


I know crazy eh?


They saw The Light.

When I was in my early 20's I was a socialist.

I think it was Churchill who said: If a young man is not a socialist when he is 20 he has no heart. If he is still a socialist when he is 40 he has no brains. Or something like that. I understand the impulse toward socialism completely and to some extent I sympathize with it. I wish people would be more just to each other than they generally are.

ruveyn



edgewaters
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2006
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,427
Location: Ontario

06 Aug 2012, 7:29 pm

ruveyn wrote:
They saw The Light.


Actually they retained most of the worst aspects. The internationalism, the idea that the masses do not know what's best and need to be dictated to or deceived along, the authoritarianism, the idea of the state as champion of ideological transformation. All they really dropped was the brand. They never even paid more than lip service to the idea of laissez-faire, favouring corporatism instead. Single source contracts etc.

Quote:
I think it was Churchill who said: If a young man is not a socialist when he is 20 he has no heart. If he is still a socialist when he is 40 he has no brains.


That was probably valid in the age in which Churchill grew up ... when many socialists were violent radicals, and conservatives were moderate. Today the situation is reversed ... and I think Churchill's quote would be more accurate if "socialist" were exchanged for "radical reformist"