Jump to content

Is there any fascist alliance in politicsandwar?


IRON
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, NeonCloud said:

think of the funniest fascist meme you ever saw, and then the funniest communist meme you ever saw,
I personally cannot think of a fascist meme that made me laugh , but in soviet russia, jokes laugh at you 👀

Oh I have seen a few funny fascist memes in my day, typically relating to the utterly fabulous uniforms they wore 🤷‍♂️

  • Like 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Matthew The Great said:

The argument between Big Brother and Fancroist was fun, but uh... you're both right ig. 

Fascism is an offshoot of socialism, in the same way Nazism is an offshoot of Fascism. So if socialists get to distance themselves from Fascists, Fascists can distance themselves from Nazis.

But every Non-Nazi Fascist Government was run by !@#$ too. Nazis weren't the only bad fascists. So no one should defend them either.

Make a Fascist AA when you have the funds if you want, I don't have anything against it not being against the rules, but part of having a fascist OR communist theme is dealing with people whose sensibilities you've offended.

How do you end up with fascism being derived from socialism or are you merely commenting on the authoritarian commonalities shared between communist Russia/ China etc and that of Nazi Germany / fascist Italy?

In terms of actual ideology, the two of them are quite different with considerably different origins. You could state that fascism developed in response to the advent of socialism but it is incorrect to state that fascism is an offshoot of socialism albeit both of them are considerably opposed to traditional capitalism in differing regards.

 

 

Edited by Charles Bolivar
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy... 

>.> looks at every pnw alliance. Yeah I don't see any similarities. Close this pointless thread. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Epi said:

Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, as well as strong regimentation of society and of the economy... 

>.> looks at every pnw alliance. Yeah I don't see any similarities. Close this pointless thread. 

 

Hah, nice.

Id personally prefer to label most pnw alliances as oligarchical in nature but that's just my take on it 🤷‍♂️

Edited by Charles Bolivar

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say 'join ordo draconis' like I do to everyone else, but we let people set their own taxes and have free speech so you wouldn't like that I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, namukara said:

I'd say 'join ordo draconis' like I do to everyone else, but we let people set their own taxes and have free speech so you wouldn't like that I guess.

Actually, you have a really good alliance, tax is also very very important for me, I don't have anything against freedom of speech, I might come to your alliance after I paid my debt, if you accept me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're about 4-1 years too late on the meme chief.

The new thing is to just be apologetically toxic and just bash everyone.

Identity politics are so last decade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Charles Bolivar said:

How do you end up with fascism being derived from socialism or are you merely commenting on the authoritarian commonalities shared between communist Russia/ China etc and that of Nazi Germany / fascist Italy?

Most Fascist leaders and organizations have their origins in their respective countries socialist parties. Fascism also had strong union showing (The main prefascist nationalist movement in Germany was through unions, granted you can attribute this as syndicalism). Fascism is what happens when Auth Right Socialists don't think Socialism is Nationalist enough.

Blame Dan Schneider~

393607803_Screenshot-20190414-060815-Discord(2).jpg.7116150a8eb6a7355bc37f3f65604764.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Matthew The Great said:

Most Fascist leaders and organizations have their origins in their respective countries socialist parties. Fascism also had strong union showing (The main prefascist nationalist movement in Germany was through unions, granted you can attribute this as syndicalism). Fascism is what happens when Auth Right Socialists don't think Socialism is Nationalist enough.

Sorry but there is no such thing as an Authoritarian right socialist. You can have an authoritarian socialist but that's about as far as it goes.

No offence but I think you are mistaking fascism with Authoritarianism 🤷‍♂️

  • Like 1

Untitled.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Charles Bolivar said:

No offence but I think you are mistaking fascism with Authoritarianism

Sorry but I'm not, a large portion of Fascist leaders have their origins in socialist circles and groups. Including the leaders of 2 of the axis powers (Mussolini joined the socialist movement, and Hitler joined the NSDAP). You're right that Fascism has stark differences to socialism, but there is no denying that the ideologies roots lie there.

*Should Digress that I'm referring to the early 20th century fascist revival movements and not the early Italian model, not pre ww1 movements which were somewhat friendlier, and very unlike the fascism we think of today*

It's a pretty complex history, it's fair enough to argue that fascism as a concept has it's roots elsewhere, but the people who managed to put it in action started with socialism 

Edited by Matthew The Great
I forgot half my thing...
  • Upvote 1

Blame Dan Schneider~

393607803_Screenshot-20190414-060815-Discord(2).jpg.7116150a8eb6a7355bc37f3f65604764.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Francoist said:

  It is a game. Do you also say to pirates in the game "Are we going to do the 16th century over again? ". Also if it is about fascism you should have said "1920's".

No, I meant what I meant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2020 at 9:55 AM, Francoist said:

I am not afraid of talking about politics, but my intention here was not about talking about it, just asked for helping finding alliances. The main question is why you are only sensitive to presence of one of these two evil ideologies (yet both can be present in the game according the game creator)?

So according to your logic, criminals and mass murderers are attracted to GTA. I remember in one of COD games the player massacres the people inside an airport, so whoever played that game must be a terrorist or psychopathic killer.

Did I ever said you "can't play the game in a way that is hostile to fascists"? Play it whatever you like. Your playing style does not bother me, but evidently you cannot tolerate my playing style or my presence in the game.

Just because one of the two evils is accepted doesn't mean that the second evil should also be accepted. Also, the ideology of communism/socialism isn't necessarily evil, but the dictators in charge of the state were. Compare this to Fascism, which is literally based off of the oppression of enemies and the discrimination of non aryan races. So yes, Stalin and Zedong were evil, but they weren't a product of the ideology. 

  • Upvote 4

"Havgle is a piece of sh*t" -probably everyone in Orbis

 

Havglerepmeme.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Matthew The Great said:

Sorry but I'm not, a large portion of Fascist leaders have their origins in socialist circles and groups. Including the leaders of 2 of the axis powers (Mussolini joined the socialist movement, and Hitler joined the NSDAP). You're right that Fascism has stark differences to socialism, but there is no denying that the ideologies roots lie there.

While it’s true that Mussolini was a socialist at one point, he did a 180 and radicalized towards fascism, and Hitler joined the Nazi Party because it appealed to his already-existing anxieties and anti-Semitism. 

Oh, and the reason why the Nazis of the ‘30s called themselves “national socialists” is to confuse supporters and critics of socialism. People sympathetic to socialism would accidentally support the Nazis instead of actual socialist parties, and critics may mistake the Nazi ideology as actual socialist beliefs and think all socialists are like the Nazis. 

You’re falling for the trap the Nazis set up 100 YEARS AGO. Brilliant!

7 minutes ago, PeeledTurnip said:

Just because one of the two evils is accepted doesn't mean that the second evil should also be accepted. Also, the ideology of communism/socialism isn't necessarily evil, but the dictators in charge of the state were. Compare this to Fascism, which is literally based off of the oppression of enemies and the discrimination of non aryan races. So yes, Stalin and Zedong were evil, but they weren't a product of the ideology. 

This!^

Thank you!

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, PeeledTurnip said:

Just because one of the two evils is accepted doesn't mean that the second evil should also be accepted. Also, the ideology of communism/socialism isn't necessarily evil, but the dictators in charge of the state were. Compare this to Fascism, which is literally based off of the oppression of enemies and the discrimination of non aryan races. So yes, Stalin and Zedong were evil, but they weren't a product of the ideology. 

Fascism is legitimate in the game. Communists hide their crimes under the disguise of beautiful words,  the words and actions of fascists are the same.

There have been dozens of different communist countries across the world, all of them were failures and full of crimes against humanity. Also, communists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat and elimination of other classes, it is beyond me how these beliefs are not evil in your book.

Fascism is not racist (francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Salazar's Portugal), Nazism is racist.

Edited by Francoist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francoist said:

Fascism is legitimate in the game. Communists hide their crimes under the disguise of beautiful words,  the words and actions of fascists are the same.

According to the game’s admin, both are legitimate within the game. Your preference for one or the other doesn’t affect that. 

The words and actions of fascists are indeed the same, they say they want to create brutal repressive dictatorships where the state is all that matters and that’s what they do.

1 hour ago, Francoist said:

There have been dozens of different communist countries across the world, all of them were failures and full of crimes against humanity. Also, communists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat and elimination of other classes, it is beyond me how these beliefs are not evil in your book.

There has never been a communist country on this planet. What you’re referring to are socialist states or socialist countries, if you prefer that. No country throughout history has achieved the criteria that define a communist society, namely being stateless, classless and moneyless. Every country run by a communist party so far has maintained the state, money and class divisions. As for whether they’re failures or not, that depends on what they were trying to achieve. They were certainly plagued by crimes against humanity, just like more or less every country under a fascist regime.

It’s true that some communists like Marxist-Leninists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, while other communists disagree with that concept. The elimination of all classes simply refers to the process of creating equality in an economic sense; by removing the distinctions between classes, basically wealth, all classes will merge into one. It doesn’t mean literally exterminate literally everyone not a part of the working class (though as a fascist I can see how your first instinct would be to think that).

And while Marxist-Leninists want the dictatorship of the proletariat, fascists just want a dictatorship. With that in mind, it’s pretty hilarious that you think fascism has any kind of moral high ground over communism or at least Marxism-Leninism when both of those ideologies have led to atrocities of the same nature. How can you criticize the dictatorship of the proletariat and defend fascism when fascism is by nature characterized dictatorial power? It doesn’t make sense and it’s a glaring contradiction. Basically it seems to me like you’re okay with dictatorship as long a it’s “the right kind” of dictatorship.

1 hour ago, Francoist said:

Fascism is not racist (francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Salazar's Portugal), Nazism is racist.

A simple internet search will show anyone capable of reading that this isn’t true. The nationalistic tendencies of fascism create a slippery slope of beliefs that lead people to embrace racist views. Many fascists have been and continue to be racist. Racism was a key characteristic of early German fascism and continues to be a characteristic of fascist movements in Europe today, typically in the form of thinking non-Europeans are inferior to Europeans. Suggesting that there isn’t a single racist fascist or that many fascist movements haven't married fascist politics with racism, is just wishful thinking, disconnected from reality. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re trying to twist the real nature of things to fit what you yourself want to be true. Fortunately, wishing something to be true doesn’t make it so.

  • Upvote 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

According to the game’s admin, both are legitimate within the game. Your preference for one or the other doesn’t affect that. 

The words and actions of fascists are indeed the same, they say they want to create brutal repressive dictatorships where the state is all that matters and that’s what they do.

As I said before, in my personal opinion both communism and fascism should be part of the game. The game creator thinks like that, too.

13 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

There has never been a communist country on this planet. What you’re referring to are socialist states or socialist countries, if you prefer that. No country throughout history has achieved the criteria that define a communist society, namely being stateless, classless and moneyless. Every country run by a communist party so far has maintained the state, money and class divisions. As for whether they’re failures or not, that depends on what they were trying to achieve. They were certainly plagued by crimes against humanity, just like more or less every country under a fascist regime.

It’s true that some communists like Marxist-Leninists believe in the dictatorship of the proletariat, while other communists disagree with that concept. The elimination of all classes simply refers to the process of creating equality in an economic sense; by removing the distinctions between classes, basically wealth, all classes will merge into one. It doesn’t mean literally exterminate literally everyone not a part of the working class (though as a fascist I can see how your first instinct would be to think that).

And while Marxist-Leninists want the dictatorship of the proletariat, fascists just want a dictatorship. With that in mind, it’s pretty hilarious that you think fascism has any kind of moral high ground over communism or at least Marxism-Leninism when both of those ideologies have led to atrocities of the same nature. How can you criticize the dictatorship of the proletariat and defend fascism when fascism is by nature characterized dictatorial power? It doesn’t make sense and it’s a glaring contradiction. Basically it seems to me like you’re okay with dictatorship as long a it’s “the right kind” of dictatorship.

Actually, those pre-history primitive tribes had what communists strive to be. A hunter always split all of its game among other tribesmen and there were no class, no inequality no state no justice system, but since this system rewards lazy people, after a while nobody hunts and they expect others to do it. Therefore, everybody became hungry, then they reached to the conclusion that every hunter should keep its game to himself, therefore the capitalism began. This problem also exists in communist countries, the communist system does not reward efficiency, therefore it is not stable and bounds to fail. Communists and Anarchists both have the same final goal, communists believe in order to reach this final "heaven", the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, anarchists don't want any medium and want to go to this stateless situation immediately.

The guy before stated that the theory of communism is not evil and only the leaders were evil, so I responded to that and stated communism is essentially evil. I didn't defend fascism. But I think I can safely say that fascism acts much better than communism economically. Also the elimination of classes in the best case scenario is done by forcible acquisition of bourgeois wealth and in the worst case by physical elimination of Bourgeoisie. Communists usually prefer the physical elimination, some communists (like Khmer rouge) even wanted to destroy cities and their inhabitants. Now I don't even want to talk about their enmity  toward historical monuments.

42 minutes ago, Big Brother said:

A simple internet search will show anyone capable of reading that this isn’t true. The nationalistic tendencies of fascism create a slippery slope of beliefs that lead people to embrace racist views. Many fascists have been and continue to be racist. Racism was a key characteristic of early German fascism and continues to be a characteristic of fascist movements in Europe today, typically in the form of thinking non-Europeans are inferior to Europeans. Suggesting that there isn’t a single racist fascist or that many fascist movements haven't married fascist politics with racism, is just wishful thinking, disconnected from reality. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about and you’re trying to twist the real nature of things to fit what you yourself want to be true. Fortunately, wishing something to be true doesn’t make it so.

Racism is not limited to some nationalistic ideologies. In soviet union, communists ethnic cleansed Tatars, Chechens and others. The Yugoslavian partisans ethnic cleansed Italians after WW2. The Khmer rouge committed genocide against many minorities in Cambodia.  Even nowadays, Communists in China have put millions of Uyghurs inside camps in order to make them become "more Chinese". Thinking non-Europeans are inferior to Europeans is not related to fascism (btw I am not even European), it is very older than fascism, even democracies like France and UK believed that. Belgium was a democracy but they had human zoo, they even made very horrific crimes against Congolese people. USA have a long record of racism, but it was never a fascist state.

The states that I mentioned (Francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Salazar's Portugal) were not systemically racist states. Their behavior toward Jews can prove that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/13/2020 at 6:10 AM, Francoist said:

Just curious, there are losts of communist alliances, but couldn't find anything fascist using search.

 

Btw, the game creator stated that fascism is not banned in the game:

https://forum.politicsandwar.com/index.php?/topic/26981-strong-political-slurs/&tab=comments#comment-433368

I didn't read the entire thread, but I believe the answer to your question is no.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is quite sad tbh. He asks a legit question and everyone gangs up on him calling him a nazi and what not. It's a game, there can be fascist alliances as much as communist alliances. In fact, by definition, many normal PnW alliances are run by a fascist style government.

@Francoist To answer your question, no. The majority of the players here prefer to pick something non-political to base their alliance on. We have anime based alliances, game based alliances, historical, among many other themes. When alliances attempt to get too political, they fail pretty quick. I would join an alliance that has good people, strong defenses, and a theme you enjoy. 

I hope this helped, and I apologize for your sour welcoming.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1

signature_1609462526.png.014e1286830a99c3d7652fe75198c389.png
To whom it may concern, I do not represent The Immortals unless explicitly stated (ergo, never.)
<--- I hardly use the forums anymore, add me on discord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Corpsman said:

This is quite sad tbh. He asks a legit question and everyone gangs up on him calling him a nazi and what not. It's a game, there can be fascist alliances as much as communist alliances. In fact, by definition, many normal PnW alliances are run by a fascist style government.

@Francoist To answer your question, no. The majority of the players here prefer to pick something non-political to base their alliance on. We have anime based alliances, game based alliances, historical, among many other themes. When alliances attempt to get too political, they fail pretty quick. I would join an alliance that has good people, strong defenses, and a theme you enjoy. 

I hope this helped, and I apologize for your sour welcoming.

Thank you very much for your kindness and advice. I just wanted to play in a fascist alliance for roleplaying reasons, since this game is about politics I assumed some fascist alliances might be here as well. But others took things very seriously, they don't understand that they are playing in a game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Francoist said:

Thank you very much for your kindness and advice. I just wanted to play in a fascist alliance for roleplaying reasons, since this game is about politics I assumed some fascist alliances might be here as well. But others took things very seriously, they don't understand that they are playing in a game.

Ah, I think I see at least one source of your confusion.

The forums are the game. The rest is just numbers that we can refer to on said forums. Thus, "taking it seriously" as you put it is no more and no less than simply playing the game exactly as it should be played. Which is exactly what you're doing by voicing your opinions... just like they are. Both are valid opinions and if you're having fun defending your valid ideology then go for it; the fact that there's resistance just makes it an actual game as opposed to a circlejerk.

So, I hope you now understand that you are, indeed, playing a game.

Edited by Sir Scarfalot
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Francoist said:

Actually, those pre-history primitive tribes had what communists strive to be. A hunter always split all of its game among other tribesmen and there were no class, no inequality no state no justice system, but since this system rewards lazy people, after a while nobody hunts and they expect others to do it. Therefore, everybody became hungry, then they reached to the conclusion that every hunter should keep its game to himself, therefore the capitalism began. This problem also exists in communist countries, the communist system does not reward efficiency, therefore it is not stable and bounds to fail. Communists and Anarchists both have the same final goal, communists believe in order to reach this final "heaven", the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, anarchists don't want any medium and want to go to this stateless situation immediately.

No true communist would suggest a return to pre-historic society. The fact that there are some aspects of pre-historic society that one could find again in communist does not change the fact that there are also countless other aspects of communist society that didn't exist in prehistoric times and could not be achieved at that level of technology.

As for your statement about laziness, you have no proof whatsoever to present and I should dismiss it completely as nonsense unless you do provide some proof. How do you imagine that there was any advancement from prehistoric society to agricultural and then modern society if the hunter-gatherers back then were just lazy and sat around doing nothing? How did agriculture come about in the first place if everyone living in prehistoric times was lazy and unwilling to work or think of new ideas? It doesn't make sense.

And are you seriously suggesting that capitalism came into existence during prehistoric times? Are you joking? Why are you saying these things that anyone with an internet connection could invalidate within minutes, if not seconds? If you had bothered to actually learn about the things you're talking about before you talk about them, you'd know that the roots of modern capitalism originate during the renaissance. The core characteristics of capitalism are wage labor, private ownership of the means of production and market dependence. There was no wage labor during pre-historic times and no market to sell labor or goods. Arguably, means of production might have been privately owned but that becomes irrelevant when they consist of rocks and sticks you could find anywhere in nature. It's not the same as private ownership as it exists in modern capitalism. Your claims about the origins of capitalism are categorically false and you are lying to yourself and to others with that description of its origins.

The only part of this segment of your post that has a shred of truth to it is what you wrote about communists and anarchists. However, it's only half the truth. You're ignoring the fact that there exists many different varieties of both communism and anarchism. The fact is that there are varieties of communism that reject the dictatorship of the proletariat in its entirety and seek solutions more similar to those typical anarchists seek. It follows from this fact that when you say "communists want the dictatorship of the proletariat" you are erroneously grouping every communist that does not want that in with those who do. It's simply incorrect and inaccurate. Some communists (like Marxist-Leninists) want the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some communists (like anarcho-communists) don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat. You should specify which variant you're referring to instead of wrongly putting them all in the same box, however convenient that might be for you.

2 hours ago, Francoist said:

The guy before stated that the theory of communism is not evil and only the leaders were evil, so I responded to that and stated communism is essentially evil. I didn't defend fascism. But I think I can safely say that fascism acts much better than communism economically. Also the elimination of classes in the best case scenario is done by forcible acquisition of bourgeois wealth and in the worst case by physical elimination of Bourgeoisie. Communists usually prefer the physical elimination, some communists (like Khmer rouge) even wanted to destroy cities and their inhabitants. Now I don't even want to talk about their enmity  toward historical monuments.

Your response is incorrect. While fascism and Nazism have characteristics that define them as inherently repressive and authoritarian, the same simply is not true of communism and to claim otherwise is contrary to the facts. Anyone that reads about communism, fascism and Nazism with a clear mind can attest to this. You're full of contradictions. You say you're not defending fascism (though you very clearly have been throughout this thread) and then in the next sentence you go on to claim that fascism works better than communism economically, which is a defense of fascism. Your defense isn't entirely wrong, depending on your perspective. In a purely theoretical and economical sense, fascism acts better for the few. In the same regard, communism acts better for the many. The forcible redistribution of wealth is a tenet of some forms of communism, you're right. And while there are some communists that would agree with the "physical elimination" of the bourgeois, there are also many that don't. Your generalizations just aren't accurate.

As for the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer Rouge were not communists. In fact, they have been described as anti-Marxist.They primarily subscribed to Khmer nationalism and autarky. The fact that you're not aware of this fact is just another display of your lack of knowledge about these matters. The Khmer Rouge were brought to power, with American and Chinese support, as a result of an American bombing campaign in Cambodia (targeting the People's Army of Vietnam) which killed thousands of civilians and enraged the civilian population against the allegedly US-supported government at the time, causing them to join the Khmer Rouge in droves. As it turns out, having your loved ones killed by American bombs tends to make people angry enough to want to take arms. Regardless, while the Khmer Rouge might have employed left-wing rhetoric at times they were in practice and "behind the scenes" xenophobic Khmer nationalists who in no way sought to actually institute socialism or communism.

Even ignoring this, it is a joke that you, a fascist, is criticizing anyone for wanting to destroy cities and their inhabitants. Fascism is built on the destruction of the individual in favor of the state. You have zero credibility in criticizing such actions when you are clearly willing to support them yourself, for the right cause. 

2 hours ago, Francoist said:

Racism is not limited to some nationalistic ideologies. In soviet union, communists ethnic cleansed Tatars, Chechens and others. The Yugoslavian partisans ethnic cleansed Italians after WW2. The Khmer rouge committed genocide against many minorities in Cambodia.  Even nowadays, Communists in China have put millions of Uyghurs inside camps in order to make them become "more Chinese". Thinking non-Europeans are inferior to Europeans is not related to fascism (btw I am not even European), it is very older than fascism, even democracies like France and UK believed that. Belgium was a democracy but they had human zoo, they even made very horrific crimes against Congolese people. USA have a long record of racism, but it was never a fascist state.

The states that I mentioned (Francoist Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Salazar's Portugal) were not systemically racist states. Their behavior toward Jews can prove that.

No, a lack of anti-semitism does not prove that they weren't systematically racist. If Jews were the only people you could be racist against, maybe that would be true. But that's nowhere close to being the case.

So, your defense against fascism being racist is "but look at all these other guys, they're racist too!"? That doesn't cut it. You're basically saying that racism does exist within fascism and other nationalist ideologies but because racism has been present in democracies, socialist states, and whatever else, that's okay. Here's the thing, it isn't. I condemn any racism in the Soviet Union, China, the United States, fascist Italy and wherever else. I never claimed that racism is limited to fascism but the fact that it isn't doesn't excuse the disgusting fact that fascists are often racists. It is not an argument against the connection between fascism and racism whatsoever, nor is the claim that looking down on non-Europeans predates fascism. Fascism perpetuates it, which is only further grounds for criticizing fascism.

Here's a piece of advice, if you want to criticize anything you better make sure you're not criticizing someone else for something you yourself support. It ruins any credibility you might have and makes you look like a hypocrite.

Edited by Big Brother
  • Like 1

orwell_s_1984_oceania_s_currency_by_dungsc127_d97k1zt-fullview.jpg.9994c8f495b96849443aa0defa8730be.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AwesomeNova said:

You’re falling for the trap the Nazis set up 100 YEARS AGO. Brilliant!

You have read the first couple paragraphs for the NSDAP on wikipedia! Congrats, you are now an expert on the political history of Fascism, I have been promptly dabbed on.

If you picture socialism as the moderate path of modern authoritarian economics (Which it is, look into any socialist countries and you realize that just because you're socialist does not mean you're a liberal), Fascism lies on the right wing while Communism lies on the left. They are both extreme points, and imo I think Fascism is definitely the more extreme of the two (Fascism in it's post 1930's incarnation has become a concept that is flawed on paper, while you can still make arguments in favor of a communist model), but denying it's ties to socialism instead of addressing them only hurts the socialist argument.

I could argue this point for hours, but at this point it's starting to look like I'm defending Francoist, who has just been embarrassing himself these last few points. You can't defend racism by citing other people being racist too. If you want to make an argument supporting Fascism I'd stick with Franco (who was also quite an a-hole but your best bet for an argument supporting any modern Fascist governments) or anyone who didn't take power post WW1. 

Closing Statement (This forum is no longer funny, I'm out, yeet)- Everyone was an A-hole in the 1930s, other people's governments also having A-holes does not defend yours, and yes, communist memes are just straight up funnier. 

  • Thanks 1

Blame Dan Schneider~

393607803_Screenshot-20190414-060815-Discord(2).jpg.7116150a8eb6a7355bc37f3f65604764.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Socialism, Caitalism, Fascism, Anarchy that banned-ism... Throw off your shackles and replace them for shinier ones in Chad Anarcho Monarchy. 

Anarcho-Monarchy-5-0.png

Voluntary God King leads us all and preserves the NAP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sir Scarfalot said:

Ah, I think I see at least one source of your confusion.

The forums are the game. The rest is just numbers that we can refer to on said forums. Thus, "taking it seriously" as you put it is no more and no less than simply playing the game exactly as it should be played. Which is exactly what you're doing by voicing your opinions... just like they are. Both are valid opinions and if you're having fun defending your valid ideology then go for it; the fact that there's resistance just makes it an actual game as opposed to a circlejerk.

So, I hope you now understand that you are, indeed, playing a game.

Look, as a newbie my intention was not to start a political debate as soon as I arrived here, I just asked an honest question. Instead of answering the question, some people stated a debate, it is not like I am afraid of political discussions as you can see, but my intention for starting this thread was different. Also, some people think that whichever role you chose in a game is exactly the role you have in real life, this is clearly wrong because they don't understand a game and roleplaying, for more information you can refer to the first page and stuff I said about GTA.

8 hours ago, Big Brother said:

No true communist would suggest a return to pre-historic society. The fact that there are some aspects of pre-historic society that one could find again in communist does not change the fact that there are also countless other aspects of communist society that didn't exist in prehistoric times and could not be achieved at that level of technology.

The situation that pre-historic tribes had are pretty much all things that communists want. While communism claims that it is progressive, it is actually very reactionary, it wants to destroy many of human achievements like government, justice systems, banks and etc. You can say communism is against civilization and wants to return to pre-history societies.

8 hours ago, Big Brother said:

As for your statement about laziness, you have no proof whatsoever to present and I should dismiss it completely as nonsense unless you do provide some proof. How do you imagine that there was any advancement from prehistoric society to agricultural and then modern society if the hunter-gatherers back then were just lazy and sat around doing nothing? How did agriculture come about in the first place if everyone living in prehistoric times was lazy and unwilling to work or think of new ideas? It doesn't make sense.

And are you seriously suggesting that capitalism came into existence during prehistoric times? Are you joking? Why are you saying these things that anyone with an internet connection could invalidate within minutes, if not seconds? If you had bothered to actually learn about the things you're talking about before you talk about them, you'd know that the roots of modern capitalism originate during the renaissance. The core characteristics of capitalism are wage labor, private ownership of the means of production and market dependence. There was no wage labor during pre-historic times and no market to sell labor or goods. Arguably, means of production might have been privately owned but that becomes irrelevant when they consist of rocks and sticks you could find anywhere in nature. It's not the same as private ownership as it exists in modern capitalism. Your claims about the origins of capitalism are categorically false and you are lying to yourself and to others with that description of its origins.

It is clear that you unfortunately didn't understand or properly read my previous post, so I am going to repeat it. We have a tribe here, all of them hunters, whenever somebody hunts they split it among all tribe members, this is the beginning situation for all pre-history tribes. Like any society, there are some lazy people in this tribe, they don't hunt (or hunt less) but still other people split their game with them. After a while the guys who hunt ask themselves why we should hunt when others are willing to split their game with us? It is better to let others hunt for me, so the number of active hunters is going to decrease while the number of lazy people are increased. So, there is no enough hunters in the tribe and there going to be a famine. Then all tribe members gather together to find a solution, what is their solution? Everybody hunt for themselves and keep the game for his family, there is no need for sharing. They are still a pre-historic tribe but people own their preys. In this way everybody had to hunt for themselves. This owning stuff is going to spread to other stuffs like spears and etc. The pre-historic tribe reached to the conclusion that not sharing the preys is the solution for the aforementioned problem, I never said tribes are lazy. Owing stuff was their idea. 

Now capitalism is based on the ownership, when the ownership began the capitalism also began. A hunter who hunts more is going to have a better life than the neighboring lazy hunter. Because the active hunter has more preys, he can exchange them for better equipment, so he has better life, better equipment, therefore the inequality began. Now, when the active hunter dies, his children has a better start then the lazy man's family, therefore the gap between them can be widened after a while,  so we are going to have different classes, one poor one rich. It is primitive in nature, but the situation is quite close to what we have in a capitalistic country. The tribe had proto-communism and then proto-capitalism.  Marx also got some inspirations from this proto-communist tribes. Now, what is the source for the stuff that I said? Unlike you who apparently get all of the information from the internet, I sometimes read  books. The book who described this development of tribes is "The Story of Civilization by Will Durant, the first volume:Our Oriental Heritage, chapter one:The Establishment of Civilization". How capitalism is began and how was the primitive-communism is all described there. This is not some stuff that I invented myself, your lack of information about them just makes you the ignorant one here.

8 hours ago, Big Brother said:

The only part of this segment of your post that has a shred of truth to it is what you wrote about communists and anarchists. However, it's only half the truth. You're ignoring the fact that there exists many different varieties of both communism and anarchism. The fact is that there are varieties of communism that reject the dictatorship of the proletariat in its entirety and seek solutions more similar to those typical anarchists seek. It follows from this fact that when you say "communists want the dictatorship of the proletariat" you are erroneously grouping every communist that does not want that in with those who do. It's simply incorrect and inaccurate. Some communists (like Marxist-Leninists) want the dictatorship of the proletariat. Some communists (like anarcho-communists) don't want the dictatorship of the proletariat. You should specify which variant you're referring to instead of wrongly putting them all in the same box, however convenient that might be for you.

A communist who does not believe in Karl Marx, is like a christian who does not believe in Jesus. You can consider these non-Marxist communists as a bunch of anarchists. They also never took power in any country, so they are irrelevant. 

8 hours ago, Big Brother said:

Your response is incorrect. While fascism and Nazism have characteristics that define them as inherently repressive and authoritarian, the same simply is not true of communism and to claim otherwise is contrary to the facts. Anyone that reads about communism, fascism and Nazism with a clear mind can attest to this. You're full of contradictions. You say you're not defending fascism (though you very clearly have been throughout this thread) and then in the next sentence you go on to claim that fascism works better than communism economically, which is a defense of fascism. Your defense isn't entirely wrong, depending on your perspective. In a purely theoretical and economical sense, fascism acts better for the few. In the same regard, communism acts better for the many. The forcible redistribution of wealth is a tenet of some forms of communism, you're right. And while there are some communists that would agree with the "physical elimination" of the bourgeois, there are also many that don't. Your generalizations just aren't accurate.

As I said before, the the dictatorship of the proletariat and the elimination of classes (and also eliminating religious beliefs) are some indications that communism is quite authoritarian and essentially evil. Communism wants total control of every aspect of a human life, it wants to impose its atheistic and materialistic views on everybody, it has even a dress code. If you are a rich people, then communists in the name equality will come to your doors and violently ask for all of your wealth that you and your previous generations made by hard working and then maybe shoot you. Fascism does not care about your religious beliefs or how you dress or your wealth, therefore clearly communism is more totalitarian than fascism. Communism creates equality by making all people poor (of course their leaders have quite a luxury life like Ceausescu). While in a capitalist nation, the middle and rich classes have a good situation. Fascism is based on the observation of human history (and even nature) that if you don't get strong, others will smash you. It is a bitter truth. While communism is just based on the fantasies that never going to work. Communism does not reward efficiency, therefore it is bound to fail. Since in a communist state,  people does not get fired for inefficiency, the system is inefficient and it is eventually going to fail. Refer to "The End of the Cold War by David Pietrusza" for more information about how this inefficiency led to the Fall of Communism.

 

8 hours ago, Big Brother said:

As for the Khmer Rouge, the Khmer Rouge were not communists. In fact, they have been described as anti-Marxist.They primarily subscribed to Khmer nationalism and autarky. The fact that you're not aware of this fact is just another display of your lack of knowledge about these matters. The Khmer Rouge were brought to power, with American and Chinese support, as a result of an American bombing campaign in Cambodia (targeting the People's Army of Vietnam) which killed thousands of civilians and enraged the civilian population against the allegedly US-supported government at the time, causing them to join the Khmer Rouge in droves. As it turns out, having your loved ones killed by American bombs tends to make people angry enough to want to take arms. Regardless, while the Khmer Rouge might have employed left-wing rhetoric at times they were in practice and "behind the scenes" xenophobic Khmer nationalists who in no way sought to actually institute socialism or communism.

Even ignoring this, it is a joke that you, a fascist, is criticizing anyone for wanting to destroy cities and their inhabitants. Fascism is built on the destruction of the individual in favor of the state. You have zero credibility in criticizing such actions when you are clearly willing to support them yourself, for the right cause. 

You always accusing me of lying, but you are the one that denying obvious facts, the official party of Khmer rouge was "communist party of Kampuchea", it tells you everything about them.  Khmer rouge also had support from other communist states like china.

They actually got closer to the communist "heaven" than any other communist states, because the eventual goal of communism is to destroy civilization. This is why Khmer rouge is described as the purest form of Marxism (and communism). 

Communism is built on the destruction of the individual in favor of the society. As I mentioned before, there is lot more individuality in fascism in comparison to communism.  

8 hours ago, Big Brother said:

No, a lack of anti-semitism does not prove that they weren't systematically racist. If Jews were the only people you could be racist against, maybe that would be true. But that's nowhere close to being the case.

So, your defense against fascism being racist is "but look at all these other guys, they're racist too!"? That doesn't cut it. You're basically saying that racism does exist within fascism and other nationalist ideologies but because racism has been present in democracies, socialist states, and whatever else, that's okay. Here's the thing, it isn't. I condemn any racism in the Soviet Union, China, the United States, fascist Italy and wherever else. I never claimed that racism is limited to fascism but the fact that it isn't doesn't excuse the disgusting fact that fascists are often racists. It is not an argument against the connection between fascism and racism whatsoever, nor is the claim that looking down on non-Europeans predates fascism. Fascism perpetuates it, which is only further grounds for criticizing fascism.

Here's a piece of advice, if you want to criticize anything you better make sure you're not criticizing someone else for something you yourself support. It ruins any credibility you might have and makes you look like a hypocrite.

A nation can be created from different ethnic groups, fascism concentrates on the nation, while the basis of Nazism is on race. The lack of anti-Semitic behavior in fascist countries that I mentioned shows that they considered Jews their own countrymen. I give you several examples of fascist states that weren't racist, so it clearly shows that fascism is not essentially racist.

So a communist can criticize fascism for being authoritarian and he is not hypocrite but the other way around is not correct?

5 hours ago, Matthew The Great said:

If you picture socialism as the moderate path of modern authoritarian economics (Which it is, look into any socialist countries and you realize that just because you're socialist does not mean you're a liberal), Fascism lies on the right wing while Communism lies on the left. They are both extreme points, and imo I think Fascism is definitely the more extreme of the two (Fascism in it's post 1930's incarnation has become a concept that is flawed on paper, while you can still make arguments in favor of a communist model), but denying it's ties to socialism instead of addressing them only hurts the socialist argument.

I could argue this point for hours, but at this point it's starting to look like I'm defending Francoist, who has just been embarrassing himself these last few points. You can't defend racism by citing other people being racist too. If you want to make an argument supporting Fascism I'd stick with Franco (who was also quite an a-hole but your best bet for an argument supporting any modern Fascist governments) or anyone who didn't take power post WW1. 

Closing Statement (This forum is no longer funny, I'm out, yeet)- Everyone was an A-hole in the 1930s, other people's governments also having A-holes does not defend yours, and yes, communist memes are just straight up funnier. 

I think you are the one that embarrasses himself more than anybody by stating falsehoods. Your post is full of misinformation, as I said to big brother, in a communist state, you don't have religious freedoms, you cannot accumulate wealth, you  even have a dress code, so clearly communism is more extreme. Btw, Fascist states began in 1920's not 1930's, also as I said before economically communist states were all failures, while fascist states have a much better score in economy (for example refer to the Spanish economic miracle during Franco's reign). 

I gave some examples of non-racist fascist states and I repeat again the fascism bases itself on the nation not the race (unlike nazism). Your notion that fascism comes from socialism is also clearly false, others addressed that well enough.

Edited by Francoist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.