On the rise of fascism.

[Harrystottle]

"A political philosophy, movement, or regime led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism".

 

Most of this could be applied to Stalin's Russia. A dictator with complete power? Check.

Forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism? Check.

Regimenting all industry? Check. Very fond of their five year plans for industry, they were.

Emphasising and aggressive nationalism? Certain Stalin did in the war, not sure about before it.

Racism? I don't know if it was or not.

 

So like I say, you could apply most of that to communism, especially the forcible suppression of opposition and regimentation of industry.

 

Interestingly, you could apply large parts of it to some political thought and action in the UK today, with slight variations.

I'll have a think.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Harrystottle

[Cyclone]

While communism is a system based around a theory of economic equality and advocates for a classless society, fascism is a nationalistic, top-down system with rigid class roles that is ruled by an all-powerful dictator. Both communism and fascism originated in Europe and gained popularity in the early to mid 20th century.

 

From here, and it then does a side by side comparison.

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism

 

Also apparently not uncommon to hear Stalin's Russia called Red Fascists.

 

Red fascism is a pejorative term used to describe Stalinism as being similar to fascism. Accusations that the leaders of the Soviet Union during the Stalinist period acted as "Red Fascists" were commonly stated by Trotskyists, left communists, social

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism

[Hairyloon]

Tolerating it, ie taking no action against it, is ignoring it.

 

If I might invite you to consider the "Brexit" thread, where you can observe the resident Remaniacs tolerating the Brexiteers.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 09:46 ----------

 

"A political philosophy, movement, or regime led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism"...

Racism? I don't know if it was or not.

 

I move that we strike "racism" from the definition. The dictionary had it as "often", which makes it an optional extra and that just adds confusion.

 

Interestingly, you could apply large parts of it to today's left as well, with slight variations.

Yes, well "left" as in "left behind" is on a completely different axis to "left" as in "left field". They are confusing terms in politics and I'd really rather they were not used.

[dutch]

I don't believe you can.

If the balance of evidence is close then you have a choice, and if the evidence points to something you don't want to believe, then you can choose to ignore evidence (and sometimes that choice is subconscious).

 

Prove me wrong and choose to believe that the Earth is flat. You might say that you believe it, but really you know that it is not true.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2017 at 19:33 ----------

 

 

In order to have respect for democracy you must first have a democracy worthy of respect.

 

Hairyloon, with all my respect to you, I know you are looking for something and you are asking very intelligent questions.

You start with "I don't believe you can". All believe or disbelieve is just in the mind. People can be free from mind and its believes or stay stuck in it.

The evidence comes when you are free, all children are born neutral, its the parents and society, friends, that tell them what to believe in later as the physical mind develops. It rarely happens that someone reaches that freedom from mind again later. What makes humans unique from animals is that we start thinking we are someone/thing.

Only thing is that we are not our mind that believes or disbelieves in things, we are free democratic conscious individuals worthy of respect.

This may sound very confusing, it did to me thirty years ago when someone mentioned this to me. But I started looking and investigating in what is real and what is illusion. Fascism is a believe and just an illusion. Still someone else can believe in fascism and start torturing or pestering or even killing me for not joining his believe (isis). If you reach that democratic freedom within yourself where fascism has become nothing other than something people believe in, just like crazy insane religions do. It may still affect your life like the Nazis did but you will have reached a point that no matter what others do below you physically, they cannot touch your consciousness. Fascist can only stay at the physical level, when you have found that your consciousness and awareness is not physical you are free from all believe religion and politics.

When you meet others who know this also a respectful democracy happens on its own accord without effort.

[petemcewan]

Hairyloon,

It is a fair point: you must tolerate it insofar as you cannot suppress it through force, only through persuasion.

 

Forty years ago I went to Lewisham (Battle of Lewisham ) to persuade the NF of the error of their ways -they weren't prepared to listen. I wasn't armed with the works of Karl Popper -or Trotsky ( Trotsky wrote quite extensively against Fascism). I just knew in my heart of hearts, " They Shall Not Pass ".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2017/aug/12/flares-and-fury-the-battle-of-lewisham-1977

Edited August 31, 2017 by petemcewan

[Hairyloon]

Hairyloon,

 

 

Forty years ago I went to Lewisham (Battle of Lewisham ) to persuade the NF of the error of their ways -they weren't prepared to listen. I wasn't armed with the works of Karl Popper -or Trotsky ( Trotsky wrote quite extensively against Fascism). I just knew in my heart of hearts, " They Shall Not Pass ".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2017/aug/12/flares-and-fury-the-battle-of-lewisham-1977

 

Meeting force with force is not suppression.

[Cyclone]

If I might invite you to consider the "Brexit" thread, where you can observe the resident Remaniacs tolerating the Brexiteers.

Did you think that 'tolerate' meant that you couldn't disagree with or argue against?

Have the people who voted remain claimed to be espousing tolerance particularly? Are you implying that brexiteers are fascists and not due any tolerance? I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

Racism? I don't know if it was or not.

 

I move that we strike "racism" from the definition. The dictionary had it as "often", which makes it an optional extra and that just adds confusion.

I don't think we get to change the definition.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 12:17 ----------

 

I think Dutch has achieved his goal of being without mind.

[dutch]

 

I think Dutch has achieved his goal of being without mind.

 

Not without, I said free from.

[crazybaby]

I have no idea what it means in modern day terms. The word seems to be thrown about willy nilly at anyone who disagrees.

 

George Orwell saw the same problem in 1944 when he wrote, “It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless.”

[Hairyloon]

Did you think that 'tolerate' meant that you couldn't disagree with or argue against?

Somebody had defined it thusly:

Tolerating it, ie taking no action against it, is ignoring it.

 

I was rejecting that definition.

 

I think Dutch has achieved his goal of being without mind.

 

I am not making sense of Dutch's posts here. He is welcome to try to clarify.