|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 07:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 06:32 mustaju wrote:
This is meant to be informative for others, you have shown how made up your mind already is in all topics related to Russia. I could say the same in reverse. In any case, the description as given is largely a caricature of Russian positions rather than a reality. There is plenty within Russian political ideology that one might find troubling, but the word "fascism" would be a rather poor description of those elements. And as far as calling China communist as a pejorative, that should also be a pretty quickly apparent caricature of a description. The people who praise Nazi collaborators are those who should most quickly be tied to fascism. Other ideologies you don't like, find some other way to describe them rather than trying to invoke a Hitler connection. Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals. It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid.
I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion.
Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things.
Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad.
|
On January 14 2017 06:03 LegalLord wrote:
In my eyes, the first people who should be called out on fascism are those who consider Nazi collaborators to be heroes of their countries. There are a lot of those out there. Historically speaking, Finland fought with Nazi germany against the invading Soviet Union. Many Finns regard those who fought as heores. Could then Finland be describe as fascist? Obviously not. Not sure what exactly legalord is trying to imply here, except to draw attention to the Hitler connection that he claims he is not doing.
Is Russia fascist? Sure, it fits the general definition of an authoritarian state, with some militaristic and economic and general cult like leader stutus, but it not all the way there to be described as fscist. As for China being communist...China hasn't been communist for about 40 years now.
|
I get what LegalLord is saying.
Before we can discuss "Fascism" we need to discern if we are talking about Fascism as a definition vs Fascism as a pejorative.
Fascism as a pejorative is a super gray area where people uses it as a blanket statement to mean "evil" or "Hitler."
Fascism as a definition is more strict, but is still tainted be the results of World War II and definitely doesn't get a fair shake in the political discourse.
So before we move forward, let us solidify what it is we are talking about when we say Fascist and how it relates to the Russia/China expansionism that has been occurring the past few years.
|
On January 14 2017 05:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 05:10 Incognoto wrote:
Vietnam was during the Cold War, it was an American defeat but the circumstances around it are very different than those of today. If Russia had annexed Crimea during the Cold War then that would have been that. Today things are different.
The nitpick that Iraq was invaded, but not annexed, is very important. It's not even a nitpick, annexing territory is a very big deal and none of the big countries should be doing that today. The Cold War is over.
I nonetheless entirely agree that the Iraq invasion was illegal, criminal and absolutely unnecessary (PS, France didn't go there).
If you look at 2016+, then the USA is not annexing countries. No European country is annexing territory which doesn't belong to it. The big superpowers which are doing that are Russia and China.
Also I will use the term fascists and communists (former for Russia, latter for China) as many basic human rights are readily infringed in those countries, unlike the USA and Europe (freedom of press, movement, political differences, democracy, etc.). I'm not saying that the USA and European countries are the best in the world (omgg totally democraSEA) but they are at least set in a minimal, acceptable standard.
That is why it should be the goal of the USA and Europe to make sure that fellow superpowers don't start annexing territory of other nations, like Russia did with Crimea and what China is trying to do with islands in the South China Sea.
The bothersome thing is that if Russia and China start small, then where do they stop? Are we OK with China getting their islands? If they can do that, the next island will be Taiwan. Are we OK with that? I'm not so sure. There are a lot of things I could shit on this post with but you don't think that the USA (including top hat canada buz brodown) and Europe represent the best countries in the world at the moment? Do you think the invasion of Afghanistan was bad? Would you support an invasion of North Korea if China wasn't involved? You can shit on the big dogs actions all you want but its a bit hypocritical to call the iraq invasion all that and discount the african adventures of the french during Obama's term as being anything different.
Europe and the USA aren't annexing territory in Afghanistan or in North Africa. They're working against terrorism and the war on terrorism is a lose-lose situation for all parties involved. There's no arguing that, I think. Are there more efficient ways of combating terrorism? I think so. Probably the first thing to do would be sanctions to the countries funding terrorist groups in the first place. However occidental countries won't do that since it would undermine supplies to strategic resources such as oil.
If you want to point out that European and American action throughout the world is perhaps nothing more than a continuation of 20th century imperialism, then you'd be right! That doesn't make it a good thing. If anything we should be cutting back on that shit; it's one of the driving causes of terrorism groups.
On January 14 2017 05:37 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 05:10 Incognoto wrote:
Vietnam was during the Cold War, it was an American defeat but the circumstances around it are very different than those of today. If Russia had annexed Crimea during the Cold War then that would have been that. Today things are different.
The nitpick that Iraq was invaded, but not annexed, is very important. It's not even a nitpick, annexing territory is a very big deal and none of the big countries should be doing that today. The Cold War is over.
I nonetheless entirely agree that the Iraq invasion was illegal, criminal and absolutely unnecessary (PS, France didn't go there).
If you look at 2016+, then the USA is not annexing countries. No European country is annexing territory which doesn't belong to it. The big superpowers which are doing that are Russia and China.
Also I will use the term fascists and communists (former for Russia, latter for China) as many basic human rights are readily infringed in those countries, unlike the USA and Europe (freedom of press, movement, political differences, democracy, etc.). I'm not saying that the USA and European countries are the best in the world (omgg totally democraSEA) but they are at least set in a minimal, acceptable standard.
That is why it should be the goal of the USA and Europe to make sure that fellow superpowers don't start annexing territory of other nations, like Russia did with Crimea and what China is trying to do with islands in the South China Sea.
The bothersome thing is that if Russia and China start small, then where do they stop? Are we OK with China getting their islands? If they can do that, the next island will be Taiwan. Are we OK with that? I'm not so sure. I hear you brother. I assume you're first in line to fly to the Spratly Islands, rifle in hand, and valiantly defend them from the evil Chinese conquistadors? Or at the very least, give up your job in solidarity with the people losing theirs in the economic fallout of "showing the Chinese what we think of their adventures".
I'm not sure what to make of this. Do you think that China has a legitimate claim to South China Sea islands? Yes or no? Do you think that annexing them with military strength would be legitimate on their part? Yes or no? Assuming that it is not legitimate and that they do it anyway, shouldn't they face some sort of repercussion for their actions?
Would you be OK with occidental countries effectively ignoring China invading Taiwan?
Obama sailing US warships and flying military aircraft through international waters was a great way to help curtail the Chinese adventure. Is the next administration going to do the same thing? It's passive resistance to active aggression, it's the right answer. China wouldn't dare fire on the US military, having them there is a great way to keep them in check.
I wouldn't warrant a war over that, that's for sure. however nor would I believe that ignoring things is the right way to do things either. Look at what Russia did to Crimea and you see what happens when bad governments get leeway to do what they want.
For the people who are going to be technical about my using the words "fascists" and "communists": we can drop those terms if you want. I am merely using words that reflect the fact that such governments do not respect basic human rights (freedom of press, economic freedom, freedom of movement, aggressive foreign policies, etc.). If you think some other word could be used to effectively describe what I'm referring to, then we can use that instead. Nit-picking at semantics is hardly something I'm interested in.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
France also has a communist tradition. Would you say that this means that French communists have no respect for human rights and want aggressive foreign policies?
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 07:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 06:32 mustaju wrote:
This is meant to be informative for others, you have shown how made up your mind already is in all topics related to Russia. I could say the same in reverse. In any case, the description as given is largely a caricature of Russian positions rather than a reality. There is plenty within Russian political ideology that one might find troubling, but the word "fascism" would be a rather poor description of those elements. And as far as calling China communist as a pejorative, that should also be a pretty quickly apparent caricature of a description. The people who praise Nazi collaborators are those who should most quickly be tied to fascism. Other ideologies you don't like, find some other way to describe them rather than trying to invoke a Hitler connection. Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals. It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad.
We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case)
|
Incognoto, words are used because they have meaning. China is not communist. It's more of a combination of total state control in some areas and rampant capitalsim in others. Russia is not fascist, though it's along the road to getting there. If you want to describe "governments do not respect basic human rights freedom of press, economic freedom, freedom of movement, aggressive foreign policies", then totalitarian, authoritiarian, repressive, imperialistic all describe these countries better. Semantics matter.
|
On January 14 2017 07:59 LegalLord wrote:
France also has a communist tradition. Would you say that this means that French communists have no respect for human rights and want aggressive foreign policies?
I don't know about their foreign policies but I entirely agree that French communists don't respect human rights.
On January 14 2017 08:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Incognoto, words are used because they have meaning. China is not communist. It's more of a combination of total state control in some areas and rampant capitalsim in others. Russia is not fascist, though it's along the road to getting there. If you want to describe "governments do not respect basic human rights freedom of press, economic freedom, freedom of movement, aggressive foreign policies", then totalitarian, authoritiarian, repressive, imperialistic all describe these countries better. Semantics matter.
Sure, let's use those terms. Still allow me to quote:
fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/Submit
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 07:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 06:32 mustaju wrote:
This is meant to be informative for others, you have shown how made up your mind already is in all topics related to Russia. I could say the same in reverse. In any case, the description as given is largely a caricature of Russian positions rather than a reality. There is plenty within Russian political ideology that one might find troubling, but the word "fascism" would be a rather poor description of those elements. And as far as calling China communist as a pejorative, that should also be a pretty quickly apparent caricature of a description. The people who praise Nazi collaborators are those who should most quickly be tied to fascism. Other ideologies you don't like, find some other way to describe them rather than trying to invoke a Hitler connection. Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals. It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case)
In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)?
The original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only.
|
On January 14 2017 00:39 Mohdoo wrote:
lol @ Cory Booker voting against Canadian medicine. The disconnect within the democratic party is insane. To think they are trying to groom this guy for a presidential run, while completely shitting on any hope of a positive image in the eyes of young democrats.
Cory Booker - GTFO
Yeah, it was pretty dumb, especially since he had just recently voted to weaken FDA standards not long before. It's almost like several of those Democrats being top recipients of pharmaceutical campaign donations might have had something to do with it.
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) is catching hell for this and is actually up in 2018, so folks are already looking to give her a progressive primary opponent.
I'm glad to see you and Farv get it, but I noticed that Mag randomly blamed Bernie for Republicans trying to dismantle the ACA (as if it couldn't have been avoided by "moderate Democrats" falling in line and supporting a public option), and Kwiz hasn't expressed an opinion (as far as I saw).
So I'm curious, what do mag and Kwiz, think of Booker voting against the prescription drug amendment?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 14 2017 08:03 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 07:59 LegalLord wrote:
France also has a communist tradition. Would you say that this means that French communists have no respect for human rights and want aggressive foreign policies? I don't know about their foreign policies but I entirely agree that French communists don't respect human rights. Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Incognoto, words are used because they have meaning. China is not communist. It's more of a combination of total state control in some areas and rampant capitalsim in others. Russia is not fascist, though it's along the road to getting there. If you want to describe "governments do not respect basic human rights freedom of press, economic freedom, freedom of movement, aggressive foreign policies", then totalitarian, authoritiarian, repressive, imperialistic all describe these countries better. Semantics matter. Sure, let's use those terms. Still allow me to quote: Show nested quote +fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/Submit
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
French communists are certainly not liberals in the traditional sense, I'll give you that.
Though it makes me curious what label you would ascribe to the American right. By your definition they would certainly fit very well into the definition of what you claim is bad about China and Russia.
|
On January 14 2017 08:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 07:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 06:32 mustaju wrote:
This is meant to be informative for others, you have shown how made up your mind already is in all topics related to Russia. I could say the same in reverse. In any case, the description as given is largely a caricature of Russian positions rather than a reality. There is plenty within Russian political ideology that one might find troubling, but the word "fascism" would be a rather poor description of those elements. And as far as calling China communist as a pejorative, that should also be a pretty quickly apparent caricature of a description. The people who praise Nazi collaborators are those who should most quickly be tied to fascism. Other ideologies you don't like, find some other way to describe them rather than trying to invoke a Hitler connection. Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals. It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case) In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)? The original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only.
I don't think it's relevant to discuss what pejorative we should throw at China and Russia and instead talk more deeply about their acts of imperial annexations. What is a big enough target for them to annex to warrant a response and what is the proper response.
|
Estonia4504 Posts
On January 14 2017 08:08 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 07:00 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 06:32 mustaju wrote:
This is meant to be informative for others, you have shown how made up your mind already is in all topics related to Russia. I could say the same in reverse. In any case, the description as given is largely a caricature of Russian positions rather than a reality. There is plenty within Russian political ideology that one might find troubling, but the word "fascism" would be a rather poor description of those elements. And as far as calling China communist as a pejorative, that should also be a pretty quickly apparent caricature of a description. The people who praise Nazi collaborators are those who should most quickly be tied to fascism. Other ideologies you don't like, find some other way to describe them rather than trying to invoke a Hitler connection. Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals. It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case) In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)? In any case, the original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only.
Unfortunately, no. Dismissing fascists as insane would be just as nonconstructive, just in a different manner. I do agree with previous posters who pointed out that fascist ideology is partly vilified because of historical connections, but these become less relevant with time. Fascism (or at least a new form of it) is still the closest term to describe certain political affiliations, and I doubt that (more or less accurate) self-identification with the term will become less prevalent.
I believe that mythologizing the term does more harm than good, even when I agree that it is widely misused.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 14 2017 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:08 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 07:00 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
I could say the same in reverse.
In any case, the description as given is largely a caricature of Russian positions rather than a reality. There is plenty within Russian political ideology that one might find troubling, but the word "fascism" would be a rather poor description of those elements. And as far as calling China communist as a pejorative, that should also be a pretty quickly apparent caricature of a description.
The people who praise Nazi collaborators are those who should most quickly be tied to fascism. Other ideologies you don't like, find some other way to describe them rather than trying to invoke a Hitler connection. Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals. It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case) In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)? The original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only. I don't think it's relevant to discuss what pejorative we should throw at China and Russia and instead talk more deeply about their acts of imperial annexations. What is a big enough target for them to annex to warrant a response and what is the proper response.
Should we play the same game for "regime change" operations that kill the leadership but preserve (de jure, not necessarily de facto) state sovereignty and solidarity?
The biggest difference is that Crimea is historically Russian, China has some claims to its islands, but the US isn't fighting in disputes involving historically contested territories.
|
On January 14 2017 08:03 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 07:59 LegalLord wrote:
France also has a communist tradition. Would you say that this means that French communists have no respect for human rights and want aggressive foreign policies? I don't know about their foreign policies but I entirely agree that French communists don't respect human rights. Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Incognoto, words are used because they have meaning. China is not communist. It's more of a combination of total state control in some areas and rampant capitalsim in others. Russia is not fascist, though it's along the road to getting there. If you want to describe "governments do not respect basic human rights freedom of press, economic freedom, freedom of movement, aggressive foreign policies", then totalitarian, authoritiarian, repressive, imperialistic all describe these countries better. Semantics matter. Sure, let's use those terms. Still allow me to quote: Show nested quote +fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/Submit
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms: authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy; More
See that's the problem. Fascism doesn't actually mean those synoyms. It's an comples ideology on how the people of a nation broadly speaking should be used for military ends.
____________
On January 14 2017 08:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 08:08 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals.
It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case) In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)? The original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only. I don't think it's relevant to discuss what pejorative we should throw at China and Russia and instead talk more deeply about their acts of imperial annexations. What is a big enough target for them to annex to warrant a response and what is the proper response. Should we play the same game for "regime change" operations that kill the leadership but preserve (de jure, not necessarily de facto) state sovereignty and solidarity? The biggest difference is that Crimea is historically Russian, China has some claims to its islands, but the US isn't fighting in disputes involving historically contested territories. I am sure that the Tatars disagree about Crimea being historically Russian. That's a very odd whitewashing of hsitory. You may as well claim that Crimea is historically Turkish as part of the Ottoman Empire and its A-OK if Turkey decides to invade and annex Crimea as well. Or about a fifth of the world used to be a part of the British Empire, so it's fine if UK decides to invade and annex those parts of the world. As for China's claims look up 9 dashed line; it's very ludicrous if you looked at a map and see what exactly China is claiming.
|
On January 14 2017 08:28 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 08:08 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Why the continually link to specifically Nazi collaboration? Fascists and Nazis were two very different political groups with two very different long term end goals.
It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler. Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case) In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)? The original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only. I don't think it's relevant to discuss what pejorative we should throw at China and Russia and instead talk more deeply about their acts of imperial annexations. What is a big enough target for them to annex to warrant a response and what is the proper response. Should we play the same game for "regime change" operations that kill the leadership but preserve (de jure, not necessarily de facto) state sovereignty and solidarity? The biggest difference is that Crimea is historically Russian, China has some claims to its islands, but the US isn't fighting in disputes involving historically contested territories.
historical claims to territory are just about the worst reason to go to war though. That the US decides to involve itself in wars for rational rather than sentimental reasons, at least in principle, is somewhat of an improvement.
|
On January 14 2017 07:55 Incognoto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 05:19 Sermokala wrote:On January 14 2017 05:10 Incognoto wrote:
Vietnam was during the Cold War, it was an American defeat but the circumstances around it are very different than those of today. If Russia had annexed Crimea during the Cold War then that would have been that. Today things are different.
The nitpick that Iraq was invaded, but not annexed, is very important. It's not even a nitpick, annexing territory is a very big deal and none of the big countries should be doing that today. The Cold War is over.
I nonetheless entirely agree that the Iraq invasion was illegal, criminal and absolutely unnecessary (PS, France didn't go there).
If you look at 2016+, then the USA is not annexing countries. No European country is annexing territory which doesn't belong to it. The big superpowers which are doing that are Russia and China.
Also I will use the term fascists and communists (former for Russia, latter for China) as many basic human rights are readily infringed in those countries, unlike the USA and Europe (freedom of press, movement, political differences, democracy, etc.). I'm not saying that the USA and European countries are the best in the world (omgg totally democraSEA) but they are at least set in a minimal, acceptable standard.
That is why it should be the goal of the USA and Europe to make sure that fellow superpowers don't start annexing territory of other nations, like Russia did with Crimea and what China is trying to do with islands in the South China Sea.
The bothersome thing is that if Russia and China start small, then where do they stop? Are we OK with China getting their islands? If they can do that, the next island will be Taiwan. Are we OK with that? I'm not so sure. There are a lot of things I could shit on this post with but you don't think that the USA (including top hat canada buz brodown) and Europe represent the best countries in the world at the moment? Do you think the invasion of Afghanistan was bad? Would you support an invasion of North Korea if China wasn't involved? You can shit on the big dogs actions all you want but its a bit hypocritical to call the iraq invasion all that and discount the african adventures of the french during Obama's term as being anything different. Europe and the USA aren't annexing territory in Afghanistan or in North Africa. They're working against terrorism and the war on terrorism is a lose-lose situation for all parties involved. There's no arguing that, I think. Are there more efficient ways of combating terrorism? I think so. Probably the first thing to do would be sanctions to the countries funding terrorist groups in the first place. However occidental countries won't do that since it would undermine supplies to strategic resources such as oil. If you want to point out that European and American action throughout the world is perhaps nothing more than a continuation of 20th century imperialism, then you'd be right! That doesn't make it a good thing. If anything we should be cutting back on that shit; it's one of the driving causes of terrorism groups. Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 05:37 Acrofales wrote:On January 14 2017 05:10 Incognoto wrote:
Vietnam was during the Cold War, it was an American defeat but the circumstances around it are very different than those of today. If Russia had annexed Crimea during the Cold War then that would have been that. Today things are different.
The nitpick that Iraq was invaded, but not annexed, is very important. It's not even a nitpick, annexing territory is a very big deal and none of the big countries should be doing that today. The Cold War is over.
I nonetheless entirely agree that the Iraq invasion was illegal, criminal and absolutely unnecessary (PS, France didn't go there).
If you look at 2016+, then the USA is not annexing countries. No European country is annexing territory which doesn't belong to it. The big superpowers which are doing that are Russia and China.
Also I will use the term fascists and communists (former for Russia, latter for China) as many basic human rights are readily infringed in those countries, unlike the USA and Europe (freedom of press, movement, political differences, democracy, etc.). I'm not saying that the USA and European countries are the best in the world (omgg totally democraSEA) but they are at least set in a minimal, acceptable standard.
That is why it should be the goal of the USA and Europe to make sure that fellow superpowers don't start annexing territory of other nations, like Russia did with Crimea and what China is trying to do with islands in the South China Sea.
The bothersome thing is that if Russia and China start small, then where do they stop? Are we OK with China getting their islands? If they can do that, the next island will be Taiwan. Are we OK with that? I'm not so sure. I hear you brother. I assume you're first in line to fly to the Spratly Islands, rifle in hand, and valiantly defend them from the evil Chinese conquistadors? Or at the very least, give up your job in solidarity with the people losing theirs in the economic fallout of "showing the Chinese what we think of their adventures". I'm not sure what to make of this. Do you think that China has a legitimate claim to South China Sea islands? Yes or no? Do you think that annexing them with military strength would be legitimate on their part? Yes or no? Assuming that it is not legitimate and that they do it anyway, shouldn't they face some sort of repercussion for their actions? Would you be OK with occidental countries effectively ignoring China invading Taiwan? Obama sailing US warships and flying military aircraft through international waters was a great way to help curtail the Chinese adventure. Is the next administration going to do the same thing? It's passive resistance to active aggression, it's the right answer. China wouldn't dare fire on the US military, having them there is a great way to keep them in check. I wouldn't warrant a war over that, that's for sure. however nor would I believe that ignoring things is the right way to do things either. Look at what Russia did to Crimea and you see what happens when bad governments get leeway to do what they want. For the people who are going to be technical about my using the words "fascists" and "communists": we can drop those terms if you want. I am merely using words that reflect the fact that such governments do not respect basic human rights (freedom of press, economic freedom, freedom of movement, aggressive foreign policies, etc.). If you think some other word could be used to effectively describe what I'm referring to, then we can use that instead. Nit-picking at semantics is hardly something I'm interested in.
I agree with you in principle. I'm just pointing out that in actuality nobody in Europe or the US is willing to sacrifice money, let alone their health or life, because of some islands in the South China Sea (despite it being quite bad in the medium/long term to just let them get away with it). You are happy to proclaim it is morally wrong. It is. Doubt anybody except LL will disagree with you. But morality is meaningless in international politics.
But I'm sure someone will make China veto something in the UN.
Oh, and why are you upset about China doing it. Shouldn't Israel be facing your wrath too? (Not sure where you stand on Israel annexing land, but Trump definitely approves).
|
Oh yeah Israel is a mess there's no doubt about that. That's all of the Middle East though, that entire area is fucked up beyond reason. Doesn't make it anymore right, that's for sure.
|
None of you are answering the question as to what constitutes a big enough piece of land and what constitutes an optimal response?
China is taking land from the Philippines. The reason its problematic is that China did not even try taking them until they realized that the West did jack shit when Russia took Crimea. The Philippines is definitely upset about it, but are so much smaller than China.
How much territory are we comfortable being annexed before we say "now stop."
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On January 14 2017 08:39 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 14 2017 08:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On January 14 2017 08:08 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:59 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:46 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:35 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:28 LegalLord wrote:On January 14 2017 07:25 mustaju wrote:On January 14 2017 07:21 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
It's the connection most useful for the purposes of what mentions of fascism are brought up to do - to draw a connection to Hitler.
Otherwise, its use as a pejorative isn't very useful. Do you think, for example, that anyone would be interested in arguing whether or not fascism is bad? No, because its mention is meant to draw a Hitler connection. I did not mention Hitler once. Nazism is a subset of fascism, your attack is unfounded and unfair. Do you think that some cases exist where fascism as defined is a good thing? Or do you agree that it is an ideology that should only be interpreted unfavorably? I deliberately did not make value judgements in my comparison of the definition of fascism and Russian ideology. I can assure you, there are people who call themselves fascists proudly, and see it as a valid ideology. Clearly, I do not belong in that subcategory, but that does not mean that comparisons are automatically invalid. I know there are. But if we're able to agree that fascism should not be seen as a good thing, then we can agree that the entire matter of making the label is less about description for useful understanding than for thinking about whether a pejorative applies. Which simply isn't very useful for any positive discussion. Of course, this is further complicated by the existence of the term neo-fascism, which can mean any number of things. Yes, it is true that Hitler/Nazism is not the same as fascism. And yet that is precisely the sentiment that is meant to be invoked, from characterizing the KKK to Trump to any given nation as fascist: to say that they intend to do something similar to what Hitler did because that is where the ideology leads. So it's not bad to skip to the chase and talk about those who are almost willing to just straight up say that Hitler weren't so bad. We happen to be on a large message board with a large plethora of views, and everything you are saying goes too far in assuming my intentions. Correlation is not causation in this case, especially since I clearly stated how I would not say Russia is fascist myself (even though there are academics arguing that to be the case) In any case, would you concede that any objective discussion of whether X is or is not fascist/fascism is tainted by the fact that no sane person would ever say "fascism is good" even if many elements that fit within the definition of fascism might appeal to people (and that that isn't necessarily a bad thing)? The original use of the term is almost certainly the pejorative since China is communist in name only. I don't think it's relevant to discuss what pejorative we should throw at China and Russia and instead talk more deeply about their acts of imperial annexations. What is a big enough target for them to annex to warrant a response and what is the proper response. Should we play the same game for "regime change" operations that kill the leadership but preserve (de jure, not necessarily de facto) state sovereignty and solidarity? The biggest difference is that Crimea is historically Russian, China has some claims to its islands, but the US isn't fighting in disputes involving historically contested territories. historical claims to territory are just about the worst reason to go to war though. That the US decides to involve itself in wars for rational rather than sentimental reasons, at least in principle, is somewhat of an improvement.
Crimea is geostrategically valuable, but there certainly is a "history" argument for selling it.
Same with Iraq and democracy/nation building.
Not making moral judgements on any events, just noting that the difference between annexation and whatever else is done is due to pragmatic, rather than moral, reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
