People against freedom of speech and opinion more now.

Post Reply New Topic

Freedom to punch someone in the nose is physical assault and is significantly different than verbal abuse .
But there still needs to be reasonable consequences for ones own actions . . I feel .

Benito Musselini s. Government was considered Left wing fascist. I have read ,What has changed , the words , the ideas.? The degree to which one applies these ideas ?

I hope I am not misunderstood.

If somebody calls somebody the "N-word" and that somebody punches the other somebody in the face, it's assault and battery (depending on the state).

All I'm saying is that people should just use common sense, and just not call someone the "N-word." If you do, you're asking for trouble.

People who "push the envelope," as far as I'm concerned, are only asking for trouble.

Mussolini was a right-wing Fascist----pure and simple. He's the guy who CREATED Fascism.

Many left-wing, especially Communist, leaders use fascistic methods in the midst of their rule.

Google inquired results are as follows : : Seen as a spectrum or continuum of ideologies, socialism/communism traditionally falls on the far left end of this scale, nationalism/fascism on the far right.

Just a brief search on Google ... but I apparently did not research my post very well .
Apologies as necessary .

@Kraftiekortie and funeralxempire,

Your points are my thoughts as well.

I am utterly baffled that anyone would group Nazism and Fascism under a leftwing banner.

Mikah - Yes, it's easy to get "popularism" mixed up with left-wing ideals, but popularism can be found on both the extreme left and extreme right. The Nazis took advantage of this to weaken the left wing in Germany, clouding the waters deliberately, hence the adoption of the "National Socialist" name. 1938 would have been a prime time to witness that in full flow, before the inevitable plot twist.

Communism aims to serve the masses by making everybody equal. That is achieved by stripping away difference - principally in terms of wealth (though in practice, as Orwell noted, "some are more equal than others"). So if you were a good boy and bowed to the new leaders, shopped your neighbours to the NKVD for minor indiscretions, and were prepared to fight for the good of the Party, you might do well within the system. The main problem with this, as many Soviets discovered, is that "equal" doesn't necessarily mean "equally good", and indeed "doing well" also made any individual more of a political target. Initially the old elite were particularly hard hit (especially if they were Jewish) but their wealth and power mainly shifted sideways, rather than downwards. So lots of people ended up in the same communist boat, but it wasn't a good boat. Cold, leaky, badly stocked with provisions, and infested with rats.... And political opponents of the regime would be hunted down, once in a while. But at least it was a big country where the shrewd could sometimes survive.

Back in 1930s Germany, though, Socialism was a mixed bag, with communists, socialists and social democrats / liberals. The Nazi aim was to steal their crowd base while simultaneously marginalising the more liberal elements by lumping them in with the extreme left and then writing them off as extremists. That worked amazingly well, despite the now-obvious double standards involved.

Popularism in Nazi Germany was also about getting people stirred up about alleged unfairness, in order to grab power. So far, so similar. And yes there were some sweeteners for ordinary people at the start, as well as lots of rhetoric about future glory. The difference was, the resulting regime championed aggressive competition, discrimination and blame culture, rather than "levelling the field" (to pretty much zero) for ordinary people. So if you were a good boy and bowed to the new leaders, shopped your neighbours to the Gestapo for minor indiscretions and were prepared to fight for the good of the Party, you might do well. But possibly not for long, given the rampant back-stabbing, unstable leadership and very rapid change. Initially the old elite were particularly hard hit (especially if they were Jewish) but their wealth and power mainly shifted sideways, rather than downwards. Over time different political and then social minority groups came under fire for any lack of political / economic success. Being a smaller nation it was much harder to keep one's head down and avoid politics completely, too. Extreme, dog-eat-dog "divide and conquer" on a street by street basis, essentially.

The differences between the two totalitarian regimes are mainly down to the words and the tools used. Soviet culture theoretically made it difficult to pick on minorities - because everybody was supposedly the same - but they managed pretty well nonetheless. With Nazism, the drive to encourage fear, desperation and in-fighting was more obvious, though it was wrapped up in nationalistic / jingoistic terminology. Both cultures believed very strongly in sacrificing free will for the greater good of the nation, but it was dressed up in different ways.

As far as ordinary people were concerned, the consequences were very similar in both cultures, except I think the Soviet system was geared more towards repetitive drudgery and malicious compliance, whereas for most Germans it was a fearfully accelerating game of snakes and ladders. At least until the Eastern Front, which ironically levelled those odds by combining the worst of everything, for everyone.

This is why I don't trust extremists on either side of the political debate. The language and the tools are very different, the outcomes terribly similar. Ordinary people are disposable either way. And anyone who thinks the extreme right is the antidote to the extreme left (or vice versa) is a fool, as they're both of the same ilk.