Why do right wing dictatorships usually have such lower death

>>505336
They generally support existing power structures, including the elite. Thus there is little need for massive institutional revolution, which is often what leads to many deaths in left wing dictatorships.

>>505336
>Pinochet did nothing wrong.jpg
ebin, simply ebin

>>505336
They're both immoral. Pinochet was every bit the bloodthirsty murderer as Stalin or Mao.

Stop making these threads.

File: image.jpg (114KB, 736x736px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 736x736px

>>505344
Quiet tanky.

Because the elites support them and there's no need to fight US supported proxy groups

Depends on the dictatorship.

>Left wing dictatorship
>Right wingers resist and fight for their homeland

>Right wing dictatorship
>Left wingers flee like scared little girls

They're supporting the status quo, so there is no real conflict to be had, and there is not so much bad press with the status quo of other countries.

Plus, once you get to the stage of a dictatorship, left and right are no longer meaningful definitions. They only ever vaguely describe relative positions in specific liberal democracies.

The most you can say about them is that the left is generally in favor of changing things that are already not in their favor, they are people with ambition; and the right is generally in favor of maintaining things that are already generally in their favor, they are people with success.

>>505381
Downvoted

>>505399
>Pinochet
>Status quo
Yeah, no.

I can't think of any "right wing" dictatorship that aren't literal puppet regimes (IE, African juntas) that upheld the status quo. Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, Park Chung Hee, Chiang Kai Shek, and if you really want to stretch "right wing dictatorship" Lee Kuan Yew all took power in a nation that was vastly different from what they turned it into. Mussolini and Hitler are arguably "right wing" and obviously left their countries quite different (see eternalAngloposting by butthurt Germans).

The changes "right wing" dictatorships make just aren't as prone to having a massive body count as "left wing" dictatorships are. Setup a functioning economy, give everyone enough to eat, throw out (of helicopters) any idiots who want to stop you from doing the previous two, setup a representative democracy and gracefully leave. It's hard to kill a lot of people (That aren't being paid by the Soviets to betray their country) doing these things. It's very easy however to kill a lot of people by stealing and redistributing land, setting up zany agricultural policies where fertilizer and irrigation are replaced by daily readings of party literature and prayer to Dear Leader, using the populace as slaves in all but name, and performing mass purges on whatever scapegoat group tickles Dear Leader's fancy.

>>505339
>which is often what leads to many deaths in left wing dictatorships.

Why is this?

>>505448
The proletariat don't know what's good for them. A Vanguard party that has internalized Communist principles is needed to do what the proletariat ACTUALLY want, thereby overriding Capitalist brainwashing.

>>505448
You have to kill a lot of people to institute a whole new system, whereas conservative dictatorships just rearrange things up top typically.

>>505456
So people are too stupid to know that communism is what's best for them?

>>505446

>I can't think of any "right wing" dictatorship that aren't literal puppet regimes (IE, African juntas) that upheld the status quo. Pinochet, Salazar, Franco, Park Chung Hee, Chiang Kai Shek, and if you really want to stretch "right wing dictatorship" Lee Kuan Yew all took power in a nation that was vastly different from what they turned it into.

Then they're puppet states, they're still dictatorships that supported the status quo locally and globally, without much interest in the lower classes. Did they remove power from the traditional ruling classes?

I don't use the term right-wing dictatorship, they're just dictatorships, and they all act pretty much the same way when they have the power to do so. Ones supported by the USA tended to call themselves right-wing.

>Mussolini and Hitler are arguably "right wing" and obviously left their countries quite different (see eternalAngloposting by butthurt Germans).

Nazi's are right wing when in liberal democracies. No dictatorship is winged.

>The changes "right wing" dictatorships make just aren't as prone to having a massive body count as "left wing" dictatorships are. Setup a functioning economy, give everyone enough to eat, throw out (of helicopters) any idiots who want to stop you from doing the previous two, setup a representative democracy and gracefully leave. It's hard to kill a lot of people (That aren't being paid by the Soviets to betray their country) doing these things. It's very easy however to kill a lot of people by stealing and redistributing land, setting up zany agricultural policies where fertilizer and irrigation are replaced by daily readings of party literature and prayer to Dear Leader, using the populace as slaves in all but name, and performing mass purges on whatever scapegoat group tickles Dear Leader's fancy.

Again, you're describing how all dictatorships act. If they don't, it's only because they haven't secured the power to do so, or the power to get away with it.

>>505473
Or communism is too stupid to be understood by a logical thinker.

>>505456
>Vanguard parties
There is room in communism for organizers, but the moment you rely on a militarized, non-democratically composed party to enforce those principles, then the revolution has already failed. Those people in the vanguard party are not going to relinquish the power given to them in time of crisis, and the door becomes open for dictators to arise.

If you want a Communist revolution that exemplifies the principles of the ideology, it has to be fought and won as a popular movement who educates from the bottom up, not top down.

>>505473
Basically.

>>505456

>don't know what is good for them

They don't agree that what is good for whoever occupies the capital city is good for them.

>>505462

Why do they have to kill people? Who are they killing?

Let us say that they want to enact land reform, giving people property that they own with no strings attached is about the best way to get them to invest in that property, and the more people doing this, the better, the only place that violence might take place is if some people refuse to obey the law.

>>505473

Not true. What is a corporation? Many people owning an enterprise in common so as to share risk and profits. It's also a command economy, though the PC term is 'vertical and horizontal integration'. Make no mistake, the Cold War convinced the leaders of the western world that communism is superior.

File: 1451381256890.png (89KB, 524x499px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 524x499px

>>505403
Go back to reddit

Because leftism is a plague.

>>505506

... then society is already set up as perfectly as people can make it?

>>505478
A puppet state is not a state that receives funding from some other power, it's a state that is literally controlled by another nation. None of the nations listed were ever under the thumb of another nation.

I don't exactly understand what you mean by "removing power from the traditional ruling classes". If you're referring to the Communist conspiracy theory that ever movement, ideology, idea, and system that is not an individuals hyper specific view of Communism is part of a vast web of immortal telepathic Capitalist lizardmen, then no. If you mean did they disrupt and go against the interests of the upper classes of their individual societies, then yes. Park Chung Hee went against the Korean aristocracy, Lee Kuan Yew created a non-colonial upper class, Franco pissed off the church and routinely fucked with industrialists and bankers, Pinochet saved his country from the jaws of ruin, and Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomingtang outright uprooted the upper crust of Taiwan and replaced it with their own.

>>505513
An obese man is certainly not healthy, but giving him ebola will make him even worse.

>>505336
Former UN ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick stated that most pro-American (generally right wing) dictatorships were authoritarian while most pro-Soviet where totalitarian. This could explain the differing casualty rates as authoritarians didn't have an overarching ideology that compelled them unlike, say, Pol Pot or Stalin.

>A puppet state is not a state that receives funding from some other power, it's a state that is literally controlled by another nation. None of the nations listed were ever under the thumb of another nation.

Like the dictatorships that aligned with the west during the Cold War. Or maybe you think they could have switched sides without the USA interfering, like Cuba did.

>I don't exactly understand what you mean by "removing power from the traditional ruling classes". If you're referring to the Communist conspiracy theory that ever movement, ideology, idea, and system that is not an individuals hyper specific view of Communism is part of a vast web of immortal telepathic Capitalist lizardmen, then no.

I haven't met a communist who thinks that. It must be a capitalist theory.

>If you mean did they disrupt and go against the interests of the upper classes of their individual societies, then yes. Park Chung Hee went against the Korean aristocracy, Lee Kuan Yew created a non-colonial upper class, Franco pissed off the church and routinely fucked with industrialists and bankers, Pinochet saved his country from the jaws of ruin, and Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomingtang outright uprooted the upper crust of Taiwan and replaced it with their own.

All the while redistributing that wealth to the people who own the country, the citizenry? Or were they shifting it around to their crony's?

>>505522

Then you define left wing as wanting any bad changes, and right wing as wanting any good changes?


Also, how dare you say my country isn't healthy! Are you some kind of traitor?

>>505336

Rightwingers aren't nearly as prone to utopianism. They just want to keep shit together. Leftwing autocrats usually want to remake the world.

File: pino yea.jpg (106KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 400x400px

>>505381

>>505538
It explains Kirkpatrick's ideology and nothing else.

>>505498
>Why do they have to kill people? Who are they killing?

Who? In the case of Mao, Stalin and pol pot pretty much the entire gov't, intellectuals and Military leaders who could possibly oppose them later on.

Why? The reasons should be obvious, you don't dissent from those who were more inclined to a previous system or form gov't, especially those who were part of that former gov't

>>505446
>Franco
>puppet

Dude what

>>505567

Why is this unique to 'left-wing' dictatorships?

>>505578

See

>>505553

>>505578
I think to be a left-winger you have to be a lunatic to begin with, so it's only natural they go on genocidal spree once they're in power.

>>505578
Go read Sheila Fitzpatrick on everyday stalinism.

when a left-wing government presides over a famine, it's their fault, and gets included in the death toll

when a right-wing government presides over a famine, it's just an economic downturn, NOBODY'S FAULT LOL

>>505585

The post doesn't answer my question. Are you saying right-wing coups don't bother removing enemies when they gain power?

>>505587

You have to be a lunatic to think you can renegotiate the social contract?

>>505588

This book will explain how right-wing coups do not use violence to secure power, only left-wing revolutions?

>>505590
Which famines are we talking about?

>>505599
You have to be a lunatic to think social contract is a thing.

>>505590
The difference is that a left wing government will intentionally starve it's populace while a right wing government will not.

Why do Commies hate eating so much?

>>505521
>Franco pissed off the church and routinely fucked with industrialists and bankers
He made the larger Church angry, but he was good to the clergy in Spain. Also the fucking with industrialists and bankers, while commendable in spirit, ultimately was just used to help reestablish those institutions under closer government "supervision", which only gradually disseminated during the economic liberalization of the 60's and 70's.

People like Franco didn't have much room to go against the interests of the upper class, because the upper class was what formed the coalition that won him the Civil War: a mix of old nobility/royalists, fascists, Catholic nationalists, clergy, and industrialists/bankers who were all upset over the secularization and left-leaning policies of the Republic. The old upper class was his biggest support base, and they'd be the ones running the Falangist party right up to Franco's death (and slightly beyond with the subsequent coup attempt and such).

>>505336
>Why do right wing dictatorships usually have such lower death tolls than left wing dictatorships?

Depends on how you define "right wing" and "left wing".

By standard left-right politics Hitler and the National Socalists caused the deaths of far more people in the history humanity because they started World War 2.

The only close thing to a working communist dictatorship would be fidel castol in Cuba, the thing with changing a whole political system is that there is no way to test for mistakes and also because Russia was in a massive pissing contest with the states they wern't willing to adopt american ideals that worked.

>>505573
The eternal papists

>>505601

Take the Irish Famine of the 1840's for an example of a capitalist famine. Ireland still hasn't recovered from it, it's the only country in Europe, maybe on Earth, with a lower population now than 170 years ago. Britain presided over it, and didn't take measures to alleviate it, considering the rights of English landowners to be above those of the Irish farmers who grew the crops. Argentina in 1999-2001 is another good example; starving people turned away from food trucks by mercenaries working for Monsanto, approved by the government.

And the Ukrainian famine is another good example... of a capitalist famine. The USSR was run like a business more than almost any other country in history, they effectively traded Ukrainian lives for machine-parts and technical assistance.

>>505607

It's not a piece of paper. It's the set of standards, customs, and laws that govern a society. Left wingers believe they have a right to change it if it doesn't help them, and it usually doesn't; right wingers are usually already helped by it, that's it's purpose, so they barely even acknowledge any such thing exists.

>>505627

And it would have worked out fine if there were no embargo.

Cuba would have far preferred to work with the USA over the USSR, but Washington didn't want them (or Ho Chi Minh), so they took option B.

We know what happens to those who take option C, Thomas Sankara tried to develop Burkina Faso without the superpowers dictating policies, and he got assassinated for his trouble.

>>505632
Regarding Ukraine, what the fuck are you even talking about? I don't think it was a deliberate genocide, I think it's just one case in the series of monumental communist fuckups. I mean these guys literally believed that Mendelian heredity was capitalist propaganda, they were that stupid. Combine that with central planning and you're left with a disaster. Commies just don't have a single clue about what they're doing.

>>505538
>This could explain the differing casualty rates as authoritarians didn't have an overarching ideology that compelled them unlike, say, Pol Pot or Stalin.

Well yeah, that's the difference. Authoritarian just has a big head honcho. Totalitarian is built around a person being built up by the state as something more than human.

Which is part of why totalitarian systems generally have less internal corruption (although they certainly can be evil by any moral scale). When a system is built around total obedience to a state and individual that is seen as an infallible, almost godlike being, then cronyism has been historically found to be relatively low, unlike in authoritarianism where it's rampant.

>>505639
Sankara and Lumumba would become another Mugabe if they didn't get killed in time.

>>505336
Pinoche, Park Chung Hee and Lee Kuan Yew saved their respected countries from the filthy hand of the Communism, the worst plague in history of mankind. Which led to the development of Chile, Korea and Singapore as 1st world countries.

>>505658
Totalitarian, less internal corruption? Really now?

File: world_hunger_map_full.jpg (180KB, 1024x720px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1024x720px

>>505336
>muh pinochet
He caused an economic crisis in 1982, murdered thousands, had to reverse economic policies and nationalize the copper mines that he privatized

He left widespread hunger and poverty when he was forced to step down in 1990. Chile is an underdeveloped country completely dependent on copper exports to this day.

Stop with this fucking meme.

>>505669

Compared to authoritarianism? Yes.

>>505658
So an authoritarian government is the mafia, while a totalitarian government is a cult.

>>505680

That's not a bad way of putting it

>>505671
>murdered thousands

That was exactly OP's point. Commies tend to leave death toll in hundreds of thousands.

>>505664
>Chile
>Same GDP per capita as Libya
>First World
Ok buddy

>>505688
Don't they have the highest GDP per capita in Latin America?

>>505685
Commies also tend to rule countries with a shitload of inhabitants, I really don't know why nobody has said this yet

It's threads like these that make me glad people who browse 4chan don't enter politics.

>>505653

So it's not that the Soviets were malicious, they were just incompetent?

This still puts them one worse than the other capitalist caused famines I listed, where the produce was there, but the people couldn't get it.

>>505659

Maybe.

>>505664

In the case of Korea, at least, they were subsidized by the United States. Singapore is at one of the most important naval choke-points, any state there would do well.

And in Chile, Pinochet presided over a general increase in the lot of the poorest quintile in the country, not just overall economic growth? Massive economic growth is meaningless unless it's actually raising all boats; I'd say that a massive growth in the wealth of the top quintile accompanied by no or low growth in the lowest quintile is a bad sign overall.

>>505685
And so do fascists. It's not about left or right you fucking idiot, but about totalitarism or authoritarianism.

Totalitarism > more deaths than > authoritarianism > more deaths than > democracies

Totalitarisms can be either left or right wing. Same with authoritarianisms.

Nazism = Right-wing totalitarism
Stalinism = Left-wing totalitarism
Pinochet = Right-wing authoritarianism
Modern Belarus = Left-wing authoritarianism

So it's about intensity not ideology
All dictatorships are shit

>>505671

Anyone care to explain why the Southern Cone was First-World at the turn of the century, but virtually Third-World at the turn of the millennium?

>>505691
Not really... Puerto Rico is first... then a couple others

It's just the only place where Austrian economics were given a free hand so they get shilled hard... it's not even the most developed South American country

South Korea did well because it mantained tariffs and industrial protections for a long time.

>>505705
>Totalitarisms can be either left or right wing. Same with authoritarianisms.

CAN THEY?

What is the difference?

The left-wing ones are EXTREMELY interested in changing things to benefit the general population; while the right-wing ones are EXTREMELY interested in making things continue to benefit the ruling classes?

>>505711
As far as I know only Argentina is First World according to the UN rankings

Lots of lousy politicians down there though

>>505702
Some were malicious, but not as malicious as people would like you to believe. Honestly thinking that commies were le evil masterminds is giving them far too much credit. They were mostly just absolute idiots, which doesn't surprise me considering you have to be an idiot to believe in communism to start with.

>>505399
>they are people with sheer luck and no merit

Fixed that one small tidbit for you my friend.

>>505716
>South Korea did well because it mantained tariffs and industrial protections for a long time.

This is the only way any country has ever developed a decent economy. Even the USA. Britain and the Netherlands are the only partial exceptions, but then it took them longest, and they had no model to work off of.

For some reason the World Bank and IMF tell developing countries to do the exact opposite.

Because the right realizes morality is objective

>>505726
>you have to be an idiot to believe in communism to start with.

What do you think communism is?

I'd say it's common sense to say you own what you make and you have a say in the laws of where you live.

>>505716
>Austrian economics

Can't say if you have no idea what you're talking about or just a liar. Pinochet's economic reforms were Milton Friedman's Chicago School / Monetarism, absolutely not Austrian.

>>505721
In a nutshell... yes.

Nazism and Fascism saw themselves as saviours of capitalism and the traditional hierarchy, while Communists saw themselves as their enemies.

In practice they were more similar than their rethoric suggested though.

>>505742
I did mean monetarists... my bad... it's almost 6 am here in Germany

>>505740
>value of a product can be objectively quantified by labor
>money is a commodity
>the workers need to seize the state and the means of production and this will make state, property and classes magically vanish in the long run
>an industrial worker automatically has more class consciousness than a peasant
>pseudo-Hegelian dialectics about historical inevitabilities

You have to be a bone fide moron to believe any of the things above.

>>505743

Fascist Italy wasn't totalitarian, though.

why did I ever think this board wouldn't be just /pol/2.0

>>505777
>>value of a product can be objectively quantified by labor

I don't agree with that. This labor theory of value is precisely wrong.

In fact, the value of the labor is determined by the value of the product or service that it was used to create. If a widget is sold for ten dollars, then the value of the labor that went into it is ten dollars, minus the cost for various overheads.

>>money is a commodity

I don't know enough about that to agree or disagree.

>>the workers need to seize the state and the means of production and this will make state, property and classes magically vanish in the long run

Why would property vanish? Don't communists agree with libertarians that the state and classes should be done away with?

>>an industrial worker automatically has more class consciousness than a peasant

No...

Well, they might be more educated, they might have better ability to communicate with each other privately, but there is no reason to think that an industrial worker automatically wants to improve their lives while a peasant doesn't.

>>pseudo-Hegelian dialectics about historical inevitabilities

What do you mean by this?

>You have to be a bone fide moron to believe any of the things above.

I haven't met any communists who would agree with most of these, and if they did, it would be a generous interpretation of what you wrote here.

>>505336

Right wingers kill left wingers

Left wingers kill right wingers and other leftist who arent leftist enough

>>505820
>I haven't met any communists who would agree with most of these
It's literally marxism 101. Unless you're telling me that majority of communists have abandoned Marx.

>>505816
Admit you didn't want this board to have actual discussions, you wanted it to to be a leftist safe space hugbox and everything at least slightly sympathetic to right-wing values is /pol/ in your book.

>>505632
Ireland was anything but a capitalist famine, you might want to go back to the history books on that one m8
The Irish produced enough during the famine to sustain the populace, but the British government forced the Irish to export large amounts of food thus leading to mass starvation.
Government intervention =/= Capitalism

>>505845
nah, I was interested in discussions of history, there's some here but its just so drowned out by edgelords

>>505821

Right wingers purge their political enemies too. And they seem more inclined to scapegoat ethnic minorities.

>>505834
>It's literally marxism 101. Unless you're telling me that majority of communists have abandoned Marx.

I am.

Most communists do not follow Marx as though he was a prophet. And most of what he wrote is no longer relevant, except as part of a study of history. His great accomplishment was making an accurate description of the economic system that formed and existed during his life, not in proposing any alternatives.

It is true that modern capitalism is the direct successor to the system he called capitalism in his writings, but they are not the same thing.

>>505664
>Chile
>development
>the empty husk of bullshit capitalism and stolen resourced from the outside countries it is now

Nope, not seeing it.

>>505865
How is having a positive evaluation of Pinochet edgy?

>>505846
>The Irish produced enough during the famine to sustain the populace, but the British government forced the Irish to export large amounts of food thus leading to mass starvation.
Forced how?

>>505873
>How is having a positive evaluation of Pinochet edgy?
Have a think about that.

>>505846

The British government presided over the protection of private farmers selling food to overseas markets, and traders bringing the food to the ports.

Government intervention is present in every capitalist system except the one taught in economics 101.

>>505880
So do you.

>>505632
Put your trip back on, Fifel.

File: 1451353151278.jpg (18KB, 552x414px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 552x414px

>>505886

This is honestly the first time a poster has gotten a rise out of me in this way;

I've never posted with a trip and I've been here longer than you have.

>>505881

Private farmers sold their own food and starved to death?

>>505895
>bragging about being an oldfag on a 2 month old board

lmfao

>>505448
first you kill the current government
then you kill the royalty (if there is any)
then you kill the priests
then you kill the capitalists
then you kill the kulaks
then you kill the members of your party who most disagree with you

in a right wing revolution, most of the first 5 are skipped

File: 158430620.png (13KB, 400x420px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x420px

>>505358

Right-wing generally considers murder inherently wrong.

File: 1443893256232.jpg (52KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 500x500px

>>505908
>Right-wing generally considers murder inherently wrong.
KEK

File: EuthanasiePropaganda.jpg (23KB, 279x356px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 279x356px

>>505908

Except if it saves them money

>>505834
Do you always act and feel so threatened, facho? It's simple, capitalism and the right is a fad, it's cool to be on their side, ergo, their side is prefered and attempts like this wimp I'm quoting always happen and will happen. You're either on their side (the "correct" one) or none.

>>505711

Long story short, shitty economic policies. In particular, import-substitution industrialisation.

>>505898

Private, usually absentee, landlords sold the food their tenants grew, and the tenants starved.

Typically, the tenants would grow potatoes to subsist on their family plot, just big enough for one family; and work on the landlords plot for most of the year to grow food to export overseas.

Then the blight hit. Now, farmers could not grow the potatoes they required to subsist, while the food they grew on the landlords plots were still being exported. If Ireland were run by Irish people, exports would have been temporarily halted to deal with the crisis, no such thing happened.


A similar thing happens in Africa today. They grow cash crops, and when a drought or flood or conflict occurs, they can't afford to buy food from the market, so they go hungry. If they were advised and supported in growing food crops, these crises would mean only a drop in exports, not a famine.

File: reaction in a nutshell.png (216KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 500x281px

>>505905
>reactionary

Literally a buzzword for lefties. I'm a reactionary myself and go shaking my head over what kind of nonsense do you guys consider reactionary.

>>505933

Go on.

>>505578
Do you even know what left-wing refers to?

>>505945

It's a relative position in a liberal democracy.

Do you mean North American left-wing, European left-wing, South American left-wing, former Soviet left-wing, British left-wing, the left-wing of the Sun Kings court, the left-wing of the twenties, or what?

>>505905

>Right wingers call us mean names so we should take away free speech :(

lol left wingers are faggots

>>505954
>It's a relative position in a liberal democracy.
No.

>>505958

Then tell me.

If there is no one post copy-paste for it, send by a non-wikipedia link that you think is accurate.

>>505954
The left-wing refers to the elements of society/politics which support a revolution, in the sense of the word provided by the French Revolution. These elements (when successful) are supported by mass movements, which themselves are inherently prone towards violence and dictatorship.

>>505973
In contrast, the right-wing refers to the elements of society supported by intact power structures. The success of the left-wing is dependent on opportunities created by the erosion of the institutions which the right-wing derives its power from.

>>505973
>>505982

So one could not be a moderate on either side?

Either you want to completely overthrow the existing social order; or you can allow no change whatsoever?

>>505987
I don't know how you managed to draw that conclusion from what I said.

>>505991

You said the left support a revolution, like the French revolution.

And that the right support maintaining whatever the status quo is.

I would define them more like this; the left wing wants to renegotiate the rules of society, the right wing wants to keep them as they are.

>>506001
Not the guy you're arguing with, but this is blatantly wrong. Right-wing reaction for example wants to go to status quo ante, which you could qualify as renegotiating the rules of society.

>>505932

You're forgetting a vital part. The problem is not that the tenants EXPORTED food, the problem was that they couldn't IMPORT food. Tarriffs and general protectionism ensured this.

>>506005

Tariffs in place to protect the business interests of local farmers. Capitalists always uses the government to protect themselves from competition.

The tenants did not export food, the landlords did. The tenants grew it.

>>506005
So if it were in place for the Irish famine, Laissez Faire (praise be) returns food to famine stricken areas by ordinary market forces of supply and demand, high prices in suffering areas are an inducement to import food, food prices then reach an equilibrium at market value, it's a nice thought.
How does the Free Market skydaddy then help people that have already sold everything to try and get through 3/4 consecutive years of crop failure?

>>506011

So tarriffs are capitalist now? How many socialists advocate for free trade?

(btw, I love how every /his/ thread based in the last century turns into a capitalism v communism thread

>>506025

People don't seem to get that there are 'phase transitions' in money; one hundred dollars is not the same kind of money as one hundred thousand dollars.

The amount of money required to live, to eat every day, to have a warm place to sleep, is one such transition.

The amount of money required to accumulate savings and avoid debt for unexpected expenses is another.

The amount of money required to pay a mortgage, college tuition, or medical expenses is another.

The amount of money required for your money to make you more money is another.

A person would is one transition above does not simply have some more money, their money is different in important ways.

>>506034

>So tarriffs are capitalist now?

They obviously are. Capitalists always argue for them, and they almost always get them. There is no system in the world that has called itself capitalist and has not both fully supported and had the full support of the government.

>How many socialists advocate for free trade?

Noam Chomsky is a famous one.

And every socialist I've ever met in person is for free trade.

They don't equate free trade with corporations controlling an economy, though.

And I've run into a few online who are against free trade; but it's hard to say if they were just against corporate economic control.

>>505669
/his/ is full of edgelords
I'm out

File: government corporation regulation cartoon.png (387KB, 1600x498px) Image search: [Google]

387KB, 1600x498px

>>506011
>Capitalists always uses the government to protect themselves from competition.
Absolutely. But key word being capitalists and not proponents of capitalism.

It honestly baffles me if there's a massive government monopoly lying around that the capitalists can exploit and the socialist solution to this is "more government".

>>506001
The French Revolution was used in contrast to the American Revolution, which did contain leftist elements but was predominantly conservative in nature, seeking to prevent the expansion of Parliamentary authority over the colonies that had either never existed or never been exercised.
Eliciting large-scale change from within a power structure is, at most, a centrist position. You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Now, the Left and Right get thrown around by commentators as labels but usually these labels provide no insight due to their bastardization (as do many terms in popular political discourse).

>>506067
How is what he said edgy in any way? Totalitarianism and corruption goes hand in hand. I was born in a totalitarian socialist country where corruption was so widespread it was pretty much accepted.

>>506068
>It honestly baffles me if there's a massive government monopoly lying around that the capitalists can exploit and the socialist solution to this is "more government".

Capitalists built it. The first step is taking most of it apart.

>>505336
Pinochet was surprisingly beningn example, the "low" body count was possible mainly because he had the people on his side, Allende supporters casually like to forget that his democratic victory was not at all decisive, and that the legislative that confirmed said victory was asking for his forceful demotion at the end.

But I wouldnt trust any dictatorships, left or right, to be like his. Nor would I ever want to experience a Pinochetian dictatorship, or any other kind of.

>>506083
Monopoly of violence is a much older thing than capitalism, pal. Like several millennia older.

File: image.jpg (98KB, 777x656px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 777x656px

>>505567
>Mao killed anyone
This meme has to die

>>506092

Capitalists are the reason for the massive growth in government over the last century or so.

Nobody likes competition for themselves, even though it's better for everyone overall. So as soon as any actor gets into a position where they can influence how competitive the market is, they always make it less competitive.

One could start by taking down laws that are anti-competitive, or any that favor those who already have a lot of money.

>>506109
I guess we're in agreement then.

>>505446
>Park Chung Hee
>puppet

If you think he was a puppet of the US, you probably don't know the bad relation they had in the 70s.

>>506025

>How does the Free Market skydaddy then help people that have already sold everything to try and get through 3/4 consecutive years of crop failure?

How does any system stop the will of God?

>>506104
>The struggle sessions were a meme

Whatever your parents paid for your education, they should ask for their money back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laBZfStOrgk

>>505336
>/pol/ complains about the refugees
>/pol/ worships third world dictators that cause the mess
Yep... right wing nutjobs in a nutshell

>>506025
By untilizing the price system. During the Raj, the British wound up trying to manage a famine. In response, they tried to stockpile grain and distribute it... it wound up rotting int he heat and the famine went on and on.

The next famine brought on a different solution. They published a list of prices indexed by geographic location. Where Grain was expensive was a famine stricken community and so, grain merchants naturally headed to where prices were high and situation was resolved in weeks. This is called price theory and the discipline of micro-economics is built upon it. It allows people who have never met to coordinate their efforts across oceans. It is the reason why a communist intervention is synonymous with humanitarian disaster while capitalist nations wipe their asses countries and double their per-capita GDP.

>But muh profiteering! Muh disaster capitalism!

Shut the fuck up, hippy. Our shit just works.

File: 2014_UN_Human_Development_Report_Quartiles.svg.png (371KB, 2000x869px) Image search: [Google]

371KB, 2000x869px

>>506125
>Chile
>third world

File: laughing moe.gif (559KB, 640x360px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 640x360px

>>506125
>Find the most extreme fringe opponent
>Frame him as typical of the people that you don't like.

File: cmimg_53648.jpg (72KB, 400x299px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 400x299px

>>506133
Tell it to them buddy...

File: 1451375641426.jpg (49KB, 433x558px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 433x558px

>>506140
>implying /pol/tards don't come here to shit our board

>>506164
>cherrypicked image

>>506173
This is not your board, /lit/. Both you and /pol/ are autistic memelords hellbent on creating echo chambers.

>>506173
No, I know they do. I'm from /k/ and we've been fighting this fight since /new/ got popped.

>>506177
>huge shantytown
We don't have those in the US friendo, cherrypicked or not it means you are third world

File: pineridge57-3.jpg (402KB, 1430x953px) Image search: [Google]

402KB, 1430x953px

>>506190
>We don't have those in the US friendo

Ever seen pics of Pine Ridge? It's basically nothing but shantytowns.

Regardless, I don't think trailer parks or dilapitated project housing in urban ghetto areas are any better than a favela.

>>506190
Clearly you've never been to LA. We have massive tent-camps and the original Skid Row.

>>506207
You are comparing apples and oranges... US housing projects have basic water and sanitation access, for starters.

I did missionary work in Brazil, you have no idea what it's like in an actual favela

>>506219
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2134196/Pictured-The-modern-day-poverty-Kentucky-people-live-running-water-electricity.html

>>506225
That's sad... but it's still not comparable.
It's a few isolated cases with no drinking water, in Brazil it was entire communities of millions.

>>506250
You're moving the goalposts m8, I suggest leaving your sheltered suburban ivory tower for once and see what real America is like.

>>506034
>How many socialists advocate for free trade?

Karl Marx is one.

>>506255
I doubt you've ever been to appalachia edgelord

>>506289
Of course I have, I live less than an hour from it.

File: [judaism intesifies].gif (212KB, 501x585px) Image search: [Google]

212KB, 501x585px

>>505933
>I'm a reactionary myself

:D

>>506323
>reactionaries = Jews

I wonder what sort of mental acrobatics did you have to perform to arrive at such a conclusion

>>505671
>that map
>Libya the only African country at 0% hunger
Khaddaffi was based

>>506327
Could you please define your concept of reactionary ?

>>506334
Why? First try telling me what do reactionaries have to do with Judaism.

>>506332
Forgeting Tunisia m8

File: reactionary.png (9KB, 544x245px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 544x245px

>>506339
Okay, since you do not wish to define what reactionary is then I will assume you mean the definition google gives. then I belive you to be a jew becasue

I've never seen anyone so SPHINCTER SORE b4 albus gore callled he said he wanted to do a docuMENtary about you BUTTSTEAM CUASING GLOWBALL WARMING AMDRLSNUN (all my diks r laffing semen n2 ur nostrils)

ur gay boyfriends (u hace lik 23,5) use chapstick as lube bcuz u want to cure ur analchafe butt it just gives you a RAGE ENEMA you're mom was a man's anus WWROFl

go jump in a lake full of penises you portugese masticator

i wud rite more owning you but i donut speak AUTISM

COLOCRUCIFIED

"why do 21 many ppl mak fun of my fetish with artchokes - ur furaffinity blog

>>505671
Argentina had a nearly identical right-wing dictatorship for nearly as long. Why didn't they have food security issues?

>>506368
Have you even looked at the maps of Chile and Argentina.

One is narrow mountainous and desert filled strip of land alongside the Pacific and the other is huge pampa plains with cattle ranches everywhere.

>>506366
...what

>>506368
One is much more developed than the other... also I think the Chile dictatorship lasted way longer... the Brits did the Argies a real favor by curbstomping then in the Falklands

>>506443
Who's that chinkshit sitting in front of Pinochet?

>>506447
That's his hat m8

>>506173
>our board
>our

>>505446

>Franco
>Uphold the status quo

Somebody needs to learn about the complexities of the Spanish civil war.

>>506125
that particular mess was caused by us foreign policy, not assad

File: 1437320554735.jpg (28KB, 350x248px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 350x248px

>>506366
??

>>505880
you realize half of Chile loves the man, right?

File: laughing cheetah kittens.jpg (145KB, 499x632px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 499x632px

>>505381
>Right wingers resist and fight for their homeland
Kek
>Mfw white Russians fleeing like faggots
>Mfw Chinese warlords surrendering in droves

>>506924
Actually, it was caused by neighboring Arab regimes refusal to take in refugees that are as different from them as Americans are from Canadians or the Welsh.

>>505716
Puerto Rico is not even an independent country. I'm intrigued what is that "couple of others" that I can't find anywhere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

>>505381
If they fought, wouldn't there be more deaths in right wing dictatorship?

One thing that keeps right-wing dictatorships being different from left-wing dictatorships like the Bolsheviks, is that they didn't go too far and did stupid excessive stuffs. They didn't try to abolish military rank, in hope that workers and soldiers could be closer and will be both one and the same le prole class. They also didn't try to imagine what would the 'New Worker Man' be like biologically.

They seem to be more self-aware, while left-wingers like Stalin both his public and private life were all full of 'Commandments' from that one Ultra-Protestant sect called 'New Workers' History', or simply Marxism. Anarchists were even more insane than the Bolsheviks.

>>506257
"free"

>>505446
Salazar wasnt a puppet, Franco wasnt a puppet, Park wasnt a puppet Chiang Kai Shek arguably wasnt a puppet.

>setup a representative democracy and gracefully leave
kek, how delusional. as delusional as all the orthodox marxists in this board

>>507877
literally Pinochet

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilean_national_plebiscite,_1988

>>506131
best answer desu

>There are Chileans ITT who actually think Pinochet did good for the country.
You're the biggest cucks in here and haven't even realized it yet.

>>507889
He stepped down because his horrid mismanagement of the economy (lol 25% unemployment "miracle of chile") had resulted in massive civil unrest and doing otherwise risked all-out civil war.

>>508297
t. Ameriblob

>>507953
Care to look at the history of famines in india and when they stopped happening comrade?

>>508304
t. Momio Culiao Aweonao

>>508310
t. Jamal Rodriguez

>>508316

t. Alberto Barbosa

>>508322
t. Alberto Barbosa

>>508307
post independence socialism under nehru and indira gandhi?

>>505357
>They're both immoral. Pinochet was every bit the bloodthirsty murderer as Stalin or Mao.

>3000 deaths
>versus respectively 20 million and 60 million deaths

Now I know you che guevara tshirt wearing english majors aren't the best in mathematics, but that's several orders of magnitude of difference.

>>508329
*golf clap*

>>508337
wait what?

>>505336
Because capitalist nations don't fail. The reason why socialist/communist regimes fail is because they follow the retarded doctrines of that 19th century kike and ruin their country. Then in order to remain in power they have to resort to force.

>>508297
He got rid of the Narcos. That's something

File: eric-hobsbawm.jpg (24KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 460x276px

Leftists believe themselves capable of remodeling the whole society, if not human nature in general, through political action. They see themselves as agents or bearers of a better future, above all judgement by present or past humanity, being accountable only to the "court of History". But the court of History is, by definition, the very future society that this individual or group claims to represent in the present. So, as future society is only able to bear witness or to judge through this same representative, it is clear that they become thus not only the sole sovereign judge of their own acts, but the judge of all past, present and future humanity. Able to accuse and to condemn all laws, institutions, beliefs, values, traditions, actions and works of all epochs without being subject, in his turn, to the judgment of any of them, they lie above historical humanity.

Such self-glorification of leftists is totalitarian and genocidal in itself. By refusing themselves to be accountable to anything except a hypothetical future of their own invention, and firmly disposed to destroy by cunning or by force every obstacle to the remodeling of the world to his own image and likeness, leftists are the worst enemy of the human species. That's why the worst right-wing tyrants impress us by the modesty of their aims and by a notable circumspection in the use of their means.

Pic related, to the day he died, he still answered yes to the question of wheter dozens of millions of deaths would be worth it if communism had been achieved.

>>508920
It's funny how historical figures get crucified for being sympathetic to Hitler, but no-one bats an eye when so many 20th century intellectuals died unrepentant Stalinists/Maoists

File: 1437320510866.png (4MB, 1400x1427px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 1400x1427px

>>505336
I've often thought about this and have to agree that it's probably attributable to the fact that right-wing movements tend to maintain the existing status quo, whereas left-wing ones typically attempt some kind of redistribution of wealth.

Attempts to break up the existing social order and redistribute wealth will always be met with extreme resistance which in turn leads to bloody confrontation.

File: Bait.png (35KB, 478x479px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 478x479px

>>505908

>>505336
Because right wing ideologies care about the country. Left wing ideologies are self-hating so they're not afraid to purge half the population for le greater good

>>505674
>USSR
>Not corrupt

lol

>>508299
>He stepped down
Yes, exactly.

>>509049
A fine and thorough analysis has been certainly made here.

>>509073
Thank you, reddit

File: 1446840723507.jpg (404KB, 800x2449px) Image search: [Google]

404KB, 800x2449px

>>505336
>Why do right wing dictatorships usually have such lower death tolls than left wing dictatorships?

Because R.J. Rummel was fond of tacking zeros onto the ends of his estimates.

>>505723
Chile is up there too. In HDI they are right behind Argentina.

>>509368
>and Hitler's holocaust actually has documentation behind it

All right this was created by a dirty kike redditor.

As if the NKVD archives don't exist...

File: reason-holocaust-denial-pullquote-martin.png (478KB, 790x661px) Image search: [Google]

478KB, 790x661px

>>509525
>All right this was created by a dirty kike redditor.

The bi-weekly Holocaust Denial thread is over here:

>>509405

>As if the NKVD archives don't exist...

Oh, please.

>>505743
>Nazism and Fascism saw themselves as saviours of capitalism and the traditional hierarchy
This is a fucking lie. You are a lying Marxist. The fascists specifically said that they opposed materialist capitalism, and that fascism was a third way.

>>509759
>Oh, please.
Are you denying that the NKVD archives exist?

>>509791
>This is a fucking lie. You are a lying Marxist. The fascists specifically said that they opposed materialist capitalism, and that fascism was a third way.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bel-2010-nazi-privatizations1.pdf

>>509847
Then I guess communism is state capitalism since China practices state capitalism!

DERP

File: 1451680087679.png (382KB, 620x372px) Image search: [Google]

382KB, 620x372px

>>505358

Time for helicopters

>>505498
> Why do they have to kill people? Who are they killing?

The reactionary segments of the population who won't stand for their way of life being threatened, the defenders of the old order for traditional reasons, the owner's of the property being seized by the state, and all those who would resist the scourge of communism for purely ideological reasons.

> Many people owning an enterprise in common so as to share risk and profits. It's also a command economy, though the PC term is 'vertical and horizontal integration'. Make no mistake, the Cold War convinced the leaders of the western world that communism is superior.

Corporation's have been around in some form since at least the 1600's with the Dutch East India Company I believe. And I've heard some excavations in the middle east have found evidence of a "stock exchange" that predates that as well.

Owning share's isn't communism either. I'm a Canadian citizen but I don't own any part of Tim Hortons, do I? Communism is public ownership of "the means of production". They mean actual public ownership as well, not just that anyone can buy it.

Some of the shilling in here ist mind boggling.
Are people honestly taking the side of obe dictatorship because they only killed 10000 of their citizens instead of 1000000?
Why are people even taking sides in the first place? This is a discussion, not a strawpoll.
This board has gone to shit.

>>508335
>Implying torture and Forced dissapearance isn't savagery no matter the numbers

>>508858
False, he even introduced drug cartels into the country.

>>509049
Actually; it's more of a "It's unprofitable for us if they are dead; Plus we need good rep or at least an ally to earn cash"

>>509068
He stepped down after having the whole Low-middle class against him plus the catholic church AND somehow the US.

If he wasn't UN'd it was because the CIA did not want his involvement discovered.

>>509081
>disagrees with me
>must be reddit

>>509847
>they privatised some things, therefore they were capitalists
If you use the Marxist definition of capitalism - that is, anything besides full orthodox Marxism - then sure, the Nazis were capitalists.

>>509952
Do you still not realize the magnitude of the statement? He stepped down! Yes, it wasn't going well for him, but Hitler, Mussolini, Ceaușescu, Allende etc. were all in different kinds of shit, and they held on to the last second, you know fucks like the Castros and the NK chinks will not step down.

Pinochet asked the people "do you want me to leave" and actually complied when they answered "yes", thats pretty huge desu.

>>505905

> freeze peach

Fucking seriously? You're really bringing that shit over from srs?

God fucking damn it I knew this board would be cancer

>>510428
>thats pretty huge desu
No it isn't, he was forced to do it. He wasn't even the first dictator to have been pressured to give it up.

>>505336
Yeah it's totally not like Hitler's policies caused death of 60 million people

File: Ohrdruf_Corpses_Eisenhower.jpg (2MB, 2100x1736px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1736px

>>510458
>Yeah it's totally not like Hitler's policies caused death of 60 million people

Lies!!! Those piles of burning Jew corpses were simply used to delouse clothing.

File: ZOwuXqh.png (13KB, 744x615px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 744x615px

>>510458
we're up to 60 million again, are we

>>508920
t. eric hoffer

>>505336
>>505336
>>505336
>>505336

Less likely to attempt large social engineering projects/state-run projects, I think.

>>510458
>11 million
FTFY
6 million were jews, the remaining 5 million were gypsies, cripples, gays, muslims, some blacks, some catholics, and a few other groups.
This of course does not count the death toll of the wars.

>>505905
>you need to be a fascist to oppose communism
wrow

File: le gas face.png (26KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 256x256px

>>505705
>Fascism is left or right

>>506366
Truly an example of the pinnacle of Leftist literature.

>>511332
Trudl a pinnacle of promlematic shitlord mouthshiting

>>510061
And so would the USSR be.

>>511009

The holocaust is physically impossible.


National socialism nationalized t he exonomy and expanded welfare. All of its policies were leftwing and progressive at the time.

All these damn marxist in this thread, as a Chilean who lived under Pinochet, he was the best thing to happen in this country. Literally every leftist is a traitor and deserves to die, the dictatorship was fine and efficient.

>>505339

Huh.

This actually makes sense.

>>505905
>reactionary
>fascist
proof leftists are stupid (as in not intelligent)

>>505336
Who says they do?

>>505871
>Right wingers purge their political enemies too. And they seem more inclined to scapegoat ethnic minorities.
right wingers don't necessarily scapegoat minorities, they just tend to have a mandate from their supporters that puts them at odds with minority interests, which tends to have unfortunate outcomes for those minorities when right wingers establish a violent regime.

>>513308
tl;dr the right dindu nuffin

>>513318
the right a good boy. the left a fuckboi

>>505473
Vanguard parties essentially act in a way similar to publicly traded companies if you think about it.

They claim to represent and cater to a demographic and provide goods and services to them, in exchange for cash/labor. They aren't much different from the capitalist system they so despise.

File: is this a troll.jpg (60KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 604x453px

>>506366

>>506366
Interestingly enough this post makes more sense than anything Marx ever wrote.

>>512116
Guide to leftist speak:

Bourgeoise: someone with money
Capitalism: a society when certain group of people has money
Being exploited: being broke and stupid
Fascist: any authoritarian who isn't a communist
Reactionary: anyone who thinks socialism is retarded
Dictatorship of the proletariat: [insert whatever is suitable in the CURRENT YEAR]

>>505336
>>505339
This.
The right/left distinction is ONLY one of the degree to which you are using or trying to break the "existing power structures" including non material institutions.
Thus your hypothesis verifies almost by definition.

There is no right or left only a struggle between two opposing factors of our nature.

Id prefer my dictatorship to have a higher death toll anyways, its a sign at least somebody is not conforming. And in dystopia the carrot is certainly scarier than the stick.

File: 566457893.jpg (182KB, 504x594px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 504x594px

>dictatorships
>involving any kind of politics besides the cult of personality

right or left/religion or atheism are just banners to initially rally people, they serve no real purpose once the dictator is in power.

>>505336
>let me make a thread too

>"Allright /his/, what do you think are the historical reasons that christianity is superior to any other religion?"

>>505381
how about trying /pol/?

>>513618
All of my this.

>>513550
disregarding that you consider poor people to be stupid, your post is full of historical inacuracy.

>>505336
Left wing dictatorships are class revolutions most of the time, and involve trying to 'cleanse' inequalities.

>>514443
>Left wing dictatorships are class revolutions

are you familiar with the concept of "social class"?
are you aware that some of the most reactionary regimes were established with the help of the people?
are you aware that everybody here knows you 've read someone else's opinion already in this thread and just thought to chime in?

>>514403
Leftist speak is full of historical inacuracy[sic].

>>514575
>pointing out a spelling error

...and that's the greatest argument you can offer.

>>514603
1. I'm not pointing out your spelling error, I'm pointing out your illiteracy.
2. I'm not the poster you were replying to originally.
3. I'm not obligated to provide an argument when you haven't.

>>514617
>I'm not pointing out your spelling error, I'm pointing out your illiteracy

of which my posts are both proof to the opposite


>I'm not the poster you were replying to originally.

and that has to do with what exactly?


>I'm not obligated to provide an argument when you haven't

au contraire

>>514403
It isn't, it's actually pretty accurate.

Take for example Franco, Pinochet, Mussolini, Hitler, Peron, etc. They have very little in common other than being non-socialist and authoritarian, yet leftists brand them all as "fascist" because that's exactly what they understand about that term.

It's very common for leftists to see a word, redefine its meaning and then it spout it around like a buzzword. The word "bourgeoise" initially meant a city-based middle class in feudal structure (German equivalent is bürger, Polish is mieszczanin). Marx saw that this class is taking over the means of production, so applied the word to everyone who owns the means of production. In contemporary lefty vocabulary this term became a buzzword meaning "everyone who has money and we don't like him."

>>514640
>of which my posts are both proof to the opposite
Not at all.

>and that has to do with what exactly?
Just clearing up that I have no obligation to defend his post, as accurate as it may be.

>au contraire
You haven't provided any arguments related to any subject matter, at hand or in general.

>>514652
>leftists brand them all as "fascist"

history and historians have branded them as fascists

>Marx saw that this class is taking over the means of production, so applied the word to everyone who owns the means of production

correct

>In contemporary lefty vocabulary this term became a buzzword meaning "everyone who has money and we don't like him."

that is your understanding, I don't have to agree with that.
Bourgeoisie, besides a class of people, can be used to label the morality of the ruling class, just as in former phases of history we would use the contemporary term to describe a way of life. That is aligned with historical materialism as Marx considers the superstructure a product of the economic relations and the level of the means of production. For example, we use the term "feudal" for practices and customs that originated in feudal Europe despite if they were invented by villagers or the nobles.

>>514715
>history and historians have branded them as fascists
If this is true, then "history and historians" are bunk.

>>514715
>history
Who is this Mr. History and where did he publish his opinion?

>and historians
Marxist historians. Fascism is defined as a state with a corporatist structure that is opposed to both capitalism and socialism. So for example Mussolini is a textbook fascist according to this definition, but Pinochet, the ultra free market die hard capitalist? Not a chance.

>correct
Thanks for admitting that marxists deliberately take over words and redefine their meaning.

They are now doing the same with the word "racism" for example.

>>514755
>Fascism is defined as a state with a corporatist structure that is opposed to both capitalism and socialism

according to your definition then, Soviet Union and Hitler wasn't fascism and those who should be considered fascists are the countries of the Independent movement (Yugoslavia, India, etc.)

Fascism is an umbrella term for any authoritarian regime.


>Thanks for admitting that marxists deliberately take over words and redefine their meaning.

I was just confirming that generally you are giving a correct interpretation of the attachment that Marx made between the word and the notion.

>>514806
>Fascism is an umbrella term for any authoritarian regime.
So you're admitting that the term is functionally useless in the leftist usage?

>>514806
>fascism is an umbrella term for any authoritarian

That's your incorrect definition. Fascism is a pretty coherent, elaborate ideology that spawned from national syndicalism which itself was a reaction to capitalism. It's not a buzzword and Pinochet absolutely was no fascist.

>>514806
Gotta love how lefties throw a bitchfit when people call everything from the USSR to Obama communist, yet themselves see no problem applying the same "logic" to fascism.

>>514819
not at all.
If you are implying that all "lefties" feel an obligation to defend Soviet Union, you are very one-dimensional in your definitions

>>514838
Maybe because they are fundamentally different? And where exactly did you see a bitchfit?

>>514862
But anon, communism is just an umbrella term.

>>514862
Communism is an umbrella term. Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, Lenin, Obama, Sadat, Tito, Robespierre, they're all the same.

>>514869
for you maybe. There is a genuine critique on the progressive side that doesn't revolve around certain states exclusively, whereas fascism is a distinct regime that was established when class struggle reached a certain point. It has no basis in reality other than to suppress and oppress, and it's intellectual void (as fascism is devoid of any culture) is full of ideologies that revolve around the nation. And whereas you can find progressives that may shun soviet states, for the same reasons they shun fascist states, all fascists will rush to defend any fascist regime

>>514896
Literally not a single thing you said was based in reality. Bravo.

>>514896
Name 5 examples of a fascist state. I'm wondering whether I'm a fascist and if I'll defend all of them.

>>511382
>National socialism nationalized t he exonomy and expanded welfare. All of its policies were leftwing and progressive at the time.
Actually they mostly cut welfare and expanded the military-industry like the GOP does in America. Not that that's a bad thing, but it's not "left."

>>514927
>cut welfare

Factually incorrent.

>>514927
Because they knew they'd need a war to expand the impositions of their designs on Europe (ignoring the fact that, before Hitler finished consolidating power, there were factions like the SA led by Rohm that were inward- and non-military-focused). They behaved, and were contained, in the manner of a revolutionary state.

>>514935
If I'm wrong show me. I don't have any sources right now, but I thougth Hitler at least intended to cut healthcare.

>>514914
Horthy's Hungary
Mussolini's Italy
Salazar's Portugal
Hitler's Germany
Franco's Spain

>>514914
Pinochet
Noriega 1
Papadopoulos
Batista
Enrique Diaz

>>514948
>no iron guard romania

baka

>>514948
>>514959
Now explain how those were Fascist states.

>>514948
>Franco's Spain
I can't accept this one, unless we count every single latin american dictator too. He is just a catholic reactionary. Didn't even join WWII, and Hitler said he'd invade "backward" Spain if not for the strength of their fighters.

>>505521
KMT killed 40000 out of one million in Taiwan. Scale it up to 200 million of the Soviets and ya got 8000000 deaths. This does not account for the millions killed on the mainland.

>>514960
Thismakesmoresensethanfrancothanks

>>505716
Puerto Rico is a fucking territory of the USA. And Argentina has a GDP per capita of $17,376 according to the IMF, and Chile has a GDP per capita of $16,171 making it come in second place. Also, Puerto Rico is in the fucking Caribbean not South America.

>>514962
according to the definition in my posts>>514806
here and here>>514896

I 'm the 2nd "list".
If you deny the first one as "fascist regimes" you need to open a history book. Any history book.

>>514980
Ok. I've now defined Fascism as "not those".

>>514977
>Puerto Rico is in the fucking Caribbean not South America

>these are the people who post in /his/

>>507889
But he overthrew the democratic government that already existed, dumbass.

He stepped down because he was ruining the economy badly enough that even the USA was turning against him.

>>514983
well my game is discussion. Your game is trolling

>>514993
Discussing things solely within the confines of what you want words defined as, without any justification.
>crying troll
Just give up.

>>505925

>capitalism is a fad

Hahahaha oh wow we got an edgy commie here

>>514998
>Discussing things solely within the confines of what you want words defined as, without any justification.


these are your posts
>>514914

I provided you with an answer

and this is how you replied

>>514962
>>514983


I gave wide accepted definitions. And just because someone characterises those regimes "fascist" doesn't necessarily make them a "leftie".

File: 4a7721a2867014c2f5d5dbb2c0da3dcb.png (19KB, 926x316px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 926x316px

>>515008
I haven't used the word "leftie" once, asinine troglodyte.
>wide[sic] accepted
>the "common sense" ad populum defense
I'm done with you.

>>514963
>just
Not just.
>>514960
He asked for 5. Those are the top 5.
>>514962
Counter revolutionary modernisation from outside the traditional state apparatus which produces a newly racial nation. You know, the standard Marxist definition.

>>515109
>Not just.
There was a clear difference in the Spanish government of Franco's between Anglofiles and Germanofiles, that is to say, conservatives and national-socialists/syndicalists. The latter were remnants of the actual Spanish fascist movement, the former were more like Franco himself. Overall i don't see how this was one o the 'top 5' fascist states.

>>515188
what has your explanation of the division within franco's party anything to do with how he transformed Spain into a fascist regime for 36 years??

>>515109
>Marxist definition.
That would be great if we were having a discussion within Marxist linguistic-appropriative thoughtspace. But we're not. So adopt a commensurable definition, if you wouldn't mind.

>>505336
Right-wing dictatorships only kill the people they mean to kill.

Leftist regimes kill just as many opponents on purpose, but then also accidentally famine half of their dudes to death while they're busy figuring out that communism is a lie.

>>515275
Not really mate. The primary work on theorising fascism has been done by Marxists. It'd be nice if you read the literature.

>>515285
Not really mate. The primary work on theorizing fascism has been done by Fascists. It'd be nice if you read the literature.

>>515288
so now you want to bring discussion in your own terms, while accusing others of doing that.

>>515288
>The primary work on theorizing fascism has been done by Fascists.
Yeah because D'Annunzio influenced Horthy and Salazar so much.

>>515298
No, because I'm not a fascist. But I'll throw Marxist definitions in the trash without a second thought because an ideology that intentionally hides behind the noncommensurate nomenclature because it doesn't consider itself beholden to anything but itself. I'm simply requesting some degree of commensurable nomenclature so that a discussion can be actually fucking productive, but instead you insist on using the wild goose chase tactics that Marxists always do. I'll verse myself in the thousand years of Christian theology before I bother messing with Marxist theology.

>>515305
If you're arguing that Horthy and Salazar are fascist then you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here, bud.

>>515315
>If you're arguing that Horthy and Salazar are fascist then you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here, bud.

>>515315
I'm sorry that you're habitually cretinistic, but a high standard of discourse is expected here. If you're unable to simulate, or commensurate, for yourself perhaps you should consider posting in an area where your inabilities are attributes. >>>/x/

>>515324
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/commensurable
>a Marxist calling anybody else a cretin
This is rich. Bye, Felicia.

>>515328
Yes, chap, you can commensurate theoretical perspectives. Your personal inability to commensurate doesn't necessarily mean that they're incommensurable.

>wiktionary
Either cite the OED3 or fuck off.

>>515324
>a high standard of discourse is expected here
[citation needed][according to whom?]

>>515315
>No

>claims actually that the only people able to give a critique on their regimes, are those who led the regimes and their worshippers
>>515288

>>515335
Read the fucking sticky.

File: facepalm.jpg (18KB, 300x284px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x284px

>>515335

>>515334
Normal people can commensurate theoretical perspectives. Marxists, however, go out of their way to adopt terminology which is incompatible with non-Marxist language. In most specialized though processes, terminology undergoes a narrowing of specification; in the case of Marxists, the terminology instead is shifted entirely. Thus, no meaningful discussion can be had between Marxists and non-Marxists. Bye.

>>515340
I never said they were, bud. But it's rather facetious to claim that Marxists are the authority on Fascism for reasons I've spent enough time outlining.

>>515335
It's in the sticky. Not enforced, of course, otherwise Marxists wouldn't be allowed to pull this smoke-and-mirrors game in every other thread.

>>515341
Cite the fucking sticky next time. A high standard of discourse is expected here.

>>515366
I'm sorry that you've failed in your humanities education.

damn i thought /his/ would be a great place, but it is just filled of shitposters from /pol/

>>516087
>damn I thought /his/ would be a marxist hugbox

ftfy

File: this nigga srs.gif (2MB, 352x217px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 352x217px

>>514358
>>>lit
See? I can do that too.

>>515366
>in the case of Marxists, the terminology instead is shifted entirely


marxism introduced terms, it didn't shift the meaning of any.
Terminology-but not only- appropriation has been consistently a fascist's game.


>Not enforced, of course, otherwise Marxists wouldn't be allowed to pull this smoke-and-mirrors game in every other thread.

as if...

>>507011
And the other half hates him to death. Your point?