>>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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>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.
>>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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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?
>>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).
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.
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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>505705 >Totalitarisms can be either left or right wing. Same with authoritarianisms.
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?
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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
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.
>>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
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.
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.
>>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
>>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.
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.
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?
>>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.
>>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?
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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
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.
>>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.
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.
>>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?
>>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.
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."
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
>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 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.
>>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.
>>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
>>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 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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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.
>>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/
>>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.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.