Evil Right Wing Fascism will eventually win

[FlashDangerpants]

If you want to discuss ideologies, you ought to have at least a definition of those ideologies that makes them different from any other idelogy.

This statement is at odd with this one...

You just tried to throw together a functional definition of Nazism without even hinting in the direction of antisemitism. What is the point of any of the stuff you are doing here?

Sorry, of course the racist ideas is amongst the other stuff that adds to the nazism.

But for me, an Authoritarian Eugenist Facist regime is enough to say it is nazi.

Racism only adds worse to that regime.

If you demand precision definitions from others, you must provide similar yourself. You are trying to get away with weaker tests for your own theories than for other people's, which is not something to take pride in.

[philosopher]

If you want to discuss ideologies, you ought to have at least a definition of those ideologies that makes them different from any other idelogy.

This statement is at odd with this one...

You just tried to throw together a functional definition of Nazism without even hinting in the direction of antisemitism. What is the point of any of the stuff you are doing here?

Sorry, of course the racist ideas is amongst the other stuff that adds to the nazism.

But for me, an Authoritarian Eugenist Facist regime is enough to say it is nazi.

Racism only adds worse to that regime.

If you demand precision definitions from others, you must provide similar yourself. You are trying to get away with weaker tests for your own theories than for other people's, which is not something to take pride in.

I'm not sure. What do you want? What is your question?

[FlashDangerpants]

I'm not sure. What do you want? What is your question?

Well, we've established that you throw words like nazism around without really thinking things through. But you used a subtly different phrase to initiate the thread.

Right Wing Fascism

Now we want a definition.

You gave as examples Trump, Theresa May, Victor Orban, and so on. Let's see how you plan to define that phrase without making a fool of yourself.

[Frank N Stein]

Several polls were made in the years 1946-1960 showing that Hitler enjoyed support from 50+ % of the German population.

Please show your evidence for this highly unlikely claim. You have form for bullshitting. It's well known that in that period Germans were extremely reluctant to discuss Hitler at all, there would have been no realistic way to take a survey of his popularity at that time.

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

The U.S. conducted opinion surveys in the American zone of occupied Germany.[85] Tony Judt, in his book Postwar: a History of Europe since 1945, extracted and used some of them.

A majority in the years 1945–49 stated National Socialism to have been a good idea

Source:
Judt, Tony (2007), Postwar: a History of Europe since 1945, Pimlico, p. 58, ISBN 1446418022

That's a very long article. So 50 percent of Germans supported Hitler after he was dead? If the 'poll' is as you say, then there are a multitude of problems with it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Why do evil right wing fascists always win elections - if not now, then in the near future?

....

No wonder why fascism persists even to this day. But I do wonder, why is Fascism so popular?

I believe the "evil right wing" are winning because the evil left wing are relatively MORE evil.
There are always extremists on each side [natural re Bell Curve], the issue is which evil is more evil than the other.

In effective decision making, one will calculate the weighted-average from a long list of related criteria which include positive and negative elements.
Thus despite some negative elements from the right-wing, these are not the critical issues and thus the resulting weighted-average of the right-wing is positively higher than that of the left-wing.

Personally I will give very heavy weightage to 'Freedom of Speech' and 'being wary of Islamic evil & violence' economic performances, national security, national pride, etc. The left-wing hindrance of 'Freedom of Speech' and their being so apologetic to Islam is so obvious.

Some national leaders are loud mouths, egoistic, boasters, thin skin, e.g. Trump, Duterte [Philippines]. etc. but such behaviors are not critical in comparison to actual political performance and results.

[Logik]

This is a trick-question. If I attempt to answer any of your questions, ie. "How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?" we will eventually end up with you questioning ethics and morality, since you'd probably say something like "Morality is subjective" - which it is, since no moral values have any intrinsic value.

Which is why political debate is stupid.

I don't believe in killing the disabled.
I don't believe in conscription (or any other forced labor).
I don't believe in totalitarianism.

I believe in welfare.
I believe in personal liberty first, economic liberty secondary (or lower).
I believe in security - including social security.
This is why I've decided that any ideology that does not meet 100 % of those criteria is by definition bad, immoral and un-ethical.

Believe and don't believe? You mean you like those things and dislike those things?

I am sure that you like/dislike all of those things. But that is hardly ever the question with politics - is it?

Do you like or dislike all of those things more than having food and a stable economy?
Because that was on most voters' minds in those years. Liberty and social security? Pffft - luxuries!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinfl ... r_Republic

[surreptitious57]

What is good in ecomonic terms is that which benefits the greatest possible number within society
Politics is the art of the possible but this is compromised by its tribalism and appeal to popularity

[Dachshund]

If you want to discuss ideologies, you ought to have at least a definition of those ideologies that makes them different from any other idelogy.

Before you can discuss the difference between things, first you need to be upfront about what you are trying to achieve and what your values are.

Why are some differences important? Why are other differences unimportant? Why do you like some ideologies and dislike others?

How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?

This is a trick-question. If I attempt to answer any of your questions, ie. "How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?" we will eventually end up with you questioning ethics and morality, since you'd probably say something like "Morality is subjective" - which it is, since no moral values have any intrinsic value.

If you want an example of a truly evil ideology, I think Marxist-Leninist communism is about as bad as it get. In the 100 years between 1900 and 2000 , Marxist - Leninist communism was the leading ideological cause of death. In China, for example, between 1958 and 1962, Mao Zedong's communist "Cultural Revolution" murdered some 45 million Chinese peasants, most of whom were starved, worked or beaten to death. In the Soviet Union, the communist government ultimately killed somewhere around 61 million of its own people, many of them worked and starved to death in the regime's notorious "Gulag Archipelago", while in Cambodia the communist despot, Pol Pot, brutally tortured and murdered over 2 million Cambodian men, women and children in just 3 years between 1975 and 1978. When all of the 20th century's communist government and quasi-governments are taken into account it is impossible to say, exactly, how many innocent human beings were killed , but we know the figure is somewhere above 120 million. This easily trumps the number of persons who were murdered by the ideology of Fascism in the same period, which was roughly 28 million. So, it seems clear that in terms of political ideology the left is far more evil and murderous than the right.

Regard

Dachshund

[henry quirk]

Dachshund:

[SpheresOfBalance]

Why do evil right wing fascists always win elections - if not now, then in the near future?

* Trump getting voted in office.
* Turkish Erdogan voted by the general turkish population in- and outside of Turkey, to become a dictator.
* Hungary's Orban abolishing several democratic institutions and principles in a EU-country.
* British vote to first leave EU, then re-electing the Tories and win no-confidence vote.
* Italy's openly Fascist-parties with veneration for Mussolini, getting in office.
* AFD-party becoming the largest opposition party in Germany - threatening to topple the current government in the near future.
* Sweden Democrats becoming the largest opposition party in Sweden, threatening tot topple the current government in the near future.

What is it with Right Wing Fascism that makes it so much more popular than say left-wing liberalism?

Or to put it in another saying:

Why do evil people always win in this god-forsaken world?

Remember that Hitler, Mussolini and Franco enjoyed enourmous popularity even after WW2.
Several polls were made in the years 1946-1960 showing that Hitler enjoyed support from 50+ % of the German population.

I

No wonder why fascism persists even to this day. But I do wonder, why is Fascism so popular?

Well I certainly see that he now and has always wanted to be a dictator. I see that he's known no real pain, been silver spoon fed, so his selfishness is at an all time high, but then most capitalists are the same twisted animal. Except for Warren Buffet, he seems to be one that understands those with less, even though he had some benefits as a son of a congressman, he's pretty much self made. And one of the only rich men I really respect.

Trump on the other hand, I've never really given any respect, his track record speaks for itself. His show, the apprentice, really showed him for the self-centered fool he is.

In the very beginning I told a board member here, that he'd be remembered as the worst president ever, and he's right on course with my prediction. Since the beginning of president performance being scrutinized from the popular perspective, his has been the worst ever. The boy is a self fellating moron, which is why the majority of the time his lips are pursed like an O! A testament to how many times he's performed the autoerotic act. Note the size of his pursed O, the reason for the over compensation!
NOTE: Some psychology and understanding metaphor is required for understanding the previous bit!

He shall not survive for a second term, as his only appeal has been for the truly more ignorant of our society, so the statistics have shown. And in fact every day those misguided people are ever being educated as to what he really is, not what they foolishly believed. For a rich man to use poorer people with no regard for their welfare as pawns, he's done many times before, and shall be his final undoing. I'm just surprised that so many people somehow believed that a man that's only ever served himself, (YOUR FIRED), for so many years, would actually change and care for them instead. It's amazing that there are so many stupid people in America! Or should I instead give them the benefit of doubt and call them ignorant? That would be kinder wouldn't it?

OK, so now I'll step down from the podium and give my trump bashing a rest. I mean because of determinism he can't help the fact that he's a self-centered twit now can he? It's not his fault he's an imbecile. It was the comfort he afforded as the son of a very rich man that spoiled him. He knew of no real pain, silver spoon between pursed lips, so why should be be judged as empty of any real worldly intellect? It was the environment that made the boy. Lets stop kicking a dead horse!

The only real question is why is a 'no account,' a president of anything other than his own twisted sense of self interest! Let's let the boy go back to fellating himself in private, his public display is utterly humiliating!

Later, my friends of truly worldly/universal intellect! PEACE!

[philosopher]

Believe and don't believe? You mean you like those things and dislike those things?

I am sure that you like/dislike all of those things. But that is hardly ever the question with politics - is it?

Do you like or dislike all of those things more than having food and a stable economy?
Because that was on most voters' minds in those years. Liberty and social security? Pffft - luxuries!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperinfl ... r_Republic

Food and a stable economy is only provided through Liberty and Social Security. It is the Liberty and Social Security combined that makes it possible for you to have a stable economy and get food.

Btw. the life of a slave is worth nothing. I'd rather be dead, than become a slave.

Social Security with Unconditional Basic Income is therefore essential for life, liberty and the pursue of happiness.

[Logik]

Food and a stable economy is only provided through Liberty and Social Security.

ONLY? That's a big word...

Btw. the life of a slave is worth nothing. I'd rather be dead, than become a slave.

I am sure. But IF you were already a slave - I am sure you'd rather become free than dead.

Social Security with Unconditional Basic Income is therefore essential for life, liberty and the pursue of happiness.

And where do you get the money for Unconditional Basic Income from ?

The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. --Margaret Thatcher

[philosopher]

Before you can discuss the difference between things, first you need to be upfront about what you are trying to achieve and what your values are.

Why are some differences important? Why are other differences unimportant? Why do you like some ideologies and dislike others?

How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?

This is a trick-question. If I attempt to answer any of your questions, ie. "How do you decide which is a 'better' and which is a 'worse' ideology?" we will eventually end up with you questioning ethics and morality, since you'd probably say something like "Morality is subjective" - which it is, since no moral values have any intrinsic value.

If you want an example of a truly evil ideology, I think Marxist-Leninist communism is about as bad as it get. In the 100 years between 1900 and 2000 , Marxist - Leninist communism was the leading ideological cause of death. In China, for example, between 1958 and 1962, Mao Zedong's communist "Cultural Revolution" murdered some 45 million Chinese peasants, most of whom were starved, worked or beaten to death. In the Soviet Union, the communist government ultimately killed somewhere around 61 million of its own people, many of them worked and starved to death in the regime's notorious "Gulag Archipelago", while in Cambodia the communist despot, Pol Pot, brutally tortured and murdered over 2 million Cambodian men, women and children in just 3 years between 1975 and 1978. When all of the 20th century's communist government and quasi-governments are taken into account it is impossible to say, exactly, how many innocent human beings were killed , but we know the figure is somewhere above 120 million. This easily trumps the number of persons who were murdered by the ideology of Fascism in the same period, which was roughly 28 million. So, it seems clear that in terms of political ideology the left is far more evil and murderous than the right.

Regard

Dachshund

That 120 million people died during "communism" and only 28 million people died during Fascism, is because Fascism wasn't allowed to live for long enough time.

They allowed so-called "communist"-regimes (who's policies were essentially equal to Fascism) more time to develop and didn't interfere enough. U.S. did in Vietnam, but that's about it.

You have two evil ideologies, which are essentially the same, fighting one another over minor differences. The Leninist-Stalinist-version of so-called "communism" won over Fascism.

Give Fascism more time, and you'd see more death. But frankly speaking, I prefer my own death to living under any of those regimes.

[philosopher]

I am sure. But IF you were already a slave - I am sure you'd rather become free than dead.

Sure. But slaves got no choice. It's either stay a slave, or commit suicide. And any attempts of the latter, is severely punished.

And where do you get the money for Unconditional Basic Income from ?

It is all explained in the link.
https://basicincome.org/basic-income/faq/

[Logik]

It is all explained in the link.
https://basicincome.org/basic-income/faq/

No it isn't. There's a lot of fluff. Lots of detail on how often and who will get it.

No clarity on where the money comes from.