A democratically elected member of the Eurpoean Parliament was today physically assaulted by anti-democractic fascist extreamists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm
Discuss.
Printable View
A democratically elected member of the Eurpoean Parliament was today physically assaulted by anti-democractic fascist extreamists.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8091605.stm
Discuss.
To say that expressing your political opinion in form of egg-throwing is physical assault, is exaggeration.
To claim who's Fascist and who's not you have to
1./ define the characteristics of Fascism
2./ assign those characteristics to said person / movement / party with an utmost certainty that leaves no doubt it is a coincidence and not similarity
I'd bet 1,000 USD that no one in this thread will ever tackle these tasks.
Last time I looked hitting someone was an assault.
As for the merits of socialism/fascism. Two cheeks of the same arse.
So who decides what can be said and by whom?
Socialism and Fascism are different principles.
Don't distort what Socialism is.
Meh, throwing eggs is part of liberal democracy, politicians have to live with that.
You meant communism, I presume.Quote:
As for the merits of socialism/fascism.
Some peeps need to look at the history books.
Eggs, Shoes; same thing really.
Also, just because they are against the policies of a democraticly elected memeber of the European parliament, does not mean that they are in themselves against democracy. You can be in favour of democracy and against the policies of a party enough to lead to such actions. That guy who threw the egg at Prescott, was he a fascist? If I - as a democratically elected student officer of the music society is attacked by a competing music society on differences of viewpooint, does it make the other person a fascist?
I think it is the fact BNP hates anything other than white is which is why they are labelled as fascist.
Protesting is fine, assault is not. As distasteful as I find the BNP, for our democracy to be a democracy they unfortunately have to be granted the same rights as any other party. That includes being free from assault.
Certainly. Especially people who mix up socialism with fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
You could start by opening one yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I take you didn't bother looking then.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
An uncomfortable truth. Facism is the bastard child of the left. They are still left wing, look at the social policies. About as far away from the free arket as you could get.
Unlike socialist they only pick on certain sections of society, not all sections. Equally of course.
So what you mean is that Fascism is Keynesian. Keynesianism is not Socialism by any means - Socialism is the centralisation of the modes of production in the hands of the working class. Fascists believed in state intervention for the benefit of Corporations - every Fascist regime in history has had Corporatist structures within it.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Further, Socialism is built around the use of trade unions - Fascism had always destroyed unions and replaced them with state-run organisations.
He is probably in the opinion Stalin is actually a Communist as depicted in the Communist Manifesto.
In short - He isn't.
The same argument I've been making for at least 6 months in the Backroom. I'll get sick of repeating myself one day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
You think Stalin is a fascist? I would remind you, before you answer, that there is more than one variant of communism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Stalin was a Stalinist. Funny how these terms already exist, init?Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Hey guys. Try typng Benito into google. He was the author of the fascists after all. It's amazing how much you pick up from not reading history, isn't it?
There ya go. Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic. Allow them their say and let the audience decide the merit of their ideology.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I foretold it in the first reply, lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Aw'some, so the people who revolted in France in 1789 against tyranny were fascists.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
And what is Stalinism? A variant of communism (or an interpretation of it, etc). I don't see your point with defining Stalin as Stalinist though. Is Marxism not a form of communism because it is Marxism?Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
That's the best you can do? I told you so!
Very sad.
Well how many of them were then executed by their fellow revoltees?Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Its not like saying one is revolting for democracy makes one not a facist. Heck the most famous facists have quite happily played the democratic game.
Mussolini was indeed a former Socialist, however the nationalistic bastardisation he offered was thoroughly unsocialist. And to show I do know what I'm talking about I'm actually going to quote from *shock and horror* an historian. This is from Robert Paxton in "The Anatomy of Fascism", one of the most complete studies of the formation and policies of Fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
pp. 145-147:
In no domain did the proposals of early fascism differ more from what fascist regimes did in practice than in economc policy. This was the area where both fascist leaders conceded the most to their conervatiuve allies.I can't be bothered to type any more right now, but rest assured I know what I am talking about and the facts are on my side.
[...]
Fascism was not the first choice of most businessmen, but most of them preferred it to the alternatives that seemed likely in the special conditions of 1922 and 1933 - socialism or a dysfunctional market system. [...] Mussolini's famous corporatist economic organization, in particular, was run in practice by leading businessmen."
Peter Hayes puts it succinctly: the Nazi regime and business had "converging by not identical interests." Areas of agreement included disciplining workers, lucrative armaments contrats, and job-creation stimuli. Important areas of conflict involved government economic controls, limits on trade and the high cost of autarky
[...]
Fascists had to do something about the welfare state. In Germany, the welfare experiments of the Weimar Republic had proved too expensive after the Depression struck in 1929. The Nazis trimmed them and perverted them by racial forms of exclusion. But neither fascist reime tried to dismantle the welfare state (as mere reactionaries might have done).
I know it can be a challenge, but try to stay on topic here. You are implying it is acceptable for those who are politically opposed to the BNP to use violence and the threat of violence to deny them the right to express their views. Do you feel the BNP has that same right to violently suppress the views of others?Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Thanks for that CA. It doesn't matter how many apologists you roll out though does it? The founder of fascism was a socialist.
You can dress it up like a christmas tree on the 24th december but that fact just wont go away will it?
Put it this way sunshine, he was hardly a tory, was he?
It is clear you have no interest in a serious argument, nor a leg to stand on.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Neo-Liberal economics hadn't been invented yet, so no, no he wasn't. Was he a Socialist? No. His actions prove that.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
No, you are not going to escape from explaining your statement: "There ya go. Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic." I pointed out a random example that counters the validity of your statement. But I could point out a thousand other random examples from history where violence or the threat of violence was used in politics. Sure, you haven't read The Prince, do you? Are you implying Machiavelli was the ideologue of fascism? Try to realize your statement was false, and violence or threat of violence existed long before Fascism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hosakawa Tito
And if egg throwing is violence, pushing a cake in someone's face is attempted murder. I'm not saying it's a good thing, actually it's quite ridiculous.
Assault - a crime of violence against a person.Quote:
Originally Posted by PowerWizard
Violence - the expression of physical force against self or other.
Definitions from Wiki.
Egg throwing is, if not violence, completely unacceptable. Thing is though, it is violence. Pushing a cake into the face of an individual is also violence, but an egg is far more likely to cause physical harm.
No he wasn't , the founder of fascism was someone who had rejected socialism.Quote:
The founder of fascism was a socialist.
Jesus was a fascist then.Quote:
There ya go. Violence or the threat of violence is a fascist tactic.