16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidHow much of that article did you read? In fact, how much have you read anywhere about fascism?
Abe Lincoln was a nationalist. Was he a fascist?
I suspect hardly anything. Nationalism is a necessary component of fascism but not a sufficient one. One must also oppose parliamentary democracy and classical liberalism (among other things) and that hardly fits Lincoln.
16 Oct 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidThis started because someone else claimed totalitarianism = fascism. He needs to realize that is not the case.
How much of that article did you read? In fact, how much have you read anywhere about fascism?
I suspect hardly anything. Nationalism is a necessary component of fascism but not a sufficient one. One must also oppose parliamentary democracy and classical liberalism (among other things) and that hardly fits Lincoln.
"Nationalism is a necessary component of fascism but not a sufficient one."
We are in agreement. Same thing with totalitarianism. A necessary component of fascism but not a sufficient one. There is no one thing that defines fascism. It takes several ingredients like a food recipe. One of those ingredients is being to the far right. Another is it has to be a capitalist country and a free market economy.
I was just making a point to someone else when you interjected. He wants people to believe Putin is a fascist. He didn't know left from right, so he then tried to convince me Putin was a right winger.
After the CIA was able to install Yeltsin in power of Russia they had their puppet make a transition to a free market economy. With deep corruption afflicting the process, the result was disastrous, with real GDP falling by more than 40% by 1999. This corrupt privatization processes turned over major state-owned firms to politically connected "oligarchs", which has left equity ownership highly concentrated.
When Russiaphobic people like Kev condemn the oligarchy in Russia to slander Russia it is really the USA that caused that to become the problem that it is today. It was the direct result of CIA election meddling. Lincoln was an extreme nationalist though. His war to preserve the union killed over half a million people. He made Milosevic seem like a saint with that body count.
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidThere was nothing "extreme" about preserving the Union rather than allowing a State based on slavery and its expansion gain control of the Southern portion of the United States with it intent on increasing its territory to the West and possibly into Mexico. The "extremists" were the ones firing on Fort Sumter; they started the war, not Lincoln.
This started because someone else claimed totalitarianism = fascism. He needs to realize that is not the case.
"Nationalism is a necessary component of fascism but not a sufficient one."
We are in agreement. Same thing with totalitarianism. A necessary component of fascism but not a sufficient one. There is no one thing that defines fascism. It takes several ingred ...[text shortened]... e union killed over half a million people. He made Milosevic seem like a saint with that body count.
Putin checks most of the boxes for "fascist".
16 Oct 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidFine, then there was nothing "extreme" about preserving the Union when Milosevic did it too.
There was nothing "extreme" about preserving the Union rather than allowing a State based on slavery and its expansion gain control of the Southern portion of the United States with it intent on increasing its territory to the West and possibly into Mexico. The "extremists" were the ones firing on Fort Sumter; they started the war, not Lincoln.
Putin checks most of the boxes for "fascist".
"Putin checks most of the boxes for "fascist"
We could check off the boxes for fascist all night with all sorts of people if you are bent on playing that silly game. You cannot even check off that many boxes with Putin. He is not a capitalist or for a free market economy. He is not a totalitarian. He is a leftist and not a right winger. He is not an extreme nationalist. If he was he would have invaded Ukraine right after the coup.
What boxes do you think you checked off? I think you just want to believe it. You don't have any reason to. You are calling the guy who is "denazifying" Ukraine a fascist like person. Do you know how absurd that sounds? Did Kev and viv brainwash you into extreme double think? That is something I would expect from them, not you.
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidFascism doesn't require laissez faire capitalism; neither Nazi Germany nor Fascist Italy were "capitalist" in a Milton Friedman type of way. The economic system is subservient to the State, which is revered.
Fine, then there was nothing "extreme" about preserving the Union when Milosevic did it too.
"Putin checks most of the boxes for "fascist"
We could check off the boxes for fascist all night with all sorts of people if you are bent on playing that silly game. You cannot even check off that many boxes with Putin. He is not a capitalist or for a free market economy. H ...[text shortened]... nd viv brainwash you into extreme double think? That is something I would expect from them, not you.
As for Putin:
"Nevertheless, most definitions of fascism would indicate a dictatorial system of government marked by nationalism, militarism, xenophobia, revisionism and expansionism. Putin’s Russia unquestionably ticks all of these boxes.
Russia completed its transition from authoritarianism to dictatorship following constitutional changes adopted in 2020 via a sham referendum that allowed Putin to remain in power until 2036. This confirmed his status as president for life and extinguished any lingering hopes regarding the possibility of Russia’s future democratic evolution. Since 2020, political opposition, independent media, and all forms of public protest have been subjected to new levels of suppression in Russia and ruthlessly crushed.
This process has accelerated in recent months as the Kremlin has sought to silence domestic opposition to the war in Ukraine. Draconian censorship laws have introduced criminal responsibility for any deviations from the official government narrative of a “special military operation” to “de-Nazify” Ukraine. Meanwhile, Putin’s speeches to justify the invasion have increasingly echoed the rhetoric of twentieth century fascist regimes. This has included calls for the purification of the nation and vicious denunciations of national traitors.
Throughout his reign, Putin has consistently mobilized toxic nationalism as a key building block of his dictatorship. This process began in the early days of Putin’s presidency when he brought back the Soviet national anthem. It has continued to gain momentum ever since.
Following Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution, the Kremlin embraced conservative nationalism as a safeguard against any similar pro-democracy uprisings inside Russia. This led to the formation of groups such as “Nashi,” a virulently nationalistic pro-Kremlin youth group that was widely compared to the Hitler Youth. In addition to the aforementioned victory cult surrounding WWII, Putin has also elevated the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in national life and promoted the idea of Russia as a “distinct civilization.”
The rampant nationalism of the Putin era has been accompanied by growing militarism fostered by everything from films and TV serials to public holidays and the national curriculum for Russian schoolchildren. The militaristic mood in the country has reflected the realities of Putin’s foreign policy, with Russia at war for much of his reign. Prior to the current full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the country had waged a series of wars in Chechnya, Georgia, eastern Ukraine and Syria."
"Putin’s revanchist foreign policy goals closely fit the fascism template and directly echo the revisionist agenda pursued by Adolf Hitler almost a century earlier. Like the Nazi leader before him, Putin has openly expressed his desire to challenge what he sees as the unjust verdict of a lost war. While Hitler sought to undo the Treaty of Versailles, Putin’s objective has been to reverse the outcome of the Cold War. Both dictators have framed their expansionist policies as sacred missions to rescue ethnic kinsfolk from artificial separation and foreign oppression.
Putin refers to the breakup of the USSR as “the disintegration of historical Russia” and seeks to reunite what he regards as Russia’s rightful inheritance. First and foremost, this means reconquering Ukraine. The Russian ruler has sought to justify his aggressive foreign policy by claiming that large parts of today’s Ukraine were erroneously attached to the country by Vladimir Lenin during the early years of the Soviet Union. In other words, the current invasion is merely the latest and most extreme expression of Putin’s long-stated expansionist aims."
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/how-putins-russia-embraced-fascism-while-preaching-anti-fascism/
Putin is a nationalist, a militarist with a disdain for liberal democracy. In combination, these are traits which define "fascism".
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidAs far as your Milosevic "whataboutism", there was nothing "extreme" about a policy to unite all Serbian ethnic areas into one nation after the fall of Yugoslavia. However, to the extent Milosevic supported War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity by forces attempting to achieve that goal (never fully adjudicated because of his death before his trial was completed), that would be "extreme".
Fine, then there was nothing "extreme" about preserving the Union when Milosevic did it too.
"Putin checks most of the boxes for "fascist"
We could check off the boxes for fascist all night with all sorts of people if you are bent on playing that silly game. You cannot even check off that many boxes with Putin. He is not a capitalist or for a free market economy. H ...[text shortened]... nd viv brainwash you into extreme double think? That is something I would expect from them, not you.
16 Oct 22
@no1marauder
Now you are attempting to move the goal post. I never said laissez faire capitalism and laissez faire capitalism does not exist much like communism does not exist. You created a non existent straw man. That is dishonest of you.
Most of the reasons you cited also apply to the USA. Russia is not a totalitarian state either and even if Putin is a dictator he is not a totalitarian. Dictators are common and Ukraine is a dictatorship installed by the Obama administration. Ukraine has a lot of neo nazis so Ukraine is much more like a fascist regime than Russia ever was.
Did you copy and paste most of that crap from a poorly researched opinion piece from someone who has no political science education? I'll bet you did. The USA is far more nationalist than Russia. Just look at the history of our secret colony, Haiti. Before FDR became POTUS he wrote Haiti's constitution to allow foreign ownership of Haitian land. After several puppet presidents they finally achieved democracy after only for GW Bush to invade and end that democracy. That is how you know Haiti is still a colony of the USA.
Ukraine is Russia's Haiti. They want their colony back.
16 Oct 22
1 edit
@no1marauder said"Milosevic supported War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity by forces attempting to achieve that goal "
As far as your Milosevic "whataboutism", there was nothing "extreme" about a policy to unite all Serbian ethnic areas into one nation after the fall of Yugoslavia. However, to the extent Milosevic supported War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity by forces attempting to achieve that goal (never fully adjudicated because of his death before his trial was completed), that would be "extreme".
Lincoln was worse. Milosevic knew that and as a lawyer he would have defended himself well and made the Hague look like the corrupt vipers nest it is. He knew nobody would defend him properly and would surely throw him under the bus because he was smart. He had no practical choice but to defend himself.
Milosevic was assassinated so he could not point out the hypocrisy by using Lincoln as an example. He would have made the Hague look like a sick joke. Milosevic was a saint compared to Lincoln. Civil wars are not civil. Read Axle Rose's lyrics to the song civil war.
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidDo you ever make any arguments but poorly reasoned "whataboutisms"?
@no1marauder
Now you are attempting to move the goal post. I never said laissez faire capitalism and laissez faire capitalism does not exist much like communism does not exist. You created a non existent straw man. That is dishonest of you.
Most of the reasons you cited also apply to the USA. Russia is not a totalitarian state either and even if Putin is a dictator he ...[text shortened]... know Haiti is still a colony of the USA.
Ukraine is Russia's Haiti. They want their colony back.
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidAnother nutty conspiracy theory.
"Milosevic supported War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity by forces attempting to achieve that goal "
Lincoln was worse. Milosevic knew that and as a lawyer he would have defended himself well and made the Hague look like the corrupt vipers nest it is. He knew nobody would defend him properly and would surely throw him under the bus because he was smart. He had no pr ...[text shortened]... saint compared to Lincoln. Civil wars are not civil. Read Axle Rose's lyrics to the song civil war.
Milosevic died of a heart attack, he was in his mid sixties, overweight and had been in poor health for years (a major cause of the delays in his trial).
If Lincoln wasn't our best and greatest President, then he was surely in the top 5. Only wacky Lost Causers make such absurd allegations as you though it's probably because of your extreme ignorance of history rather than ideological bias in your case.
16 Oct 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidHe was denied his heart medication, was being poisoned and denied him examination by Russian doctors. All of that was what Milosevic said and it was covered up or alleged to be a lie so they could pretend he didn't say it.
Another nutty conspiracy theory.
Milosevic died of a heart attack, he was in his mid sixties, overweight and had been in poor health for years (a major cause of the delays in his trial).
If Lincoln wasn't our best and greatest President, then he was surely in the top 5. Only wacky Lost Causers make such absurd allegations as you though it's probably because of your extreme ignorance of history rather than ideological bias in your case.
They could not have him expose what hypocrites they were. He was a saint compared to Lincoln. General Grant was a butcher of human beings. Worse than any of Milosevic's generals and Sherman was pretty horrible, but the winners write history.
https://georgeszamuely.substack.com/p/the-strange-death-of-slobodan-milosevic-811
16 Oct 22
@no1marauder saidIs that the only way you can justify being an apologist for hypocrisy?
Do you ever make any arguments but poorly reasoned "whataboutisms"?
Bush invaded Haiti and overthrew their first democracy so they could continue to exploit them. Somebody was going to raise the minimum wage there significantly. Bush could not have that, so he invaded and got rid of him.
That is extreme nationalism.
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidFYI, the Atlantic Council article I cited was written by Taras Kuzio who:
@no1marauder
Now you are attempting to move the goal post. I never said laissez faire capitalism and laissez faire capitalism does not exist much like communism does not exist. You created a non existent straw man. That is dishonest of you.
Most of the reasons you cited also apply to the USA. Russia is not a totalitarian state either and even if Putin is a dictator he ...[text shortened]... know Haiti is still a colony of the USA.
Ukraine is Russia's Haiti. They want their colony back.
" ..... received a BA in economics from the University of Sussex, an MA in Soviet studies from the University of London and holds a doctorate in political science from the University of Birmingham;" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taras_Kuzio
A bit different from your usual source materials.
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidI really don't know what you are talking about, but I haven't supported any US invasions since WWII.
Is that the only way you can justify being an apologist for hypocrisy?
Bush invaded Haiti and overthrew their first democracy so they could continue to exploit them. Somebody was going to raise the minimum wage there significantly. Bush could not have that, so he invaded and got rid of him.
That is extreme nationalism.
Clinton invaded Haiti in 1994, but Haiti was a military dictatorship that had overthrown an elected leader at the time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Uphold_Democracy
If one is talking about "hypocrisy", your defense of Russia's invasion of Ukraine while complaining of various US interventions would take the cake.
16 Oct 22
@metal-brain saidHe wasn't denied anything but his motion to go to Moscow for medical treatment: even your article concedes he was not denied the possibility of treatment by "Russian doctors":
He was denied his heart medication, was being poisoned and denied him examination by Russian doctors. All of that was what Milosevic said and it was covered up or alleged to be a lie so they could pretend he didn't say it.
They could not have him expose what hypocrites they were. He was a saint compared to Lincoln. General Grant was a butcher of human beings. Worse tha ...[text shortened]... write history.
https://georgeszamuely.substack.com/p/the-strange-death-of-slobodan-milosevic-811
"In this regard, the Trial Chamber accepts the submission of the Prosecution, that if the Accused wishes to be treated by specialists who are not from the Netherlands, such physicians may come here to treat him."
Your blogger must not be a lawyer (he's not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Szamuely): a motion to be released from prison for medical treatment to a foreign nation is an extraordinary remedy and the legal burden of showing its necessity is always on the prisoner.
There's zero evidence that Milosevic was "assassinated" and your article doesn't even make that claim.
As far as Szamuely's criticisms of US foreign policy, I am in general agreement with them.