Latest birther nonesense-The State of Obama's wee wee

Started by WhoopeeDee6 pages

Birthers maybe silly...but I like their conspiracies...that's only because I'm a nutjob for conspiracy stuff.

LaRouche was a Stalinist in the 60's and 70's and became a fascist in the 80's. He always tries to run on the democratic ticket and the local parties never have it. He's also been linked to repeated acts of violence and intimidation against both the left and the right, especially student groups. I believe he did quite a bit of jail time in the 90's for that and tax evasion.
Fred Phelps ran as a democrat too.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
LaRouche was a Stalinist in the 60's and 70's and became a fascist in the 80's. He always tries to run on the democratic ticket and the local parties never have it. He's also been linked to repeated acts of violence and intimidation against both the left and the right, especially student groups. I believe he did quite a bit of jail time in the 90's for that and tax evasion.

indeed, there does seem to be a lot in the nationalism, racial, re: American, rhetoric that is reminiscent of the Palin crowd from 2008

I honestly believe the far left is as into fascism as the far right, though much less honest about it. I'm sure there are elements of it that motivate the extremes in both groups, but ya, hardly any mention of its ties to the GOP. One would have to jump from the capitalist control to modern Randian style economics, a jump LaRouche didn't necessarily make himself. at least, if I read the philosophy correctly.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Fred Phelps ran as a democrat too.

wow

I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

Of course they can. Nazi party was National Socialist.

The American left isn't particularly close to the ideological left.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course they can. Nazi party was National Socialist.

That's what they called themselves but their ideology wasn't socialist.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Of course they can. Nazi party was National Socialist.

And the Kmere Rouge was Democratic Kampuchea. It's just words, there was nothing socialist about the Nazis.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's what they called themselves but their ideology wasn't socialist.

And Stalin called himself communist but his ideology wasn't. He was a dictator and Russia was a dictatorship.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
And the Kmere Rouge was Democratic Kampuchea. It's just words, there was nothing socialist about the Nazis.

Then this below post is rubbish, since Stalin's leadership had no connection to communism at any level other than 'words'.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

The main difference that I'm getting at is that Stalinism is an autocratic system in which a one party state controls the means of production in a planned economy. In fascism, a one party state colludes with large corporations who control the means of production within a market economy. In one, hierarchy is primarily based on wealth and family, in the other, hierarchy is based interparty connections and bureaucratic office.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
I think you mean Stalinist or Communist. By definition, the left can't be fascist.

/shrug

walks, talks, quacks...

Originally posted by inimalist
/shrug

walks, talks, quacks...

Anarchy/Marxism, Facism/Communism. I'd say you're both correct in a sense, the farther ones moves toward the extreme left the closer you get to the extreme right (and obviously the more you move center the more similar you get). Both sides have inherent similarities.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The main difference that I'm getting at is that Stalinism is an autocratic system in which a one party state controls the means of production in a planned economy. In fascism, a one party state colludes with large corporations who control the means of production within a market economy. In one, hierarchy is primarily based on wealth and family, in the other, hierarchy is based interparty connections and bureaucratic office.

And I don't dispute that. But Stalinism and communism are completely different.
He used the name communism but was a dictator - so one cannot claim that left cannot be fascist and at the same time claim that Stalin was a communist.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anarchy/Marxism, Facism/Communism. .

That is a gross simplification of very complex ideologies, which are not akin to each other.

I still consider communism a far left, oppressive, tyrannical system. I don't think of Stalin, but I do think of Pol Pot who came closest to communism.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Anarchy/Marxism, Facism/Communism. I'd say you're both correct in a sense, the farther ones moves toward the extreme left the closer you get to the extreme right (and obviously the more you move center the more similar you get). Both sides have inherent similarities.

fair enough

however, there are far right anarchists

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

however, there are far right anarchists

The idea of a far right anarchists hurt my head. 🤪

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Individualist_anarchism

Originally posted by inimalist
fair enough

however, there are far right anarchists

From this site I almost have a hard time believing their are far left anarchists.

so do I 😛