a lack of a willingness to understand people with extreme and dissenting ideologies is only, in the end, a motivation for them to continue their existence. alienation and death threats will give them reason to form a persecution complex and victimize themselves when their ideology calls for the victimization of others.
the justice system is responsible for sending the message that discrimination and hate crimes are unacceptable in a society, not the public, not armed 'vigilantes'.
no one should be killed for their opinions no matter how bad they are
[QUOTE=bunguer;42729139]Saying these guys are subhuman and deserve to die for their political ideologies it's exactly the kind of stunt the nazis pulled when dealing with jews. Fight ideologies with education and reasoning, not with hate.[/QUOTE]
it's nothing compared to what the nazi's pulled with the jews. nazi's wanted to exterminate all jews because of their racial and religious differences.
[editline]2nd November 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Judas;42729736]no one should be killed for their opinions no matter how bad they are[/QUOTE]
i agree but when it comes to fascists when do you say enough is enough? this is a group that has infiltrated police forces and murdered a popular leftist figure. personally i don't think the situations far gone enough to warrant murder and all that, but i mean, fascists are no good. you can say that's just an opinion but when you get down to it fascists are no good
[editline]2nd November 2013[/editline]
like the way i figure it, if there is an actual chance that fascists are gonna take over a country i don't see much wrong with taking dire measures to stop that. but as i said i don't think the situations that bad yet so i don't think these killings (especially when it seems it was just at random younger members not even leadership) were good or served much of a purpose
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42729752]it's nothing compared to what the nazi's pulled with the jews. nazi's wanted to exterminate all jews because of their racial and religious differences.
[editline]2nd November 2013[/editline]
i agree but when it comes to fascists when do you say enough is enough? this is a group that has infiltrated police forces and murdered a popular leftist figure. personally i don't think the situations far gone enough to warrant murder and all that, but i mean, fascists are no good. you can say that's just an opinion but when you get down to it fascists are no good
[editline]2nd November 2013[/editline]
like the way i figure it, if there is an actual chance that fascists are gonna take over a country i don't see much wrong with taking dire measures to stop that. but as i said i don't think the situations that bad yet so i don't think these killings (especially when it seems it was just at random younger members not even leadership) were good or served much of a purpose[/QUOTE]
i wonder if this resurgence in fascism is a result of greece's economic problems.
that's how fascism became popular in germany and italy back in the 30's.
[QUOTE=joes33431;42729942]i wonder if this resurgence in fascism is a result of greece's economic problems.
that's how fascism became popular in germany and italy back in the 30's.[/QUOTE]
yeah no doubt, that's one of their main rhetorics is that all the money and jobs are going towards immigrants
[QUOTE=sltungle;42727500]Y'know, I beg to differ to be honest. I hate this whole attitude of, "we have to treat everyone with repsect and dignity no matter what their beliefs are."[/QUOTE]
then you dont believe in egalitarianism lol
those of us on the left who believe in egalitarianism and human solidarity reject that view.
i like how indignant you're getting over saying that you dont respect people haha "i dont fucking care!!" rofl
[QUOTE=joes33431;42729942]i wonder if this resurgence in fascism is a result of greece's economic problems.
that's how fascism became popular in germany and italy back in the 30's.[/QUOTE]
it is, fascism is essentially the right-wing answer to any massive crisis in the status quo(don't blame the rich, blame/kill those filthy poors/immigrants), much like hardcore communists and anarchists are the left-wing(blame/kill the rich) one.
A Pox on both their houses. That said, I'm more concerned about what this means for Greek Democracy than it does about either party responsible. The victims were scum, but that doesn't mean that people shooting each other over politics is a good state of affairs to have in a free society. For the same reason we did not gun down the Nazi trash that goosestepped through Skokie.
I just hope civil society's strong enough tod eal with both of them.
[QUOTE=Wizards Court;42730175]it is, fascism is essentially the right-wing answer to any massive crisis in the status quo(don't blame the rich, blame/kill those filthy poors/immigrants), much like hardcore communists and anarchists are the left-wing(blame/kill the rich) one.[/QUOTE]
This is the canned, stereotypical analysis of Fascism I tend to see from people who have never dealt with it firsthand. And who have especially not bothered reading the drivel of Hitler or Mussolini or seeing their actions. Considering my family suffered harassment from Il Dunce's fanclub in the Italian-American community because they decided to speak out about it, and I've bothered to study their tripe like I have the communists, I'd like to differ.
Firstly, the idea that Fascism is always or even generally in support of the status quo is BUNK. I know this personally because we have family records- and other ones- detailing how the inner parties were preaching for a coup, revolution, or some sort of overthrow over here to try and take advantage of the Great Depression. But beyond even that, the Blackshirts and Nazis both started as paramilitary groups that were trying to overthrow the status quo (even when dominated by other fellow right-wingers(?question mark I'll get to later)).
Even when they were in power they generally did not support the status quo. Mussolini and Hitler no sooner won control of their countries before they started torturing and molding them into their vision of an ideal society domestically and seeking to use them to conquer territories abroad. This was the entire reason for the Second World War, after all.
And secondly, the idea that they did not blame the rich is ludicrous. They made alliances with many, many likeminded or at least cooperative rich, yes (up to the fact that both the Fascist Party and the NSDAP were bankrolled during their "wilderness years" by reactionary industrialists, or at least those who saw them as the only option against their shared enemies).
However, that did not stop them from taking pot shots at the rich or positioning themselves as a workers' movement, and in fact the Nazis actually fought a long and difficult fight for control of the ultra-nationalist militias against the old Imperial military aristocracy and many of the same industrialists that would later fund them. On top of going up against the middle-class Social Dem militias trying to defend the constitution and republic against the Communists, Fascists, and old Absolutists.
And finally, the idea that Fascism as inherently right-wing is something I might go along with in casual conversation (particularly since I find it helps a lot), but It's nowhere near uniformly true and I'm not even sure it is particularly true at all. Yes, the big names certainly made many alliances with right-wing thugs (the old Kaiserreich fanboys and the shallow facade of the constitutional monarchy at home, people like Franco and Horthy abroad, etc), and was certainly at least aped by plenty of others, like most Latin American dictators. Yes, plenty of organizations that call themselves Fascist certainly are right wing. And certainly Hitler and Mussolini were not on the far left wing of their party and the former certainly purged the living heck out of the one in his party in the Night of the Long Knives.
That being said, that was not what Mussolini at least intended, since he planned to create a "third way" between -and combining elements of- Capitalism and Communism, which was something that was echoed by Hitler (though less strongly, since Hitler was not one of the fastest minds in his own party). The common denominator was always ultranationalism rather than Left or Right (much less status quo). Mussolini's previous record prior to the Fascist party shows that. Ditto when the Italian government kicked him out in 1943 his RSI took a very hard turn to the Left (even going so far as to claim that without the need to make a deal with the Monarchy like they had in the past, he would be able to bring Fascism back to its' roots), and movements like the Roehmites. Who outright advocated the obliteration of the old social order in Germany (and who *hated* the alliance with the rich, the military aristocracy, and other reactionaries) and a communist-flavored mass revolution.
As well as other groups like Strasseriteism and the Black Front that spawned out of it.
So I am sorry, but whatever the heck you're talking about, it isn't Fascism as one of the Blackshirted or Brownshirted thugs (or their opponents) would have recognized it. If anything, what you're describing is closer to one of their equally bad rivals-slash-bedfellows like the Bismarckeans, and it looks like you're just using this as some sloppy, half-arsed way to score contemporary political points.
But honestly, you're going too far for even that. I can tolerate trying to score points, but not to this degree.
In order to kill the beast, you first have to know what it is like.
You are not helping anybody by sprouting this off without doing the research, and considering what the ideological cousins of the Golden Dawn did to this world and my family that is something I can't abide by. The Greeks will already need all the help they can get to outlast the Golden Dawn, SYRIZA, and their own debt problems without those problems being misdiagnosed.
well id say fascism is right-wing because it stresses the social order and almost always calls for the reactionary return to a previous ideal. fascism is not conservative by any means, but revolution isn't by itself the antithesis of right-wing.
this is only tho if you support the old french viewpoint of left and right wing. the left supported the removal of social hierarchies and social inequality, the right viewed them as necessary, normal, or beneficial
[editline]1st November 2013[/editline]
in american politics this is non-sense as both the republicans and democrats are centrist conservatives.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42730385]well id say fascism is right-wing because it stresses the social order and almost always calls for the reactionary return to a previous ideal. fascism is not conservative by any means, but revolution isn't by itself the antithesis of right-wing.
this is only tho if you support the old french viewpoint of left and right wing. the left supported the removal of social hierarchies and social inequality, the right viewed them as necessary, normal, or beneficial
[editline]1st November 2013[/editline]
in american politics this is non-sense as both the republicans and democrats are centrist conservatives.[/QUOTE]
I just want to say that while I might disagree with some of this in the details, I can definitely think it makes sense, and it's a reasonable diagnosis of what these vermin are about.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42730385]well id say fascism is right-wing because it stresses the social order and almost always calls for the reactionary return to a previous ideal. fascism is not conservative by any means, but revolution isn't by itself the antithesis of right-wing.
this is only tho if you support the old french viewpoint of left and right wing. the left supported the removal of social hierarchies and social inequality, the right viewed them as necessary, normal, or beneficial
[editline]1st November 2013[/editline]
in american politics this is non-sense as both the republicans and democrats are centrist conservatives.[/QUOTE]
this is an outdated view of left-right politics because it could arguably leave lenin a rightist(or at least a "temporary rightist"). fascism traditionally eschews left-right economic politics with a "third way" that sort of mixes leftism and rightism into a weird monstrosity.
it doesn't do justice to fascism to say they are right-wing because it misses the point of what fascism is: the advancement and superiority of the state and hierarchy over any individual.
i tend to like the 2-dimensional political compass better than a 1-dimensional left-right model since it more adequately differentiates between anarchists, marxists, and socialists. it also better differentiates between "right" libertarians, american conservatives, and fascists.
depending on what side of the marxist playhouse you sit on you could easily call lenin a right-winger as trotsky himself implied several times.
[QUOTE=thisispain;42730618]depending on what side of the marxist playhouse you sit on you could easily call lenin a right-winger as trotsky himself implied several times.[/QUOTE]
yea and this makes analysis of ideologies and important political figures...confusing, to say the least. more confusing then it has to be, i think.
I tend to feel strongly about killing people for their beliefs in general, so here's my two cents: There's nothing wrong in having a sit down and talking to with those folks about the stuff they believe to be the right way of living/right ideological viewpoint. Everybody is entitled to have their own viewpoint on a particular matter, and everybody else has the right to agree or disagree with the same as their mindset goes. We've seen enough examples of this to know that it doesn't benefit anybody when mass killings of a certain group take place - see also the Inquisition, the Jewish pogroms at the time of the Black Death, the killings of jews, gypsies, the sick, those with mental retardation/incurable illness, etc. in Nazi death camps, and so forth.
You can't go around dehumanizing people entirely, despite my strong feelings about killers and murderers. But if anything, there is such a thing as a line that nobody should cross, and there is also such a thing as too much consideration to be given to some. It's a simple truth, neither more nor less. It isn't up to the individual, nor do I support vigilantism to any great degree, since it is capable of as much or more harm than good. But why does vigilantism emerge? it comes out because people think that authority figures can't or won't help them even if they use due legal process, much less get any real justice in said process. Can't blame them for thinking on those lines either, because say it however you want to, our 'justice' systems are completely fucked. The amount of 'justice' you get is in any case proportionate to the size of your pocketbook, so might makes right has become pretty viable these days.
Also, people may or may not be willing to see the truth of things even if you point it out in exact terms to them, no matter how well-intentioned or well-founded (or both) arguments you bring in, because it fundamentally attacks their core belief systems. They may respond defensively because once you strip them of their false or misguided beliefs, they have nothing left to hold on to from who they once were/are at present. Look at poor Galileo, he got excommunicated and branded a heretic by the pope because the law of heliocentricity was against the church's teachings, more specifically, it contradicted Genesis.
People usually want something to believe in, and belief is a strange thing. You can preach that the world is flat to a number of people, and if they want to believe it despite evidence to the contrary, they will. Ideologies are no different. None of them are perfect, and it'll be a long time before we find any that even come close. With the world as it is now though, good luck seeing that happen.
it wasn't a majority that were for hitler or mussolini, it was a minority that gained enough traction to be able to overthrow everyone.
hitler's rise to power was actually a strategic error by the german government - they thought that putting hitler in as chairman would allow them to keep him in check while satisfying the needs of the fascists.
mussolini's supporters just sort of stormed the capital and were like 'give power to this man now'.
both of them suppressed dissenting opinion and banned opposing parties.
but still, those who did support them likely did so because they thought it was the best route for the nation to go.
Don't kill people.
That's the fucking moral. If you didn't already know that then fuck you.
i think killing should be the most extreme last resort, but it can't be something you just flat out say can never happen, because fascists don't give a shit about pacifism. it's like how gandhi said that the british should have used non-violence against the nazi's like he did against the british, but that wouldn't work against the nazi's because non-violence just means they have an easier time putting you into a gas chamber
[editline]2nd November 2013[/editline]
again though i don't think the situation in greece calls for such drastic measures!
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42730807]i think killing should be the most extreme last resort, but it can't be something you just flat out say can never happen, because fascists don't give a shit about pacifism. it's like how gandhi said that the british should have used non-violence against the nazi's like he did against the british, but that wouldn't work against the nazi's because non-violence just means they have an easier time putting you into a gas chamber
[editline]2nd November 2013[/editline]
again though i don't think the situation in greece calls for such drastic measures![/QUOTE]
murder apologist?
The posts in this thread are so dumb I feel dumber from reading them. Don't bother politicking in Sensationalist Headlines.
Go free! Close the tab and do anything else.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42730855]murder apologist?[/QUOTE]
if killing hitler would have been murder, if killing mussolini would have been murder, if killing franco would have been murder then yes i suppose i'm a murder apologist
[QUOTE=Explosions;42730855]murder apologist?[/QUOTE]
I think he's talking in general, not about this specific situation. What I think he's saying is that it's not gotten to a point yet at which murder is necessary but such a point DOES exist.
[QUOTE=sltungle;42730882]I think he's talking in general, not about this specific situation. What I think he's saying is that it's not gotten to a point yet at which murder is necessary but such a point DOES exist.[/QUOTE]
heck i literally said i think this was stupid because not only do i not believe the situation is dire enough to warrant it, they weren't even targeting leadership or anything like that just 2 random young members.
[URL="http://facepunch.com/forum.php"]Go free! Be released from the clutches of this terrible thread![/URL]
[QUOTE=BradB;42730895][URL="http://facepunch.com/forum.php"]Go free! Be released from the clutches of this terrible thread![/URL][/QUOTE]If you don't want to read this thread, then don't. You're still a member on Facepunch, so you're not exactly superior simply because you don't like this particular thread.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42729752]like the way i figure it, if there is an actual chance that fascists are gonna take over a country i don't see much wrong with taking dire measures to stop that.[/QUOTE]
So, a mass purge of any supporters, including police and military forces as well as government officials, by the populace?
I think the word you are looking for is Civil War.
[QUOTE=Lachz0r;42730880]if killing hitler would have been murder, if killing mussolini would have been murder, if killing franco would have been murder then yes i suppose i'm a murder apologist[/QUOTE]
Two random greek idiots probably aren't responsible for the death of millions of dissidents though.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;42731673]Being a monster is better than being dead, which is what is going to happen if you try to defeat a violent ideology with tolerance.[/QUOTE]
Nobody says you have to tolerate, damn it.
Trying to understand what makes an ideology tick and attacking the root of the problem (usually fear/disinformation) is a lot more important and effective than going "oh, they're just subhuman, kill 'em all!" which just breeds a persecution complex.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;42731887]If it makes the Golden Dawn more violent and aggressive as a result of their persecution complex then it'll be easier to justify using violence to suppress them, how's that a bad thing?[/QUOTE]
It's a bad thing because violence will spiral out of control, damn it.
The more you're persecuting the Golden Dawn, the more people will be like "whoa, dicks, that's unwarranted" and sympathise with the Golden Dawn.
Don't try to justify murdering someone for their beliefs, or else you should pop a bullet in your own skull unless you want to be a hypocrite.
You should convince people to leave the Golden Dawn, not horribly dehumanise them.
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;42732114]It's not about killing them for their beliefs, it's simply rational for an anarchist to use the most effective means to stop fascists getting into power, given their history of systematically killing anarchists.[/QUOTE]
But if you start systematically killing fascists, then aren't you the fascist?
[QUOTE=Judas;42729736]no one should be killed for their opinions no matter how bad they are[/QUOTE]
As a civilized intelligent people we have developed so many way to peacefully and harmlessly humiliate people with shitty opinions that outright killing them isn't even a good option anymore.
I mean why shoot someone in the face for being a nazi when you can just draw a rainbow dick ejaculating stars of david on their headquarters.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
