This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Left-Wing Extremists vs Reporter (London)

Galaxie501

15

So I found this. What gives?

[video="youtube;IEyBaBEQLM4"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEyBaBEQLM4[/video]

Reply 1

Galaxie501

OP

15

Original post by Mathemagicien

What do you mean, "what gives?"

These "anti-fascists" are simply anarchists, the scum of the Earth

How is it a surprise that they are a little aggressive?

This is nothing by anarchist standards

In some countries, e.g. Sweden, they are a lot worse - you have organised "anti-fascist" cells that go around breaking into peoples' houses, attack far-right marches in street brawls, and have killed quite a number of people

What gives = What do you think as far as im aware.

Yes, here we have the 20th century double standard at play. And it carried over to the 21st century...

Police are just sitting there doing nothing. Typical.

Reply 2

Joep95

19

She has been to the jungle in Calais and molenbeek yet the place she is attacked is in London

Reply 3

illegaltobepoor

19

If you ever come face to face with ANTIFA be prepared for physical violence because its the only thing they understand.

They will assault anyone of any age. Under 16? Yes Under 11? Yes. Over 50? Yes. Over 65? Yes.

Reply 4

SCIENCE :D

18

These people have nothing to do with the left, just scumbags.

Reply 5

Galaxie501

OP

15

Original post by SCIENCE :D

These people have nothing to do with the left, just scumbags.

Yeah right .... and ISIS has nothing to do with Islam and Nazis have nothing to do with Fascists....

Reply 6

SCIENCE :D

18

Original post by Galaxie501

Yeah right .... and ISIS has nothing to do with Islam and Nazis have nothing to do with Fascists....

I'm guessing this protest had something to do with Brexit? and because they stole the girls Union jack hat? If they were truly from the far-left then they would be supporting Brexit.

Reply 7

welshiee

1

Liberalism is the new fascism. You're allowed a voice until you say something they disagree with. Its clear to see why these liberal fascists love their EU overlords so much as they have so much in common.

Reply 8

welshiee

1

Original post by Mathemagicien

Fascism is anti-liberal, anti-communist and anti-conservative; it wants a regulated economy, and has a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. They don't sound at all like liberals

Just because liberals are authoritarian doesn't make them fascist. Fascists are very different from liberals, and throwing around the term 'fascist' for anything authoritarian is pretty silly

Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

It will open your eyes.

Reply 9

welshiee

1

Original post by Mathemagicien

I agree with a lot of what the book appears to be suggesting, but I don't think it justifies classing 'Liberal' Authoritarianism as fascism, it appears to be more of a globalist communism or something

Its blunt fascism and it just goes to show how a once socialist German workers party could quite easily become a Nazi Party. They have so much in common its incredible yet their heads are so far up their own asses that they cant see it.

Reply 10

Galaxie501

OP

15

Original post by welshiee

Please read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism

It will open your eyes.

Fascism is a highly complicated ideology. It borrows ideas from all branches of the political spectrum.

1) Limited free market with government intervention, yet semi-capitalistic in some cases.

2) Socially conservative but strongly atheistic and darwinistic. Government healthcare and population control were quite important. Overall socialist views.

3) Strongly scientific overall, but very pseudo-scientific in some cases in order to fit a political agenda.

4) Overall: very anti-libertarian (not to confuse with liberalism).

Fascism can only truely be classified as a left-wing ideology if you assume that Left-wing ideologies are by definition more authoritarian the further you go, while right-wing ideologies become more libertarian the further you go.

In reality however, authoritarianism occurs on both ends of the political spectrum the more extrem it gets. It is not limited to one end of the branch, which is why Fascism is the modern epithet for right-wing authoritarianism.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 11

Nathanielle

15

Original post by welshiee

Its blunt fascism and it just goes to show how a once socialist German workers party could quite easily become a Nazi Party. They have so much in common its incredible yet their heads are so far up their own asses that they cant see it.

Which once socialist working party do you mean? The NSDAP has allways been a Nazi-Party, that is waht Nazi means: National-Sozialist. The Socialist is more provoking, than linked to Socialism. There was no "once socialist workers party" in Germany, who became a Nazi-Party. Call you something, doesn't make you something and the NSDAP has no roots in the German socialist movement. (SPD,then USPD and MSPD, and so on...)

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 12

Nathanielle

15

Original post by Mathemagicien

The Nazis were quite socialist for their time

No, they were not. Socialist is not just the opposite of being a monarchist/elitist/establishment. Just because the Nazis did something for the "little men" makes them not a socialist party. And they did not consider themselves as such.

Why you might say, that Nationalsocialism took some ideas from the Socialism to make it his own, makes Nationalsocialism not Socialism. It is not a subcategory, but a mix without a really thoughtthrough theoretical foundation, thus it can only be described by calling it Nationalsocialism, not Socialism. Furthermore the parties calling themselves Socialist, have allways been enemies of the Nationalsocialists. (Widespread antisemitism aside, which can be found in any party in some sort.) Thus it would be totally misleading, counting the NSDAP to the socialist movement. NSDAP could rise, because the Socialist parties failed. No one would say, it was the NSDAP was the socialist party who come out on top. Also not the people living at that time. The NSDAP got supported by some old forces, because they were not seen as socialist. Most of their members fought on the non-socialist side during the revolution/civil-war time after WWI.

Though if you insist, you could talk of National Socialism vs. Marxist International Socialism. To just call it Socialism is to my current state of knowledge just wrong and misleading.