Official "Intellectual Dork Web" Fanboi Containment Thread - Page 46 - Politics and Economics

Voters hadn't been "taught" anything about socialism. Stop making baseless claims.

Education then for the majority of people meant leaving school young with few if any qualifications and only rudimentary skills such as basic reading, writing and arithmetic.

But it's great hearing your version of my country's political and social history, thanks.

Very low education people get taught all the time about politics. By media and by politicians.

10-12-2018 , 11:15 AM

#1127

jalfrezi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 12,360

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

Very low education people get taught all the time about politics. By media and by politicians.

You're spouting nonsense and it's clear you know it. TV hadn't been invented and most people didn't even own a radio. The mass media have never supported the Labour Party and obviously left politicians were in a small minorty at that time.

Give it up.

10-12-2018 , 11:16 AM

#1128

Luciom

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalfrezi

Ye political rallies didn't exist, people didn't read newspapers. Check what happened with the daily mail at the time.

10-12-2018 , 11:18 AM

#1129

jalfrezi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 12,360

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

Ye political rallies didn't exist, people didn't read newspapers.

to your senses and stop this trolling.

Last edited by fxwacgesvrhdtf; 10-12-2018 at 12:01 PM. Reason: Removed request for a ban

10-12-2018 , 11:20 AM

#1130

Luciom

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalfrezi

You need a ban to bring you to your senses and stop this trolling.

Many students of the 1945 election believe that a key role was played by the Daily Mirror, then the biggest selling paper in Britain, and easily the most popular among the armed forces. On VE (Victory in Europe) Day, the Mirror published an immensely powerful cartoon by the brilliant Philip Zec. It showed a battered, bandaged Allied soldier holding out to the reader a slip of paper marked Victory and Peace in Europe. Under the drawing was the caption "Here you are! Don't lose it again."

The same cartoon was published on the Mirror's front page on the morning of the most remarkable general election of the 20th century. But when the result was announced on July 26 - three weeks after polling day to allow military postal votes to be counted - it was clear that postwar politics had changed utterly.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...past.education

(it was the daily mirror sorry, not the daily mail)

10-12-2018 , 11:25 AM

#1131

jalfrezi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 12,360

I thought your thesis is that people voted for pensions and an NHS because the country had become rich beyond its wildest dreams, not because of leftist propaganda by the mass media.

Or are you just making it up as you go along?

10-12-2018 , 11:27 AM

#1132

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

Had they been told that nazism stands for national-socialism and that mussolini was a socialist?

Why hadn't previous wars developed into a "desire for socialism", and not only ww1? why not the american civil war?

Mussolini was a fascist and the NSDAP wasn't a socialist party despite the name.

10-12-2018 , 11:28 AM

#1133

Luciom

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by jalfrezi

There are several contributory causes to every relevant societal event.

You are not intentioned to have a decent conversation if you write this, so i'll leave you to yourself.

10-12-2018 , 11:31 AM

#1134

Luciom

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

Mussolini was a fascist and the NSDAP wasn't a socialist party despite the name.

Fascism is just a kind of socialism, less totalitarian than full-socialism about the economy (but still far more statalist than liberal positions), with a little more focus on "national pride" than the usual socialist country (which tends to be very nationalistic anyway).

Mussolini nationalized banks. Liberal pro capitalism countries don't do that.

10-12-2018 , 11:32 AM

#1135

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Seeing you are fond of wiki

Quote:

Known as Il Duce ("The Leader"), Mussolini was the founder of Italian Fascism.[2][3][4] In 1912, Mussolini had been a leading member of the National Directorate of the Italian Socialist Party (PSI),[5] but was expelled from the PSI for advocating military intervention in World War I, in opposition to the party's stance on neutrality. Mussolini served in the Royal Italian Army during the war until he was wounded and discharged in 1917. Mussolini denounced the PSI, his views now centering on nationalism instead of socialism and later founded the fascist movement which came to oppose egalitarianism[6] and class conflict, instead advocating "revolutionary nationalism" transcending class lines.

Mussolini was a member of the PSI, got expelled and changed views drastically yet you try to insist on the relevance of his previous political commitment.

10-12-2018 , 11:33 AM

#1136

jalfrezi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 12,360

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

Mussolini nationalized banks. Liberal pro capitalism countries don't do that.

Oh really? That's strange. I thought that's exactly what happened post 2008.

10-12-2018 , 11:35 AM

#1137

Luciom

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

Seeing you are fond of wiki

Mussolini was a member of the PSI, got expelled and changed views drastically yet you try to insist on the relevance of his previous political commitment.

He changed views on the national/international axis of politics, not about the role of the state in the economy that is what we are talking about right now, aren't we?

I know it is extremely painful for people on the left to admit that mussolini and hitler economical policies are very close to what they always ask for. Still, they were, and you have to admit it.

That's why even years after the regime was installed, italian communist leader togliatti appealed to fascists as brothers against capitalism.

10-12-2018 , 11:36 AM

#1138

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

No it isn't and yes they do. Like the Bank of England was nationalised and despite multiple privatisation programs no one has privatised in since. Most liberal democracies have a publicly owned bank.

10-12-2018 , 11:37 AM

#1139

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

See you don't know what the people on the left are asking for because you never ask, you assume and because you're stupid you get it wrong.

10-12-2018 , 11:39 AM

#1140

Luciom

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 5,054

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

No it isn't and yes they do. Like the Bank of England was nationalised and despite multiple privatisation programs no one has privatised in since. Most liberal democracies have a publicly owned bank.

I am talking about most banks, not one central bank being publicly-owned.

Liberal democracies don't take the biggest X banks and nationalize them. Socialists do. And mussolini did it.

10-12-2018 , 11:44 AM

#1141

jalfrezi

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 12,360

The point is that only nationalism (with racism an inevitable part of that) really matters in the fascist playbook - everything else is a tactic to achieve the end result (the greater glorification of the nation and leader). If that means adopting socialist ideas of nationalisation when control is needed, it doesn't contradict their "philosophy" because they don't have one.

10-12-2018 , 01:27 PM

#1142

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Luciom

I am talking about most banks, not one central bank being publicly-owned.

Liberal democracies don't take the biggest X banks and nationalize them. Socialists do. And mussolini did it.

The bank of England was literally nationalised in 1946.

Mussolini came to power on the back of the kings decision to give power to the fascists rather than the socialists. Again your determination to equate socialism and fascism is nonsense. They had literally been killing each other after WW1.

10-12-2018 , 02:33 PM

#1143

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,783

<-- card-carrying member of the Gnarly Left

10-12-2018 , 02:35 PM

#1144

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,783

x-post:

If this sounds like some of my bull**** I've repeated ITF it's because I wrote it,

Quote:

The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as an alternative to both international socialism and free market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concept of class conflict, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organization.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

and it survived the Great Editing Wars on that page largely intact.

The 'talk' page is pretty amazing. There have been waves of zerg-rushing Lucioms talking about 'nazism is far left because reasons' the past year getting struck down. They had to put up a FAQ:

Quote:

[Frequently asked questions (FAQ)

Why does this article say that the Nazis were right wing?[hide]

Because that is the consensus of reliable sources, in this case historians and political scientists.

But the word "socialist" is right in their name![hide]

The word "socialism" has different meanings in different contexts. The phrase "national socialist" as used by the Nazis referred to a nationalistic view that the German people should prosper at the expense of others, or more specifically, that the interests of the German people were the paramount concern of the party. The meaning of "socialist" was not "communal ownership of property" as it is generally used to mean today, but "of or pertaining to a society" in the more general sense.

I made an offhand comment about it and somebody just came along and deleted it! What should I do?[hide]

Nothing. See this discussion where the community came to a consensus that we have entertained the numerous questions and claims about the Nazis being left-wing enough, and that continued engagement with people pushing this line of reasoning is not helpful to the article.

That doesn't seem very fair. Don't Wikipedia policies require editors to assume good faith? What if somebody posts that position here with a really good argument?[hide]

See the following links, all of which are to discussions about this very question over time. If any novel argument exists, it has already been made, responded to and failed to convince anyone. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]

But what if I find a large number of very reliable sources all claiming that Nazism is left wing?[hide]

Then you will be more than welcome to show them to us, so that we can see that they are very reliable and that they assert that Nazism is a left wing ideology. If they are, then we will change the article.

10-12-2018 , 02:40 PM

#1145

well named

poorly undertitled

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 78,077

Have you considered being Wikipedia's Talk Page Anger Translator?

10-13-2018 , 10:13 PM

#1146

6ix

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Aug 2017 Posts: 4,783

Quote:

Originally Posted by well named

Have you considered being Wikipedia's Talk Page Anger Translator?

They need one, but the talk pages are kept tidy as well. Some of them have infinite patience almost to a fault.

"OK, 4083rd time's a charm: The Nazis were not leftists."