Politics Aussie Fascists and (neo)Nazis

[EasternTiger]

Yes - and one of those threats is dickheads waving Nazi flags pretending to represent what it means to be “Australian”.

Unfortunately you’re one of the people who makes me think their view of “Australian” is more widely shared than anyone wants to admit.

I'm an immigrant from the balkans. The white people you are raging against called me a greasy wog and told me to go back to my country.

I can tell you we've improved dramatically since the 80's. Australia is probably the most tolerant country you could wish to live in.

The aggressive regressives you're a part of seem hell bent on dividing us again.

Organised racist groups have been around our entire history, and they will be around after we're both long gone.

Celebrate the tremendous work Australia has done to bring us all together and keep working on improving areas that are still deficient.

Not helping the cause with this 'You're a NAZI!' crap. You're driving us all nuts.

 

[Chief]

he spends his spare time playing with miniature soldiers and trawling through the internet to index white supremacy sites and qanon

Come at me, Nazis!

 

[EagleMan87]

It was the right wingers who defeated the Nazis. Such ignorance. The nazis who as anyone with an iq north of 80 knows were socialists.
They of course signed the molotov ribbentrop pact. It was the Tories who stood alone in Europe against them.

These threads are pathetic, a barely existent issue that attracts posters with zero clues on history and politics.

How about you merge all this nonsense in to one mega thread where you and all your co conspirators can bang on about the zombie nazi menace.

You're saying that right wingers defeated the Nazis, who were left wing?

I agree that WWII UK was right wing, absolutely no argument there.

Nazi Germany was socialist? Do socialists select groups of people to exterminate like the Nazis did? And I'm not even talking about after they invaded the USSR, when they had *justification*; the order to start euthanising the mentally impaired was authorised almost as soon as the war did. https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/euthanasia-program

If your claim that Nazi Germany was socialist has to do with controlling means of production? Then the USA was almost as strict even before war began; does that make them a socialist government? Or is it that circumstances dictated policy?

Lastly, I seriously doubt that you're saying that the USSR were right wing; at the end of the day, they contributed the most to defeating Nazi Germany, as attested by any contemporary Allied military specialist without an axe to grind.

 

[Malifice]

If your claim that Nazi Germany was socialist has to do with controlling means of production?

Controlling the means of production does not make a State left (or right) wing.

It's what they do with that control that determines that fact.

If they use it to attempt to abolish inequality, they're left wing. If they use it to (as the Germans did) persecute ethnic and religious minorities, women, homosexuals, the disabled and so forth they're right wing.

 

[medusala]

Nazi Germany was socialist? Do socialists select groups of people to exterminate like the Nazis did?

see stalin and Chechens. See Bolsheviks vs mensheviks. See pol Pot. See Hitler vs Rohm. see Pol Pot.

blah blah.

 

[medusala]

Controlling the means of production does not make a State left (or right) wing.

Complete and utter FAIL. Try clause iv.

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.[3]

 

[EagleMan87]

Controlling the means of production does not make a State left (or right) wing.

It's what they do with that control that determines that fact.

If they use it to attempt to abolish inequality, they're left wing. If they use it to (as the Germans did) persecute ethnic and religious minorities, women, homosexuals, the disabled and so forth they're right wing.

I'm talking purely economics here;

see stalin and Chechens. See Bolsheviks vs mensheviks. See pol Pot. See Hitler vs Rohm. see Pol Pot.

blah blah.

That makes them authoritative, not socialist.

 

[medusala]

That makes them authoritative, not socialist.

Examples quote were all the examples of the granite left, even by the set who refuse to believe Hitler was a socialist.

Try and name some "right wing" dictatorships. Could probably grant you three or four but a struggle after that.

 

[EagleMan87]

Examples quote were all the examples of the granite left, even by the set who refuse to believe Hitler was a socialist.

Try and name some "right wing" dictatorships. Could probably grant you three or four but a struggle after that.

Aren't we just arguing semantics? What makes an authoritative 'democracy' right wing or left wing? How long has it been since China was communist?

I'd say that Brazil and Russia are prime examples of the authoritative capitalist government, but it's almost impossible to label them nowadays.

 

[medusala]

Aren't we just arguing semantics?

No. See Hayek, Von Mises, Adam Smith etc

 

[Malifice]

Complete and utter FAIL.

Im aware that you're failing miserably, but it's fun to watch you look like an utter goose.

 

[Malifice]

Try and name some "right wing" dictatorships.

Franco, Hitler, Mussolini and so forth.

Left wing politics is not defined as 'control of the means of production' you goose. Left wing politics is defined as opposing hierarchies in society, as opposed to right wing politics which promotes those hierarchies.

Its just that many left wing people see the best way of achieving equality and smashing established hierarchies is via obtaining control of the means of production.

Let me just be clear on this - you're saying that (in your view) if I became Dictator of Australia, had the State seize control of the means of production, and then proceeded to enact a genocide and persecutions of ethnic and religious minorities, homosexuals, women and the disabled... while promoting the interests of white, Anglo, wealthy, hetero 'Aussies' I would be 'Left wing'.

If (on the other hand) I adopted a strictly Capitalist economy, and instead legislated to protect the interests of women, homosexuals, ethnic and religious minorities and the disabled (at the expense of white, Anglo, hetero. wealthy 'Aussies') I would be 'Right wing'.

Thats your argument is it?

 

[Scotland]

Love a good Nazi thread. Nazis bad therefore right wing bad. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong... left wing OK. Yeah, checks out.

National Socialist German Worker's Party (Nazi Party)
Russian Social Democratic Labor Party (Became the Communist Party of the Soviet Union)
Communist Party of Kampuchea
Communist Part of China

I'd be steering clear of any party with socialist or communist in its name. Recipe for millions of deaths!

 

[Malifice]

Aren't we just arguing semantics? What makes an authoritative 'democracy' right wing or left wing?

Left wing: Seeks to remove social hierarchies, generally by promoting the interests of the poor, ethnic and religious minorities, LGBTI and women.
Right wing: Seeks to advance social hierarchies, generally by persecuting the poor, ethnic and religious, minorities, LGBTI and women.

Economics has nothing to do with it. We're talking politics here, not economics.

Right wing people will advocate for dismantling racial discrimination laws, bans on 'non white' immigration, oppose LGBTI initiatives like Safe Schools, reject social welfare initiatives for the poor and workplace labor laws, and promote women in traditional roles and tax cuts for the wealthy (at the low end) moving up at the Far Right to calls to actively round up 'non whites', homosexuals and the disabled and send them to the gas chambers at the upper end.

Left wing people will advocate for more protection for ethnic and religious minorities, support immigration and LGBTI initiatives, support social welfare and labor laws, and advocate for increasing women in positions of authority via affirmative action programs. They'll also call for increased taxes for the wealthy. At the high end of the Far Left (full blown Communism) they'll support rounding up the wealthy and deporting them to gulags.

They're political positions, not economic ones.

 

[Malifice]

I'd be steering clear of any party with socialist or communist in its name. Recipe for millions of deaths!

As a liberal I wholly agree. Control of the means of production invariably leads to a tyranny. Left wing socialist States target the wealthy by sending them off to gulags or the killing fields. Right wing socialist States target the disadvantaged and minorities by shipping them off to the gas chambers.

 

[Malifice]

I'm talking purely economics here;

You cant be left wing economics or right wing economics. Left/ Right wing are political positions, not economic ones.

Plenty of politically right wing parties advocate for socialist economics (State control of the means of production), and equally more than a few left wing political parties advocate for capitalist economics (private ownership of the means of production).

 

[Malifice]

Economics dictates how the State gets it resources (cash etc). Does it exclusively control the means of production itself or does it rely on a private market based economy, and generate revenue via taxation, or a combination of both?

Politics is what the State uses those resources for. It's a totally different kettle of fish.

Regardless of if its a market based economy, or a socialist based one, you need to look at the actual social policies the State enacts (and who they favor) to determine if its 'left' or 'right' wing.

Hitler used a mixed socialist central economy to enact his far right wing social policies and laws. Stalin used a fully socialist one to enact his far left wing social policies and laws.

Meds' problem is he conflates 'economics' with 'politics' as if they're the same thing.

 

[Scotland]

As a liberal I wholly agree. Control of the means of production invariably leads to a tyranny. Left wing socialist States target the wealthy by sending them off to gulags or the killing fields. Right wing socialist States target the disadvantaged and minorities by shipping them off to the gas chambers.

Left wing socialist States target people based on race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation etc. Let's not pretend otherwise.

Economics dictates how the State gets it resources (cash etc). Does it exclusively control the means of production itself or does it rely on a private market based economy, and generate revenue via taxation, or a combination of both?

Politics is what the State uses those resources for. It's a totally different kettle of fish.

Disconnecting politics and economics is, um, interesting. Applying that logic if ScoMo nationalises all industry in Australia and starts ethnic cleansing he's a right winger, but if he privatises all healthcare and prisons but legalises abortion and decriminalises a bunch of s**t he's a leftie?

 

[Malifice]

Left wing socialist States target people based on race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation etc. Let's not pretend otherwise.

They seek to (forcibly) create equality. Generally at the expense of the educated and wealthy.

Disconnecting politics and economics is, um, interesting. Applying that logic if ScoMo nationalises all industry in Australia and starts ethnic cleansing he's a right winger, but if he privatises all healthcare and prisons but legalises abortion and decriminalises a bunch of sh*t he's a leftie?

Yes, of course.

Assume I totally seize control of the means of production in Australia as part of a unitary party dictatorship.

If I then use that total power to implement political reforms and control based on something left of the Greens platform, and to abolish hierarchies by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, I'm Left wing.

If I instead use that total power and control to implement political reforms that ban non white immigration, deport non-white criminals, sterilize disabled people, disenfranchise women, and massacre ethnic and religious minorities, I'm far right wing.

Left wing people want to abolish hierarchies. Many see socialist economics as the means to accomplish this. But a fair few people on the Right also desire socialist economics (and control of the means of production) so they can implement Far Right wing political goals and policies.

Fascists and Nazis fall into that later category.

Economics is defined as 'the social science that studies how people interact with value; in particular, the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.'

Politics is defined as: 'The set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations between individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status.'

They're not the same thing, although they are closely intertwined, and most if not all political positions, parties and theories will advocate for a particular economic model (usually socialism, capitalism or mixed) to better further the political positions goals.

Meds conflates the two all the time.

 

[Leeda]

Left wing socialist States target people based on race, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation etc. Let's not pretend otherwise.



Disconnecting politics and economics is, um, interesting. Applying that logic if ScoMo nationalises all industry in Australia and starts ethnic cleansing he's a right winger, but if he privatises all healthcare and prisons but legalises abortion and decriminalises a bunch of sh*t he's a leftie?

that's the dichotomy of the world we live in today.. it stacks up like nothing else and achieves nothing but potty mouths and potty head...

So we should all achieve something like a short hand measure so that these and us are going to write a new story..
at least that is what it should look like..

yeah and my children are all spectacular..

 

[Chief]

the set who refuse to believe Hitler was a socialist

This is 99.99999% of the population of the world.

The "Hitler was a socialist" is a fringe theory not supported by evidence.

 

[EagleMan87]

You cant be left wing economics or right wing economics. Left/ Right wing are political positions, not economic ones.

Plenty of politically right wing parties advocate for socialist economics (State control of the means of production), and equally more than a few left wing political parties advocate for capitalist economics (private ownership of the means of production).

You must be the only intelligent person who thinks that economics are separate from politics. I'm assuming you mean authoritative/libertarian when you mention right/left?

Have you done the political compass btw?

https://www.politicalcompass.org/

 

[Twoslabs]

Just my 2c worth it's not just 40 idiots in the Grampians.

To get to that point you need to be vetted over a period of time.

The modern far right groups use a similar method to OMCG's first you talk, then you get to hang around and finally you'll be admitted to the inner sanctum.

You can't just email Blood & Honour and get to go to the ISD Memorial Concert that weekend, it takes time and this is the very thing that intelligence agencies will find as their biggest stumbling block.

Also as well as the "40 "it's other groups that have "similar" beliefs e.g. no coincidence that the ISD memorial has been held at social clubs of a certain Balkan nationality a few times.

Had to laugh at the metal article Chief posted where it referred to the pub that became overrun with Nazis, it only happened as Gary the old publican of the Birmingham on Smith St shared their beliefs.

 

[Chief]

Twoslabs please hang around and share. I’m just a tourist learning about the various subcultures in the fascist-o-sphere.

 

[Malifice]

You must be the only intelligent person who thinks that economics are separate from politics.

They are separate concepts. Corelated for sure, but separate.