«12. . .296297298299300301302. . .1,0951,096»
Welcome to the region.
There is no such thing as left-wing fascism really.The Whole Idea of Fascism was to transcend the traditional left-right axis.Fascism is a wholly new conception, something else entirely.
If you're more aligned to the left but don't forsake all the Ideas of Fascism, it would be more proper for you to call yourself as "proto or semi-Fascist".There's so much misunderstanding about fascism, people who call themselves left-wing fascists don't help much.
Here may be a shocker for you, but Fascist Italy didn't have any death camps at all, ever.If there were any traitors of the state, they were simply shot.
Unlike Hitler or Stalin, Mussolini wasn't very big on committing genocide.The only time Mussolini was responsible for any jew deaths, was during 1938-1943 when Italy had implemented racial laws, which were mainly only for jews, who were deported to germany to be killed.It should be noted that Mussolini did this because he wanted to be on the good side of Hitler, who would in turn help the Italian state.You may debate to the end of your life as to who was worse, Hitler or Stalin but Mussolini shouldn't be brought into this.He was a fine man who along with the philosopher Giovanni Gentile, came up with a solution to the exploitative forces of Free-market Capitalism and the degenerative forces of Radical Leftism.
Let us not forget that a lot of your "political prisoners" were simply innocent people who were either thought to be guilty by the highly delirious Stalin, or were innocent people who were simply being forced to labor with an excuse.That's right, During the Industrialization period in the USSR, Police were given orders to arrest a certain number of people within a year or so, whether they were innocent or not.A man walking the streets could have been taken to a working camp on a whim.
And what about all those five year plans after Stalin ? Spoiler; They weren't very succesful.
I wish to budge in here respectively to share my thoughts on these topics.
The Human Species has advanced the last century technologically more than any other period of history. We went from horse drawn carriage and cavalry charges to cars and airstrikes. We understand more about space than the depths of our own ocean. It is very astounding how far we've come from the Great War to the moon landing only fifty years later. However, trying to contact extraterrestrials can invite something way worse than anything in our history books. I believe that we should make contact, but it should also be imperative that we be prepared for whatever finds us. "Prepared" meaning to build an interstellar military fleet to protect us or whatever we can conjure up. We are vulnerable and weak and thus prone to invasion from possible alien empires like Soomaaylia mentioned. At the very least we could put up a fight as opposed to our land, naval, and aerial forces immediately subdued such as depicted in the Half-Life universe.
Colonization though many decades far away is inevitable, we shouldn't try to halt such progress. But by the time colonization is ready and perfected many other nations will have entered the space race, inviting conflict between said nations in order to colonize certain planets or certain locations on planets.
Overtime as colonization evolved I'm sure national identities would disappear as entire planets become colonized by diverse peoples whom would forge their new interstellar identities as one in their new home world. But do not be worried, nationalism would only evolve as it seeks to incentivize pride, loyalty, and devotion to your people. Whether your people live on a planet far far away or right here on Earth does not matter as long as you follow nationalism's core beliefs as I just mentioned. Though the name may change to suit such a future. The ideologies of Nationalism and Fascism were built to ascend the stars and beyond!
Atsuria and Arabian reich
Post by Holy city samara suppressed by 
Atsuria.
First:Its completely irrelevant where those people in Gulags innocent or not.Sacrifice was to be made for fast industrialisation of USSR and slow compromises where not option .If it was up to previous Tsar ,or some Bolshevik leaders ,Russia would modernise in mid-1950 but with Stalin in mid-1930 we could see that his policies ,while harsh,where benefiting state and preservation of state is what matters .Whole eastern and Eurasian philosophy can be based on rejection of yourself (your sacrifice not just physical but moral as well)and working for preserving Idea .Here is answer why materialist Marxism turned into idealism ,if not mysticism and pseudo-religion.So this deaths in Gulags only preserved survival of many others who will continue preserving trinity of Leader,Idea and Nation.That is also why internationalist communism was replaced with Eurasian Bolshevism.Even Mussolini admired Stalin ,seeing his policies as "Slavic fascism". But he was wrong,it was beyond petty pan-Slavism .It was about Eurasian culture that absorb any ideology and turn it into something new ,with new characteristics.
Second:I completely agree that left-right spectrum is totally irrelevant in modern times and fascism can be looked from left just as Bolshevism can be looked from right (A.Dugin is best authority on this ,I highly recommend to read his work "Metaphysic of National Bolshevism). I am sorry for bad description of my ideology but I am was not quite sure you are familiar with terms such as Eurasian Bolshevism or National Bolshevism as ideological concept.I would glady try to explain it in this short formula: National Bolshevism is super ideology common for all enemies of open society.National Bolshevism is trying to achieve union between any ideologies that oppose center role of individual ,materialism or rationalism ,no matter are those ideologies left or right .I still hope I will fit in this region as I support and fight for traditionalism ,nationalism (but not ethno-nationalism but wider pan-cultural nationalism )and more populist ,wider controlled state.Mussolini's early stages of fascism where good and only mistake (sadly his grave mistake)was to cooperate with Kind and capitalists ,who are with their endless greed for money real enemy.
Third:After death of Stalin ,oligarchic and unpopular leaders took place completely destroying Eurasian path of USSR and if USSR kept Stalinism (or better ,fully evolved into Eurasianism)we would see it today.I think Warsaw pact and Eastern block is far better alternative to today modern liberal Europe.
I've heard it both ways, to be honest.
Either way, my statement still stands. It's hypocrisy at it's finest.
I think you're in the wrong region, friend. No fascist in his right mind would support a lunatic like Stalin. There were no "political prisoners" in the USSR, Stalin was a paranoid psychopath who even admitted after his wife died that he lost the ability to feel for another human being. Millions of civilians and soldiers alike died on the Eastern Front as Stalin sent them aimlessly to their deaths. His son was sent to a concentration camp and he didn't even care, he even ridiculed him when he failed to commit suicide.
Your admiration for the villainy of Stalinism is pretty horrendous to be honest. The ends don't justify the means. If violence can be avoided in order to achieve the same outcome, then that should always be the preferred option. Violence is a last resort, as it should be.
Hitler was a psychopath and a Nazi, Nazism is not fascism in it's base form but a unique twisting of the ideology that incorporates aspects of both socialism and fascism as well as the idea of a Germanic master race. Stalin was a psychopath, and Stalinism is nothing more State Socialism for psychopaths. Mussolini never had death camps, you know. Death camps are for psychopaths, and he was not one. He had to cave in to pressure from Hitler to send him Italian Jews to ensure the support of the Wehrmacht against the Allies. Fascism failed in Europe because it tried to spread too quickly, and because it made enemies out of potential friends and chose it's friends poorly.
Next you'll try and tell me that Pol Pot had the right idea.
Then it wouldn't have mattered to you if you had been one of those innocents, hmm ?
I'm understand National Bolshevism perfectly.It aims to fuse together Nationalism and bolshevism.Since Bolshevism is just a synonym for Marxism, National Bolshevism simply equals "Non-Internationalist Marxism".
Since you were so kind to tell us where you stand on this matter, I shall extend kindness on my part also and I shall wish you a happy future with your Marxist buddies.
Banhammer activating in 5..4..3..2..1..
I could smell the Red on him as soon as he identified himself as a "left-wing fascist".
It's depressing seeing people so deep in denial...
Atsuria, Arabian reich, and Neu tyrol
I could smell it as soon as he said 'left-wing'. Fitting that idiot like him are banned. Except....
If my eyes don't deceive me, I'm pretty sure he's in the Communist Bloc.
Interestingly enough, rather than try his scheme or even try to make amends, he apparently forgoes his 'left-wing Fascist' story and moves straight to a fully Communist region.
Communists are so damn stupid when it comes to actually knowing how Fascism works. They're so blinded by their ideals and the 'means to the end', that they don't actually plan a way for people to commit to Communism. And apparently, it's 'I-N-T-E-R-N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L' or something.
Radical leftism is indeed Internationalist, one key reason why we're at odds with it. (and also why you keep hearing them shouting "workers of the world unite" etc... )
Now, I know there might be a bit confusion over all these radical leftist Ideologies, so let me help out :-)
Socialism: An Ideology born during the years of the industrial revolution to counter the poor conditions of the workers.Socialism is centered on common and collective ownership, internationalism, free association and state ownership.
Marxism: Was based on Socialism and included the core aspects of it, except state ownership as the goal was to establish the communist society through the proletarian revolution.Marxism claimed that classes were an artificial creation for the capitalists to oppress the workers.Marxist theory included the notion that the lower classes would develop a "class consciousness" which would act as a driving force for them to rise up and establish socialism.The socialist state's function is to alter the state of human material conditions in such a way that communism can function. The socialist state then "withers away," leading to the end of political power in any centralized form – including nation states, as communism as envisioned by Marx, is to be an international system. Equally important is the disappearance of social class distinctions, which goes hand in hand with the end of political power:
Bolshevism: Synonym for Marxism (The Russian name for it)
Maoism: Marxism in practice, The difference is that Marxism focuses on the urban workers while Maoism focuses on the peasant or farming population. Marxism believes in an economically strong state that is industrialized. Maoism does not give value to industrialization or technology.
Leninism: Marxism in practice.Marxism was only a philosophical theory.The Difference between Leninism and Marxism lies in that in Leninism, instead of workers leading the revolution, the vanguard would consist of intellectuals.Also, Leninist theory claims that the class consciousness was not given proper birth due to Imperialism
Leninism-Marxism: if Marxism is the philosophical theory, then Leninism-Marxism is the Ideology that combines thought from both Leninism and Marxism.
They're all the same h*it me in the end.
There hasn't ever been a communist country.As Marx envisioned, the communist society was supposed to be classless, wageless and stateless.The Communist society would have been achieved through a bloody revolution, in which the proletarian vanguard would lead the masses through the transitional period to communism.In that transitional period, the nation would be led by a proletarian dictature.
The Communist society is really just retarded utopian hocuspocus.The Idea was that instead of money people would be given wares "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs" Firstly, How does one precisely determine one's needs and capabilities ? Who's to stop the people from lying about their capabilities in order to get an easy life or lying about their needs in order to get more ? We would need police to monitor the distribution but it's very likely that the police will themselves become the new "upper class" , effectively nullifying the entire Idea about a "classless" society.
Secondly, removing classes is the greatest mistake someone can do.Classes are a real thing that are born through humans inner need for hierarchy.
Stanford university made a study on this >
As our Stanford colleagues Deb Gruenfeld and Lara Tiedens show in a detailed review of research on hierarchy, although the forms it takes vary wildly, it is impossible to find groups or organizations where all members have roughly equal status and power. Whether researchers study people, dogs, or baboons, hierarchies are evident after just minutes of observation. And when strangers meet for the first time, a hierarchy of leaders and followers begins to emerge immediately. This rapid development of pecking orders is seen, for example, in groups of college students who meet in psychology experiments and when strangers start chatting on the street corner — leaders, followers and other signs of status differences nearly always emerge (along with more subtle roles such as “joker,” “hero” and even “scapegoat”).
Social classes exist for a reason.Removing them is an impossibility and one that shouldn't even be tried.Classes give stability to society, if all were equal, then everyone would not have a right to control the other, and therefore society collapses. Secondly, there is social mobility. Those who do work hard can move up the ladder, thus giving incentives to archive higher and therefore making society progress. With no class, these incentives would not exist.
The only possible disadvantage can be easily countered by proper actions.If and When State supports the poorer side of society then even they have the possibility to move up and pay their debt later.
Communism Fails ! Simple as that.
Also, When the people at the USSR asked why they were lead by an authoritarian party and why money wasn't abolished, the party came up with an excuse that the "transitional period" was not over and that they were living an age of "Developed socialism". All the so called "communist" states of the cold-war era were basically just socialism+party dictatorship.The Communist party of the USSR never had any true motivation to change over to communism, because they enjoyed staying in power and having their privileges.The Party was the only TRUE means to rise up the social ladder and to do so you had to kiss their *ss and spy on your neighbors.The nation was kept divided and the people were kept at each other's throats in order to maintain the party's hegemony.
Happy new years, all.
P0rtvgal, Atsuria, Branburg, and Ityoppya-soomaaliya
My issue of GameInformer says 2016 hit an all-time low for the Gaming Industry - Like you said, a lot of artists and famous people died. Ironically, the American democratic system which is held so sacrosanct caused so much uproar and hatred due to Trump's win. I'm too young to remember a time when people were satisfied with their candidate.
Need I mention Feminism?
I should mention;
Socialism itself isn't really "radical" unlike the others on the list, which call for a revolution but I mentioned it because it acts as the "basis" so it's good to know what it entails.
Thank you, likewise.
Just wait until VR-gaming becomes more common.R.I.P Consoles and PC.
hmmm, maybe in the future everyone just spends their life in the virtualworld.Real-life is so dull and restricted anyways.
I don't see the appeal of VR-gaming, personally.
Not much of a gamer in general, though. Really more of my wife's thing, but I might play with her sometimes.
Erdoğan's lust for power and wet dreams of a resurgence of the old Turkish empires continues to drive him away from his friends it seems, as now even Daesh has turned against him and he has responded in kind.
He has now isolated himself by provoking the U.S., the E.U., Putin, al-Assad, and now Daesh. It seems he's going the Imperial Japan route, and if he continues to go down this road I'm sure we can either Friendly Green Men to show up in Istanbul or Pro-U.S. rebels to mysteriously appear out of thin air outside Ankara. Once again Erdoğan proves his foolishness by isolating Turkey to the point that it's possible E.U. membership has pretty much all but been forgotten, and it's membership in NATO could very well be in question soon.
When will Washington realize Erdoğan has become a liability and either have him removed or let Russia remove him for them? Perhaps they're too afraid that in the chaos Putin will turn Turkey into the next Korea? Either way, the Turks are back and once again nobody is on their side.
Indeed, VR is still in infancy, personally as a PC and Console gamer, this 'VR will conquer all' is pretty crap. PC gaming is known for it's domination of the industry, while Console gaming is known for it's controllers and online capability.
VR isn't going anywhere anytime soon- combined with Palmer's TIME magazine cover, in the world and eyes of non-gamers, VR will just be another nerdy invention designed for nerds.
Atsuria and Ityoppya-soomaaliya
Why are Reds sending us embassy requests?
I guess the liberals were right, Trump's presidency really has brought about the end of the world after all...
Perhaps they are just curious in our ideology and want to know more?
I don't know why they would bother.Maybe just for the lulz ?
In that case it would be better to send a polite telegram or learn about it from inside our region.That is assuming that there are reds who are willing to learn more about fascism than just the crap "fascism is a crime etc.." what their leadership tells them.
I'm not calling you a liar, but I'd really like to see a source that Trump created 8,000 new jobs for Americans before he's even taken office yet.
I don't want to dislike Trump since he's going to be leading my country in a few days, but I have a very low opinion of him so I'm hesitant to believe he can do anything but screw up. I would not mind being proven wrong, however. I wouldn't mind Trump so much if he wasn't such a stereotypical capitalist and Republican. Doesn't help that he made Pence his running mate (though I suspect that may have been to deter possible assassination attempts).
«12. . .296297298299300301302. . .1,0951,096»
Advertisement
