Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
e, as there are various degrees of such that can be applied to "strong man" gov't like Libya under Ghaddafi as opposed to China's former "gang of four". Capice'?Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
![]()
YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE FIRST SENTENCE (a moot point). The rest of your screed is pure revisionist "logic" on your part, as there is no "argument" based on the FACTS that Hitler and Stalin were buddies doing trade and such. Perhaps you should avail yourself to the history of WWI, then you would understand why there was a "non-aggression" pact signed by the 2 countries (that Hitler latter broke) by WW2. A similar situation with Mussolini (diplomatic relations by chancellors) that went out the window when Mussolini hooked up with Hitler by WWII.
Had you done your homework (paid attention in school), you would have noted that communist were on the hit list of fascist Germany and Italy. And what's truly laughable is your attempt to paint fascism as a "liberal" by pointing to such things as "public transportation" (it wasn't for free, don't cha know). Or public works programs (necessary for an economy near depression, similar to the latter WPA program in America), anti-tobacco (get educated on America's discovery of the tobacco industry lying about health hazards, the FDA & Nader).
Hell, our constitution is liberal at it's base....rights for all, freedom for all, on par legal protections, right to bear arms, etc. Yet we are a die hard DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC, not fascist or communist or even socialist to a large degree. Capitalism is America's supporting strut.
As for Hitler's & Mussolini's fascism: https://brill.com/view/journals/fasc...ml?language=en
Socialism, Communism, Capitalism .... they all share some rudimentary trait necessary to maintain a functioning society....HOW THEY DO SO in their entirety is a whole other smoke.
So bottom line: Capitalism does not automatically equal fascism or totalitarianism. Socialism does not automatically equal communism. Communism does not automatically equal totalitarianism per s
Maybe you should actually READ the links you post. That one on Brill, is all about German-Italian relations in the Hitler-Mussolini period with a discussion about racism tossed in. It has nothing to do with Italian-Russian (Soviet) relations.
As for the rest of your screed, it is nothing but a factless rehash of the same talking points you've previously made with no supporting evidence. It is nothing but a Definist fallacy where you expect everyone to simply agree that you are correct because that's the 'common wisdom' or some other nonsense.
1. I never implied that it did, genius. But if you're interested in that relationship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italo-Soviet_Pact Again, we see that fascist Italy and communist Russia were NOT solid allies by WWII, much less mutual arms dealing and trading. And as you'll note, Italy broke the pact.
Now I do wish you would GTFU and stop pretending that any documentation I present is "factless". That's your department, bozo. You keep vomiting up your revisionist clap trap and semi-ignorant ramblings about history and definitive terminology as if it's on par with valid, documented source material of history (hint: it isn't). That you enter the neologistic world of ITN with "definist fallacy" clearly renders any further attempt at rational, logical debate with you as pointless.
Conceding a point or admitting you're wrong on an anonymous format won't kill you, bunky. No one knows who your are in the real world, much less give a damn.
But do continue to carry water for the likes of Carlson, a trust fund kid with delusions of grandeur who uses you like a doormat. He LIES TO YOU YOU, ya blithering bumpkin! The Dominion court case PROVED that. That's why Murdoch gave him the heave-ho....he'd become a documented liability! Deal with it.
You're done here. Catch you on some other thread.
YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT THE FIRST SENTENCE (a moot point). The rest of your screed is pure revisionist "logic" on your part, as there is no "argument" based on the FACTS that Hitler and Stalin were buddies doing trade and such. Perhaps you should avail yourself to the history of WWI, then you would understand why there was a "non-aggression" pact signed by the 2 countries (that Hitler latter broke) by WW2. A similar situation with Mussolini (diplomatic relations by chancellors) that went out the window when Mussolini hooked up with Hitler by WWII.