Fascism in America

WinstonSmith

Even if this story turned out to be true, why should the US Immigration service take such offence to it?
Is America now so right-wing that it is considered a crime to have Communist political beliefs?

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/blog/article/234116/

Paul O'Grady has revealed that he was held by officials at a US airport because they thought he was a communist.

The TV presenter said he was taken aside for questioning at Miami airport by staff who made the assumption because of his 'funny' accent.

He was then held for two hours while an officer accused him of being an 'illegal alien' from Cuba.

He told listeners of his Radio 2 show: "How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"

He added: "I've been to hell, folks - it's called Miami airport."

The Channel 4 star was later released after the customs officials studied his passport and found no links with Cuba.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Are people held at other countries' airports because they are suspected of being a Capitalist? Can't reconcile myself with this opinion at all. What do others think? Is this behaviour justified?

Proper order. Hunt down the last few commies and the world will be a better place. And for that matter wish they detained him anyway.

dsmythy

So he wasn't stopped for being a communist at all. But because they thought he was an illegal from Cuba.

prinz

The day I take his word for anything will be a sad one. I think it's far more like his "two hour interrogation" was far more likely a two minute chat... "O you're coming from Cuba, was it business or pleasure". it made for lighthearted comical radio. Nothing in it whatsoever, except an attempt of self publicising.

What does this have to do with fascism?

Nodin

An illegal from Cuba whose been hiding from the sun all his life, with the most non-hispanic accent in all of Latin America.....which they can't cop on to in MIAMI......Ye'd wonder....

dvpower

Nodin wrote: »

An illegal from Cuba whose been hiding from the sun all his life, with the most non-hispanic accent in all of Latin America.....which they can't cop on to in MIAMI......Ye'd wonder....

But he's a master of disguise; up to a couple of years ago I thought he was a girl. :eek:

DoireNod

prinz wrote: »

The day I take his word for anything will be a sad one. I think it's far more like his "two hour interrogation" was far more likely a two minute chat... "O you're coming from Cuba, was it business or pleasure". it made for lighthearted comical radio. Nothing in it whatsoever, except an attempt of self publicising.

There are plenty other ways of self publicising. To make up an elaborate story like that isn't the best way, so I doubt that now.

What does this have to do with fascism?

Suspicion of 'communists' and the existence of a police-state? Sounds slightly fascist.

humanji

DoireNod wrote: »

There are plenty other ways of self publicising. To make up an elaborate story like that isn't the best way, so I doubt that now.


Suspicion of 'communists' and the existence of a police-state? Sounds slightly fascist.

But he was questioned about being Cuban, not communist, and someone being questioned by customs isn't exactly proof or even a slight indicaiton of a police state.

It's either a case of someone making a mountain out of a molehill, or an idiot customs officer.

prinz

DoireNod wrote: »

There are plenty other ways of self publicising. To make up an elaborate story like that isn't the best way, so I doubt that now.Suspicion of 'communists' and the existence of a police-state? Sounds slightly fascist.

Hardly elaborate. 'I was coming from Cuba and got questioned about being a communist'.........ooo how elaborate, genius even! He was probably in the customs queue wondering what he could talk about when he got back... hmmm... *looks around*

It's in his nature to blow everything ( and no that's not a pun ) out of proportion. I've had the misfortune to listen to him rabbiting on about one thing or another a few times.

dsmythy

DoireNod wrote: »

There are plenty other ways of self publicising. To make up an elaborate story like that isn't the best way, so I doubt that now.


Suspicion of 'communists' and the existence of a police-state? Sounds slightly fascist.

I think you'll find plenty of people suspicious of communism who are not exactly fascists...

ChocolateSauce

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Even if this story turned out to be true, why should the US Immigration service take such offence to it?
Is America now so right-wing that it is considered a crime to have Communist political beliefs?

Ever hear of the McCarthy era? Thousands persecuted and many arrested for simply being under suspicion of being a red.

jank

But but but, America is the land of the free and home of the brave...:pac:

yeah right

Sand

Some annoying guy was held up for an hour or two...

Drama queens go into hysterics about communism. Honestly, since Stalin died all you communist guys have become real pussies. Man the **** up.

grenache

I dont know whether to laugh at America or feel sorry for them. The authorities in Miami airport must not get out much. One would have to be highly stupid, not to mention stupendously ignorant, to even think Paul O'Grady was an illegal Cuban. Where do they get these people from?! :eek:

DoireNod

humanji wrote: »

But he was questioned about being Cuban, not communist, and someone being questioned by customs isn't exactly proof or even a slight indicaiton of a police state.

Some people might argue that it's removal of freedom; being held for 2 hours against your will, for something which is hard to justify, could be construed as sounding like the actions of a police state. Granted, 2 hours isn't much, but you get the point I hope.

prinz wrote: »

Hardly elaborate. 'I was coming from Cuba and got questioned about being a communist'.........ooo how elaborate, genius even! He was probably in the customs queue wondering what he could talk about when he got back... hmmm... *looks around*

My use of the word elaborate isn't relevant, but let's let you speak for the man then. He was just using his experience to self-publicise and he basically made it out to be worse than it was. Maybe he really was annoyed, how are you to know?

dsmythy wrote: »

I think you'll find plenty of people suspicious of communism who are not exactly fascists...

I never said it was exclusive to fascists to be suspicious of communism. It is well known though, that fascist states have encouraged suspicion of communism.

Sand wrote: »

Some annoying guy was held up for an hour or two...

Drama queens go into hysterics about communism. Honestly, since Stalin died all you communist guys have become real pussies. Man the **** up.

Whatever you say there. :rolleyes:

Kama

kinda with Sand on the 'grow a pair'. Being held for 2 hours at an airport isn't exactly the height of fascism (unless it makes you miss your connecting flight ofc).

US immigration you expect to be looked at funny, taken into a side room, and asked paranoid questions that sound silly to you, by deathly serious faces; I was shocked on my last visit not to be, it's kinda par for the course.

I'm just wondering when 'Are you a member of the Nazi Party?' is going to come off the immigration form...

Overheal

Okay, Communism, Cuban, etc.

2 hours? Sure why not. Its an Airport. Busy ****ing places. Miami? Cubans? You see the linkup I am hoping on that score.

Hell the Passport Lady @ Shannon told me to go sit over on that bench (you know the one) For 45 minutes until she could ask me a few more questions, which amounted to 5 minutes of her time and an hour of mine. Bloody Fascist Irish I cry :rolleyes: more like busy airport security. Hard luck me, Fair play them.

jank

Sand wrote: »

Some annoying guy was held up for an hour or two...

Drama queens go into hysterics about communism. Honestly, since Stalin died all you communist guys have become real pussies. Man the **** up.

If somebody was thought of as a legit threat to the country no one would think it being strange to be held up in the airport for a bit to asked a few question, but to ask a british white guy was he a cuban communist? Sounds like they are making work for work sake, the good ol american way of looking busy and doing stuff but not actually doing anything productive that myself and many I know who worked there picked up on after a few weeks. But if it floats their boat....

prinz

DoireNod wrote: »

My use of the word elaborate isn't relevant, but let's let you speak for the man then. He was just using his experience to self-publicise and he basically made it out to be worse than it was. Maybe he really was annoyed, how are you to know?

Maybe he was. Everyone else just gets over these things. But he's a minor celebrity so let's hype it up out of all proportion and blame "the man". Close thread.

WinstonSmith

Sand wrote: »

Some annoying guy was held up for an hour or two...

Drama queens go into hysterics about communism. Honestly, since Stalin died all you communist guys have become real pussies. Man the **** up.

I'm not a communist. I'm a democratic. I think it wrong that people have their political beliefs scrutinised upon entry to the country. So stop talking until ya start stalking some sense!

WinstonSmith

Kama wrote: »

kinda with Sand on the 'grow a pair'. Being held for 2 hours at an airport isn't exactly the height of fascism (unless it makes you miss your connecting flight ofc).

US immigration you expect to be looked at funny, taken into a side room, and asked paranoid questions that sound silly to you, by deathly serious faces; I was shocked on my last visit not to be, it's kinda par for the course.

I'm just wondering when 'Are you a member of the Nazi Party?' is going to come off the immigration form...

Personally I do not complain about the punishment this guy was given (not that punishment was necessary in the first place). I complain about the fact that the US Immigration service sets one political system above another. This is not democratic. If a member of a neo-NAZI group or a Communist, or an anarchist, or a Capitalist, wants to enter the country they should be allowed because if they are not then the government is sending out the message that they are undemocratic and do not value all political persuasions equally.

Manach

I disagree with the above poster's assumption that grading politically systems is somehow undemocratic and therefore wrong. Democratic societies have used this criteria to turn away what they consider undesirable elements, a case in point the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was refused entry to the UK earlier this year.

WinstonSmith

Manach wrote: »

I disagree with the above poster's assumption that grading politically systems is somehow undemocratic and therefore wrong. Democratic societies have used this criteria to turn away what they consider undesirable elements, a case in point the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who was refused entry to the UK earlier this year.

Also undemocratic, and I am critical of this also. Also the banning of NAZI parties in Germany are undemocratic. Just because you agree with him not being allowed in, or you can see the sense and where the government is coming from in not allowing him in, does not make the decision any more democratic. Granted governments have the right to admit and refuse entry to whomsoever they choose, but not on the basis of their political beliefs!

Overheal

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Personally I do not complain about the punishment this guy was given (not that punishment was necessary in the first place). I complain about the fact that the US Immigration service sets one political system above another. This is not democratic. If a member of a neo-NAZI group or a Communist, or an anarchist, or a Capitalist, wants to enter the country they should be allowed because if they are not then the government is sending out the message that they are undemocratic and do not value all political persuasions equally.

*facepalm*

The TSA didnt say anything about Communism. They asked this doof if he was Cuban. Then your doof in the article went on a rant, associating Cuba with Communism. Nowhere does even get as bold as to say 'They asked me "if I was a filthy commie prat"'. No. He keeps his Ts crossed. He says they asked if he was Cuban.

Sand

I'm not a communist. I'm a democratic. I think it wrong that people have their political beliefs scrutinised upon entry to the country. So stop talking until ya start stalking some sense!

He was stopped on suspicion of being an illegal alien, not for his political beliefs?

Like I said, commmunists...what happened to the long marches, gulags and mass executions?

WinstonSmith

Sand wrote: »

Like I said, commmunists...what happened to the long marches, gulags and mass executions?

They're bad things, not a sign of manhood or machoness etc...

@Overheal: My apologies. I should have read the article with greater care. I stand by my statements in what is described therein would still be indefensible to me.

Overheal

Then I hereby declare Ireland a Fascist State...

/gets coat

WinstonSmith

Overheal wrote: »

Then I hereby declare Ireland a Fascist State...

/gets coat

Please specify. I can think of a few reasons for Ireland being called such, but it depends which one you are talking about and whether or not you agree with it.

Kama

Also undemocratic, and I am critical of this also. Also the banning of NAZI parties in Germany are undemocratic.

Just a thought-experiment: what, pray tell, is the result if people were to vote to exclude certain political tendencies from a country?

Granted governments have the right to admit and refuse entry to whomsoever they choose, but not on the basis of their political beliefs!

This statement crashed my brain...they do ---> they don't ---> they do --> ?

Look, you mouth off to border control on any border, you are going to get some smackdown. My favourite airport moment was in Dulles, during GW era, when there was a rolling security announcement which said:

'Anyone making light of the security situation, will be subject to immediate arrest and detention'. I nearly broke my hole laughing, but knew that laughing, too, was probably subversive activity that would lead to arrest and detention.

Any border crossing, and especially an airport, is not somewhere to go exercising your speech rights, or making political statements, unless you have time to kill and no connecting flight. Now we can talk about the idiosyncrasies of territory, sovereignty, and airports, but realistically that's just the way it is.

Remember, their job is to closely scrutinise you, and ask probing questions, like 'do you have explosive liquids in any body cavity'. Your job is to try and keep a straight face, not to laugh or rant, and to do what they tell you...

WinstonSmith

Kama wrote: »

Just a thought-experiment: what, pray tell, is the result if people were to vote to exclude certain political tendencies from a country?

That's one of the failings of democracy, but it is still democracy none the less. If the people vote for it then it is the duty of the government to provide it. Despite this, I find it hard to believe that any Western country at the moment would pass such a vote.

Kama wrote: »

This statement crashed my brain...they do ---> they don't ---> they do --> ?

Look, you mouth off to border control on any border, you are going to get some smackdown. My favourite airport moment was in Dulles, during GW era, when there was a rolling security announcement which said:

'Anyone making light of the security situation, will be subject to immediate arrest and detention'. I nearly broke my hole laughing, but knew that laughing, too, was probably subversive activity that would lead to arrest and detention.

Any border crossing, and especially an airport, is not somewhere to go exercising your speech rights, or making political statements, unless you have time to kill and no connecting flight. Now we can talk about the idiosyncrasies of territory, sovereignty, and airports, but realistically that's just the way it is.

Remember, their job is to closely scrutinise you, and ask probing questions, like 'do you have explosive liquids in any body cavity'. Your job is to try and keep a straight face, not to laugh or rant, and to do what they tell you...

What has any of this got to do with Paul O'Grady? He didn't laugh (in fact he seemed quite annoyed), he didn't mouth off (until he was out of the airport), he most certainly wasn't carrying any explosive liquids. He was discriminated against because he was suspected of being from a certain region. Whilst this is bad, it would be worse if you were discriminated against because you were suspected of holding a certain political belief.

Overheal

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Please specify. I can think of a few reasons for Ireland being called such, but it depends which one you are talking about and whether or not you agree with it.

Re-read my last. Add sarcasm.

Ridiculous to declare any country fascist based on border control procedures. I've been patted down once or twice, had my bag hand searched a dozen times, and like I said, put aside once, but that was Ireland. Do I consider it a little inconvenient? Of course. Were they rude? Definitely. Especially that time I flew xmas eve. God they were cranky. But outright opressive? No.

WinstonSmith wrote: »

That's one of the failings of democracy, but it is still democracy none the less. If the people vote for it then it is the duty of the government to provide it. Despite this, I find it hard to believe that any Western country at the moment would pass such a vote.

Assume for a moment the vote is called for: You dont think, any Western Country, Today, under General Election, would vote in favor of outlawing the formation of a political party - with one of their main agendas being Genocide? Well, Eugenics, Homophobia, Anti-Semitism...

What has any of this got to do with Paul O'Grady? He didn't laugh (in fact he seemed quite annoyed), he didn't mouth off (until he was out of the airport), he most certainly wasn't carrying any explosive liquids. He was discriminated against because he was suspected of being from a certain region. Whilst this is bad, it would be worse if you were discriminated against because you were suspected of holding a certain political belief.

He was profiled.

And yeah, I hope the Wiretap program is keeping ears on Neo Nazis.

WinstonSmith

Overheal wrote: »

Re-read my last. Add sarcasm.

Ridiculous to declare any country fascist based on border control procedures. I've been patted down once or twice, had my bag hand searched a dozen times, and like I said, put aside once, but that was Ireland. Do I consider it a little inconvenient? Of course. Were they rude? Definitely. Especially that time I flew xmas eve. God they were cranky. But outright opressive? No.

A country's immigration policy can be a good indication of how right/left leaning its government is. Generally Fascist governments argue that their race/nationality is superior to others, or that it is more important for their own nationality to have jobs etc instead of foreigners and immigration control is a big part of maintaining this.

Overheal wrote: »

Assume for a moment the vote is called for: You dont think, any Western Country, Today, under General Election, would vote in favor of outlawing the formation of a political party - with one of their main agendas being Genocide? Well, Eugenics, Homophobia, Anti-Semitism...

No. I think that if a vote were to be called then there would be a public outcry from political rights groups and the force of this outcry would swing the vote in their favour.

Overheal wrote: »

He was profiled.

And yeah, I hope the Wiretap program is keeping ears on Neo Nazis.

By this same logic, why shouldn't taps be kept on say Coca Cola who supported the NAZI's? Nay, why are Coca Cola even allowed to exist by your same logic?

Overheal

Did they continue to support the Nazi's during the War? Did they continue supporting the Nazi's when the details of the holocaust were revealed?

Give me a break. I guess we should also destroy Coca Cola because they used Cocaine before it was labeled a dangerous narcotic by the Federal Government.

WinstonSmith

Overheal wrote: »

Did they continue to support the Nazi's during the War? Did they continue supporting the Nazi's when the details of the holocaust were revealed?

Give me a break. I guess we should also destroy Coca Cola because they used Cocaine before it was labeled a dangerous narcotic by the Federal Government.

My point is that they knew what the NAZI party stood for: knew that it set one race on a higher evolutionary level than another; knew of the discrimation against a specific race and yet had no problem with it. It was easy for them to reject the NAZI's when the truth was out, but before that they had no truck with supporting them despite their actions and policies being wrong.

Kama

Well the Nazis didn't exactly stand alone on the eugenics and racial supremacism soapbox. Much of the discrediting of those ideas looks far more like an after-the-fact reconstruction of history on 'Good War' lines than anything else. If you were a politically-correct person in that era, eugenics made a lot of sense.

Interesting example would be Scandinavian eugenics, which went on in some cases right into the 70's, sterilizing the 'mentally and socially unfit'; but they are goodthinking folks, so we don't hassle them about it. We didn't exactly open our borders to Jews with open arms here, either, but sure we only kicked them out of Limerick, so I guess we're grand...

Besides the surface part (guys in uniforms asking to see your papers) border control does not equal facism. I'd worry a bit more about the Northern League, BNP, Le Pen, and the status of the Roma in Europe, and a little less about the TSA and airports. But that's just me...

WinstonSmith

Kama wrote: »

Well the Nazis didn't exactly stand alone on the eugenics and racial supremacism soapbox. Much of the discrediting of those ideas looks far more like an after-the-fact reconstruction of history on 'Good War' lines than anything else. If you were a politically-correct person in that era, eugenics made a lot of sense.

Interesting example would be Scandinavian eugenics, which went on in some cases right into the 70's, sterilizing the 'mentally and socially unfit'; but they are goodthinking folks, so we don't hassle them about it. We didn't exactly open our borders to Jews with open arms here, either, but sure we only kicked them out of Limerick, so I guess we're grand...

Besides the surface part (guys in uniforms asking to see your papers) border control does not equal facism. I'd worry a bit more about the Northern League, BNP, Le Pen, and the status of the Roma in Europe, and a little less about the TSA and airports. But that's just me...

I am not attempting to argue that border control policies definitively determines fascist/anti fascist tendencies. I am suggesting that when taken in conjunction with other factors, it can be a good indication of where the country is at at that moment in time. This can be an indication of how right-wing modern Ireland or America is as well as NAZI Germany. Granted one was more right-wing than the other, but there is an extent to which modern Ireland and America are right-wing, and if you move far along that spectrum, towards extremis, you get to the point where fascism is not very far off (depending on other factors). I also would worry and prioritise extreme right-wing groups such as the BNP, Le Pen etc... but this does not mean that we should accept policies that are still contrary to our opinions, in favour of going after the bigger evil. All wrong must be declared as contrary to our opinions.

Dob74

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Even if this story turned out to be true, why should the US Immigration service take such offence to it?
Is America now so right-wing that it is considered a crime to have Communist political beliefs?

http://uk.tv.yahoo.com/blog/article/234116/

Paul O'Grady has revealed that he was held by officials at a US airport because they thought he was a communist.

The TV presenter said he was taken aside for questioning at Miami airport by staff who made the assumption because of his 'funny' accent.

He was then held for two hours while an officer accused him of being an 'illegal alien' from Cuba.

He told listeners of his Radio 2 show: "How could I be accused of being an illegal Cuban alien? Do I look Cuban? Do I sound Cuban?"

He added: "I've been to hell, folks - it's called Miami airport."

The Channel 4 star was later released after the customs officials studied his passport and found no links with Cuba.
*************************************************************************************************************************************************************
Are people held at other countries' airports because they are suspected of being a Capitalist? Can't reconcile myself with this opinion at all. What do others think? Is this behaviour justified?

What's the big deal?
Some moaning journalist gets questioned in a foreign country after visiting there enemy.
It is illegal for american citizens to visit Cuba, unless they have special permission.
When the communists came to power they took private property into state ownership.
Some of it was owned by american citizens and companies. And the Yanks want it back.
Til they get it back they will be life as hard as possible for anyone who supports there enemy.
Visiting Cuba gives the Communist government much needed funds.
So I think they feel justified in giving visitors to Cuba a hard time.

Sand

I agree. If you give communists an inch, then theyll be setting up gulags, sending dissidents to Siberia and ethnically cleansing kulaks and other minorities.

Better lousy unfunny comedians get held up for half an hour than anyone takes chances with a communist revolution.

Amnt I right Winston?

WinstonSmith

Sand wrote: »

I agree. If you give communists an inch, then theyll be setting up gulags, sending dissidents to Siberia and ethnically cleansing kulaks and other minorities.

Better lousy unfunny comedians get held up for half an hour than anyone takes chances with a communist revolution.

Amnt I right Winston?

No, you're very, very mistaken (unless you're being sarcastic in which case you are correct). Communism does not generically involve gulags ethnic cleansing, political manouvering or anything else you care to dream of. All these and more can happen under any extreme political system. What you describe, and the post prior to yours, bears resemblances to Stalin's Russia, which has tainted the name of Communism, when in fact it was only a single interpretation of how that system should be implemented. Castro does not incorporate Gulags, ethnic cleansing etc... My biggest problem with Castro is that he is a dictator and not a democrat. If yoou want to criticise him, do so along those lines, but do not tarnish every man with a limp as a cripple.

Overheal

WinstonSmith wrote: »

No, you're very, very mistaken (unless you're being sarcastic in which case you are correct). Communism does not generically involve gulags ethnic cleansing, political manouvering or anything else you care to dream of. All these and more can happen under any extreme political system. What you describe, and the post prior to yours, bears resemblances to Stalin's Russia, which has tainted the name of Communism, when in fact it was only a single interpretation of how that system should be implemented. Castro does not incorporate Gulags, ethnic cleansing etc... My biggest problem with Castro is that he is a dictator and not a democrat. If yoou want to criticise him, do so along those lines, but do not tarnish every man with a limp as a cripple.

In that same vein, why tar the US with the same brush as Stalin or Mussolini?

Don't be so hypocritical.

WinstonSmith

Overheal wrote: »

In that same vein, why tar the US with the same brush as Stalin or Mussolini?

Don't be so hypocritical.

My God! You don't listen, do you? First off, Stalin was not a Fascist. You know this because you have called him a Communist in several of your posts. You can't be both. Stalin was an authoritarian communist, Mussolini was an authoritarian Fascist.Secondly, imagine a spectrum of political beliefs, whereon authoritarianism and fascism lies at one end, libertarianism and socialism at the other. At the moment, Ireland, America and basically every country in the world is on that spectrum somewhere. Now one country may be closer to the fascist end than another, but some may still be quite close to it. Suggesting this is the case does not constitute tarring everybody with the one brush. It is a simple fact that fascism is an extreme case and governments may be so far towards being described as fascist in their policies. For the remainder of the explannation, read my earlier posts.

Sand

Im just reminded of the Daily Show standing up for Hitler, Stalin and other fascists and communists against people who lazily throw around terms like fascist, nazi and so on. As the Daily Show pointed out Hitler and Stalin and Co worked damn hard to be perhaps the most evil idealogies the modern world has ever conceived - gulags, concentration camps, repression of ethnic minorities, terror bombing, show trials, contempt for human life, mass slaughter and dehumanisation of undesirables. Show a little respect for the effort they put in. You think any asshole can put in the sort of hours required to compare to that sort of evil?

And you reckon some ****ty comic being delayed for 2 hours in an airport is on par with the experience of a victim of Hitler or Stalin? With all due respect, wake up.

irish_bob

Sand wrote: »

Im just reminded of the Daily Show standing up for Hitler, Stalin and other fascists and communists against people who lazily throw around terms like fascist, nazi and so on. As the Daily Show pointed out Hitler and Stalin and Co worked damn hard to be perhaps the most evil idealogies the modern world has ever conceived - gulags, concentration camps, repression of ethnic minorities, terror bombing, show trials, contempt for human life, mass slaughter and dehumanisation of undesirables. Show a little respect for the effort they put in. You think any asshole can put in the sort of hours required to compare to that sort of evil?

And you reckon some ****ty comic being delayed for 2 hours in an airport is on par with the experience of a victim of Hitler or Stalin? With all due respect, wake up.

good post , funny cause its true

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Im just reminded of the Daily Show standing up for Hitler, Stalin and other fascists and communists against people who lazily throw around terms like fascist, nazi and so on. As the Daily Show pointed out Hitler and Stalin and Co worked damn hard to be perhaps the most evil idealogies the modern world has ever conceived - gulags, concentration camps, repression of ethnic minorities, terror bombing, show trials, contempt for human life, mass slaughter and dehumanisation of undesirables. Show a little respect for the effort they put in. You think any asshole can put in the sort of hours required to compare to that sort of evil?

And you reckon some ****ty comic being delayed for 2 hours in an airport is on par with the experience of a victim of Hitler or Stalin? With all due respect, wake up.

That'll do Sand. That'll do.

tolosenc

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Secondly, imagine a spectrum of political beliefs, whereon authoritarianism and fascism lies at one end, libertarianism and socialism at the other.

Libertarianism and socialism are to irreconcilable philosophies. Libertarianism is right-wing, socialism is left wing. Fascism would be left of centre (e.g. National Socialist Workers' Party [Nazionalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei]), but not as much as Communism/Socialism. What commies and fascists have in common is an authoritarian way of ruling (deny civil liberties and human rights), modern socialism is the same, but not to the same extent. Libertarianism is the opposite.

WinstonSmith

Toulousain wrote: »

Libertarianism and socialism are to irreconcilable philosophies. Libertarianism is right-wing, socialism is left wing. Fascism would be left of centre (e.g. National Socialist Workers' Party [Nazionalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei]), but not as much as Communism/Socialism. What commies and fascists have in common is an authoritarian way of ruling (deny civil liberties and human rights), modern socialism is the same, but not to the same extent. Libertarianism is the opposite.

Absolute Nonsense! Libertarianism is by very definition left-wing. Research the foundations of the French Revolution. It is the opposite of Authoritarianism (surprisingly upon which Fascism is based). You can have varying degrees of Communism/ Socialism, some of which will be authoritarian, some of which will be libertarian. Libertarian Socialists (which I class myself as) would believe in the sanctity of political and civil rights belonging with nobody but the people and these being sacrosanct under all circumstances. This is the opposite of authoritarianism which will often see a need for encroaching upon civil and political rights/liberties for the greater good. NAZIism obviously encroached upon the political and civil rights of many people as did fascist Italy under Mussolini (and after). Stalin believed in Authoritarian Communism (Still at the opposite end of the spectrum to fascism since in Communism there is a large amount of nationalisation and in Fascism there is a large amount of Privatisation) and thus there can be seen to be an infringement upon many civil and political liberties during this period also, but this does not indicate that all types of socialism are based upon authoritarianism. For greater amounts of understanding, google political compass and it will help you.