You pretty clearly do not read me. You talk over me and make up positions I do not hold. You write statements on subjects that I have already addressed, yet you do not acknowledge this, making this interaction far more difficult than it has to be.
Also, you may try to believe that Tony Blair is just a copy of Mussolini, I see clear differences in how they man aged their respective country.
Quote the part where I write anything that justifies this statement. Explain why the part you are quoting justifies such a reductive statement. Go through the reasoning and provide your counterargument, as a civil person does when engaged in discussion.
Since it is in your interest to oppose these ideologies, then it is likewise in your interest to understand them. That you cannot hold more than a reductive view of ideologies boiled down to “liberalism is when finance, fascism is when force” is sadly not an issue I can do anything about. I would appreciate it that you do not put your lacking understanding upon me.
I was claiming liberals and fascists use different ways. You denied it and claim they are toe same and use the same way.
So I toou a typically liberal leader (Blair) and a typical fascist leader (Mussolini) so you can show me how they have handled their country the same.
If you find differences, it may help you at fighting them both. If you want to make me believe they are the same, you will need to erase my history knowledges first. Or may you can point at historical things that support your views?
Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution.
Source: Section 1 of “Concerning the International Situation,” Works, Vol. 6, January-November, 1924, pp. 293-314.
This is what this person means, this is what you need to understand. It means not that they are not different, but that they are too the same thing under different light.
Sorry youre wrong, liberalism is when finance and the only state that uses force to enforce itself and its ideology is fascism apparently. When liberals beat the shit out of labour organisers thats just finance and when they sell slaves thats something the slaves just go along with and when fascists privatise state infrastructure then thats not finance.
Its pretty simple. Read what I wrote. Quote the text. Explain how the quoted text fits your assertion.
I assume you do not do this because you are aware you are being incredibly reductive and are essentially arguing against a fictitious position instead of the one I actually hold, because the actual position is one which no educated and reasonable person would disagree with. If that is t the case, then do the simple thing instead of continuing with this fallacious reductive presentation of my text.
It is far more simple. I do not take orders and you know how you think. If I did not get your point, explain me that I missed. If I understood you but I disagree, demonstrate your point or give me examples, so that you may convince me.
I have read that you have claims, I haven’t seen you pointing nor at ideologies, nor at historical facts, nor at some academic paper, nor at some book, nor article, nor even at a video. If nothing supports your claim, it makes them far from obvious in my mind.
Thanks for admitting you’re arguing in bad faith. You would have saved us both a bunch of time if you just admitted you were too prideful to go back on a position when you have no salient arguments, instead of doing this weird thing of making up some wild strawman and then acting weird when I asked you to point to any piece of text I had written that substantiated said strawman.
I would urge you to look inwards and reflect upon why you take requests for civil conversation as “orders” and why you pride yourself on being incapable of conversation.
edit: Why do you say FDR was a fascist and Salazar was a liberal? What a weird thing to believe. Why are you calling King Leopold of Belgium a liberal?
You pretty clearly do not read me. You talk over me and make up positions I do not hold. You write statements on subjects that I have already addressed, yet you do not acknowledge this, making this interaction far more difficult than it has to be.
Quote the part where I write anything that justifies this statement. Explain why the part you are quoting justifies such a reductive statement. Go through the reasoning and provide your counterargument, as a civil person does when engaged in discussion.
Since it is in your interest to oppose these ideologies, then it is likewise in your interest to understand them. That you cannot hold more than a reductive view of ideologies boiled down to “liberalism is when finance, fascism is when force” is sadly not an issue I can do anything about. I would appreciate it that you do not put your lacking understanding upon me.
I was claiming liberals and fascists use different ways. You denied it and claim they are toe same and use the same way.
So I toou a typically liberal leader (Blair) and a typical fascist leader (Mussolini) so you can show me how they have handled their country the same.
If you find differences, it may help you at fighting them both. If you want to make me believe they are the same, you will need to erase my history knowledges first. Or may you can point at historical things that support your views?
Source: Section 1 of “Concerning the International Situation,” Works, Vol. 6, January-November, 1924, pp. 293-314.
This is what this person means, this is what you need to understand. It means not that they are not different, but that they are too the same thing under different light.
Sorry youre wrong, liberalism is when finance and the only state that uses force to enforce itself and its ideology is fascism apparently. When liberals beat the shit out of labour organisers thats just finance and when they sell slaves thats something the slaves just go along with and when fascists privatise state infrastructure then thats not finance.
Its pretty simple. Read what I wrote. Quote the text. Explain how the quoted text fits your assertion.
I assume you do not do this because you are aware you are being incredibly reductive and are essentially arguing against a fictitious position instead of the one I actually hold, because the actual position is one which no educated and reasonable person would disagree with. If that is t the case, then do the simple thing instead of continuing with this fallacious reductive presentation of my text.
It is far more simple. I do not take orders and you know how you think. If I did not get your point, explain me that I missed. If I understood you but I disagree, demonstrate your point or give me examples, so that you may convince me.
I have read that you have claims, I haven’t seen you pointing nor at ideologies, nor at historical facts, nor at some academic paper, nor at some book, nor article, nor even at a video. If nothing supports your claim, it makes them far from obvious in my mind.
Thanks for admitting you’re arguing in bad faith. You would have saved us both a bunch of time if you just admitted you were too prideful to go back on a position when you have no salient arguments, instead of doing this weird thing of making up some wild strawman and then acting weird when I asked you to point to any piece of text I had written that substantiated said strawman.
I would urge you to look inwards and reflect upon why you take requests for civil conversation as “orders” and why you pride yourself on being incapable of conversation.
edit: Why do you say FDR was a fascist and Salazar was a liberal? What a weird thing to believe. Why are you calling King Leopold of Belgium a liberal?