Why is it okay to kill your own people but not Jews?

Wow. So many millions. How do they come up with these numbers?

R.J. Rummel meme magicks

rudyrummel.blogspot.ca/

No, he was not right wing.

>not right wing
wut

>what is the Cold War

Fascists love pretending that they're not right wing. I notice that communists never have a problem with admitting we're on the left.

>Fascists love pretending that they're not right wing
Yep, they think they're special "third position" snowflakes kek

I'm curious, what puts revolutionary collectivists like the fascists on the same side of the political spectrum as classical liberals?

I'm a reactionary and I see fascism as leftist as well.

>fascists don't consider themselves right wing
>right wingers don't consider fascism right wing
>but they are somehow right wing

just like how I can 'consider' myself a woman if I wear a dress, but I'm not one.
The people who say that are mostly retarded Americans who think right wing and conservative are the same

>ideologies are equivalent to biological sex

Off yourself.

>implying I said that
I get it friend, metaphors are hard sometimes

Mao and stalin didndu nuffin but that wasn't real communism and im anarcho democratic marxist!!!!!!!1118

It's a shitty analogy and you know it. Nationalism and socialism are both burgeoise enlightement ideologies, right wing is about doing a 180 on enlightement and going back to before 18th century.

Fascism literally strives to create a "new man" and a "new society", it's a progressive and not conservative ideology. Therefore it cannot be right wing.

That's conservatism. Right wing is a wider concept for a wide variety of things

Not him. But you did an outrageously retarded comparison. How is gender politics a fair comparison?
You've resorted to ad hominems by calling him retarded and implying he is one because he didn't took your analogy seriously (like anyone sane).
You can do better, I expect.

Not him. But you did an outrageously unrelated comparison. How is gender politics a fair example?
You've resorted to ad hominems by calling him retarded and implying he is one because he didn't took your analogy seriously (like anyone sane).
You can do better, I expect.

It's the concept behind it, that someone thinks they're one thing while being another.

Fascism is actually third position.
These guys get it.

Treaty of Westphalia.

Plenty of fascists incorporated leftist ideas (appeal to the working class was and is huge for fascists), and there were some fascists like the Strassers who were left on economic issues (though definitely not left on anything else). They've always been a minority within the broader movement, however.

Realistically a linear spectrum is a shitty way to describe politics, but I have a problem with fascists pretending they're a third position when the largest part of fascism has always been capitalist and reactionary.

>implying capitalism is incompatible with being a leftist

The left-right dichotomy existed before socialism.

>implying fascism is reactionary

lol

Both of those are bad things, user.

Im pretty sure its not okay to kill anyone.

>The left-right dichotomy existed before socialism
But, since we now are in the current year, left and right mean different things than they did in the French Revolution.

>fascism
>promotes a return to mythologized cultural values
>not reactionary

>its another "the bourgeois media makes up numbers about stalin" episode

Fascism doesn't promote a return, it wants to create something new.

Fascist art, propaganda, and theory all disagree with you. Elements of past societies are lionized, while modern society is cast as degenerated, a shell of the past.

there's a difference between rebirth and reaction.

What is the source on that? I would like to keep reading. Please and thank you.

How?

>fascist art

This looks reactionary to you? lmao. Fascism is also tied to futurism which is as modernist as it gets.

>propaganda

Corporatism, nationalism, populism, those are all modernist ideas. Furthermore fascism originated in French national syndicalism which was a socialist, labor-oriented movement.

>there were 36 million deaths due to starvation, while another 40 million others failed to be born, so that "China's total population loss during the Great Famine then comes to 76 million.
What the fuck kind of logic is this? When did we start counting death tolls to include people who weren't born because their potential parents died before meeting each other?

That is in no way representative of fascist architecture, which deliberately invoked a Greco-Roman style.

>Corporatism, nationalism, populism, these are all modernist ideas.
Corporatism is, but nationalism predates modernism by at least a century and populism came about way before modernism.

>fascism originated in French national syndicalism
Fascism quickly distanced itself from any working-class roots it may have had; see the Night of Long Knives for the starkest example.

We're talking about fascism not nazism.

Nazis are fascists.

>

For once, it literally is the fault of the Jews

>Fascism quickly distanced itself from any working-class roots it may have had
That's not true at all. While the Night of the Long Knives may have done away with the SPD and other blatant fifth column movements, National Socialism still maintained its working-class roots. Nat Soc consistently tried to improve the German working classes living standard through work projects and altering the wage standard. To say it distanced itself because it removed commie is a stretch at the very least, more likely a purposeful misrepresentation.

I'd argue fascist states were all pretty left-wing economically

If that list has Mao going for 78 million, it should then have Hirohito going for 50 million because bloated numbers and unforeseen natural disasters are a valid measure of PURE EVIL.

>unforeseen natural disasters
>killing birds which eat pests
>collectivizing peasants away from fields into steel working
>both of the lead to famine and starve off your population
>not even counting the purges
>unforeseen natural disasters
Lad...

Honestly I keep wondering how Marxism is taken seriously and not shunned like fascism when we consider both its devisive, hateful nature and the death toll it always leaves in its wake.

>That is in no way representative of fascist architecture, which deliberately invoked a Greco-Roman style.

You're not wrong

The goal of those changes still wasn't to kill 78 million people.

The goal of Leopold II wasn't to kill fucking 15 million Congolese either. It was to get rubber. It doesn't matter. Their actions are directly responsible for the deaths attributed to them. Maos actions led to a famine that killed a shit ton of people. He also purged a shit ton of people for "capitalist roading" among other things. Spin it however you want, Mao killed those people.

I wasn't demonizing Leopold II.

Most of the deaths of the Chinese famine were caused by officials overreporting their food production. The deaths of millions in the Belgian Congo was caused by overworking, inter-tribal killing, etc.

The Chinese deaths were due to ignorance. The Belgian Congo deaths were due to indifference.

>The Chinese deaths were due to ignorance. The Belgian Congo deaths were due to indifference
Yet both of these were directly responsible for the deaths. They killed those people whether they meant to or not. You can spin it however you like, Mr. Unruhe. You're full of shit and you know it.

I'd argue that neither of them really was personally responsible for the deaths of all those people, except for the "reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries" that Mao ordered killed.

And anyway, the point of this is, sure those governments did bring about those deaths, but it is the intent of them versus the Nazist Germany or Stalinist Russia that makes the difference. The latter two set out specifically to eliminate those that they were opposed to, whereas Mao and Leopold's governments brought about those deaths mostly by accident.

>I'd argue that neither of them really was personally responsible for the deaths of all those people
By this logic, people shouldn't be charged with neglect. If your actions directly lead to the death of another, you are a killer. Again, spin it however you like. Weasel and squirm, I don't give a shit. You are wrong.

I'm not saying that it wasn't wrong. It's just not as wrong. There's a reason why first degree murder has a harsher sentence than manslaughter.

You literally just argued the opposite. You quite literally just stated that they were not at fault despite them being directly at fault.

I meant that they weren't murderers. Maybe I conveyed that badly.

Mao was definitely a murderer... He had his own purges. You really are Jason Unruhe aren't you?

I did say "Except for the purges against political undesirables" in Mao's case. Unless you're saying that Mao killed 78 million political enemies in China.

The numbers are nowhere near that high
[spoiler]The dictators didn't kill them, their soldiers did, they just ordered the murder[/spoiler]