|
Post by jisidro on Feb 23, 2019 9:58:09 GMT
The whole 40K/alt-right nexus is so wierd to me. Back in the late 1980s/early 1990s, WH40K was a fun but run-of-the-mill dystopian satire. Now it's like a perfect example of Poe's Law. Genestealer cults used to just be "Shadow Over Innsmouth... in space" but now they're like a sci-fi personification of white nationalist fears, and I don't even think the lore has changed. Maybe they weren't yet tyranids back then (I forget). It was always a personification of a totalitarian galaxy ruled over by a draconian union of state/church with a huge. You can look at it as a caricature communism or as hyper-fascism. I think it was the public that changed, politics are front¢er right now and ppl are more aware. GW has been doing a good job of turning a very very dark universe into a black&white parody of itself.
|
|
unded
Junior Strategist
Posts: 760
|
Post by unded on Feb 23, 2019 17:37:38 GMT
Am I the only one who now desperately wants to see a massive baron Trump-Harkonen leading a parade?
I can't be the only one
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 23, 2019 17:46:47 GMT
*Shudder* Not me. The fewer images of Vladimir Harkonnen, the better. Especially when patterned off of the 1984 movie. Leave the pedophile dead on Arrakis, please. *Shudder*
|
|
|
Post by anderfreak on Feb 24, 2019 23:05:00 GMT
LOL I've really wanted to do a Dominar Rasheth with his cartoonish comb-over and anus lips, but then I'd be reminded of his existence far too often. The whole 40K/alt-right nexus is so wierd to me. Even more odd to me because people are accuse of being alt-right, but aren't. Not to mention, the beliefs attributed to "alt-right" trend to be closer to more modern "left" views over all. But I think that's where we reach Shiver's point about this not ending well.
I love how you just can't resist. Do we each get a free thinly-veiled jab at the other side in this thread or just you?
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 25, 2019 0:51:15 GMT
LOL I've really wanted to do a Dominar Rasheth with his cartoonish comb-over and anus lips, but then I'd be reminded of his existence far too often. Even more odd to me because people are accuse of being alt-right, but aren't. Not to mention, the beliefs attributed to "alt-right" trend to be closer to more modern "left" views over all. But I think that's where we reach Shiver's point about this not ending well.
I love how you just can't resist. Do we each get a free thinly-veiled jab at the other side in this thread or just you? Simply stating facts. Here in the US, the "Left" tends toward stronger government structures, while the "Right" tends toward limited government. Fascism is an oppressively strong government system with a focus on nationalism, yet people accuse those on the "Right" of favoring it.
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Feb 25, 2019 1:28:13 GMT
In the US context, Republicans are actually remarkably in favour of big government. At least in the areas most commonly associated with Fascism, i.e. the military and security services dedicated to monitoring their own population. That's probably where the comparison gets started.
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Feb 25, 2019 2:50:33 GMT
Oh, is that what we're going to do today? We're going to fight? .jpg
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 25, 2019 3:26:44 GMT
Oh, is that what we're going to do today? We're going to fight? .jpg Seems likely, cause Charistoph's take on left and right in america is just cartoonishly inaccurate Republicans: Don't call us fascists! Also Republicans:
|
|
|
Post by NephMakes on Feb 25, 2019 3:36:41 GMT
Oh, is that what we're going to do today? We're going to fight? .jpg Seems likely, cause Charistoph's take on left and right in america is just cartoonishly inaccurate It'd be a lot more interesting and a lot more on-topic if it was at least about the intersection of politics and tabletop miniatures games.
|
|
Zaku
Junior Strategist
Posts: 224
|
Post by Zaku on Feb 25, 2019 3:51:16 GMT
Seems likely, cause Charistoph's take on left and right in america is just cartoonishly inaccurate It'd be a lot more interesting and a lot more on-topic if it was at least about the intersection of politics and tabletop miniatures games.
This.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 25, 2019 4:50:37 GMT
Oh, is that what we're going to do today? We're going to fight? .jpg Seems likely, cause Charistoph's take on left and right in america is just cartoonishly inaccurate Republicans: Don't call us fascists! Also Republicans: Talk about cartoonishly inaccurate. I was trying to at least keep it simple and on point. The original concept of "Left" and "Right" has been blurred a lot in recent decades. First off, I never once said "Republican". The "Right" isn't always represented by Republicans, and is more Libertarian. The Republican National Committee trends to the more Center-Left than the Right. While there are plenty of people who are on the "Right" who are registered Republicans (and many who left the party because of what Bush signed), they are not often happy with the direction (or sometimes, lack thereof) the party chooses to go with. While the "Right" does advocate for the nation's security, keep in mind that is one of the primary purposes of the federal government as stated in the Preamble of the Constitution (and many aspects of the Patriot Act were and are rather seriously questioned by the "Right"). There is a nationalist bent to the "Right", but that's about as close to fascist as it gets. In every other aspect of fascism, they get run away. Meanwhile, those on the "Left" advocate the policing of language, the genocide of generations, the inability of people to retain income they otherwise legally earn, the regulation of religion, and heavy regulation (if not outright government control) of every industry. The only thing that isn't fascist about the "Left" is their lack of nationalism and a desire for globalism. The "Alt-Right" title has been embraced by many hate groups, but more concerning is those on the "Left" who will label anyone who disagrees with them as "Alt-Right", including Orthodox Jews and gays (actual targets of the "Alt-Right"). It is at this point it is being used akin to the old word of "cult", because it is simply used while rarely providing proper context for definition. Also keep in mind, just because you are called something by your opponent, doesn't always make it accurate. To continue on, a president who has actually enacted more deregulation in recent history than any other is being called a fascist. Deregulation is an antithesis of fascism. Mussolini, the originator of fascism, was a socialist, and left to create fascism because he saw so many people fighting on behalf of nationalism, so he connected the two. To be nationalist is not fascist. To be socialist is not fascist. To be both nationalist and socialist is fascist. This requires full government control (aka totalitarian), which allows hate-mongers who have managed to get in to positions of power to allow their hate-mongering full sway, as we saw in fascist Germany (racism was not an aspect of Italy's fascism). To bring it around to the modelling point, I'm not sure how fascist the 40K Imperium is. It is a totalitarian regime and they are religiously specieist, but they are constantly under attack by the other species as well. It is considerably more feudalistic, when you boil it down. I'm not dismissing the address completely, but I find that a lot of people will often call out "fascism" based one factor of both Mussolinni's and Hitler's fascism (nationalism) and one factor that was solely Hitler's (racism), while ignoring almost every other aspect of fascism (such as totalitarian socialism).
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 25, 2019 5:26:02 GMT
Mussolini got expelled from the Italian socialist party. He immediately pulled a 180 and denounced socialists entirely as he rose to power.
Edit: Meanwhile he did things wildly incongruous with socialist ideology while claiming he was implementing a socialist program.
|
|
|
Post by Azahul on Feb 25, 2019 5:28:02 GMT
I don't really want to get too deeply involved in the weeds here, but I do want to note that political language is heavily contested for obvious reasons and there's no actual "real" definition for the terms you're using Charistoph. Left-Right means a different thing in every country, and even within those countries. "Left" and "Right" on their own are also impossibly reductionist and contain so many different attitudes that you'll inevitably run into direct contradictions. You may identify the right with Libertarianism, for example, but because there's no arbiter of meaning in political discourse that's no more or less correct than identifying it with social conservatism. Particularly when the political actors in your country may hold both beliefs concurrently while identifying themselves as "Right-wing".
I do also want to just quickly note that your understanding of fascism feels a little... lacking in nuance. Fascism can have a strong deregulation element. Fascist states have historically been in favour of protecting private property rights, and have dismantled socialist protections within their states. I mean, you can argue that the effective introduction of slave labour is an act of deregulation, in terms of stripping away worker's rights entirely (albeit only applied to the persecuted minorities targeted by the government).
It's also very hard to generalise fascist economies, mind you, because every fascist state has been a bit different in terms of how it operates in the economic sphere. Principally because fascism, more than anything, is a system of government and not a form of economics. And there's a big distinction there. You can have communism or socialism without totalitarianism, at least in principle, because the former are systems of economics while the latter is a form of government. Communism in particular has historically encouraged totalitarian governments, because some actor needs to be exerting the necessary control over the market, but it's not actually an intrinsic element of the philosophy. Fascism isn't inherently coupled to any single form of economics, and fascist states have made directly contradictory statements about their ideas on how the economy should be run. But generally speaking, most fascist states have been free market economies in which the state is also a market actor (as opposed to a socialist state, where the state is closer to an external interventionist than a participant).
Anyway, that's probably enough of my political nerding. I'm going to go back to writing about pigs being the best half of the best faction now.
|
|
|
Post by Charistoph on Feb 25, 2019 5:36:47 GMT
I don't really want to get too deeply involved in the weeds here, but I do want to note that political language is heavily contested for obvious reasons and there's no actual "real" definition for the terms you're using Charistoph. Left-Right means a different thing in every country, and even within those countries. "Left" and "Right" on their own are also impossibly reductionist and contain so many different attitudes that you'll inevitably run into direct contradictions. You may identify the right with Libertarianism, for example, but because there's no arbiter of meaning in political discourse that's no more or less correct than identifying it with social conservatism. Particularly when the political actors in your country may hold both beliefs concurrently while identifying themselves as "Right-wing".
The term "Right" used to mean siding with the King, while "Left" meant siding with the people. This goes back to pre-French Revolution days. Many of those who are on the "Left" today used to be anti-government, at least until they actually ran to be in government. I am just using it based on how they refer to themselves. It's also why I avoided using parties to identify them.
But the most important part I would say is, don't always accept what a group's opponent says they are, look in to what they are stating and advocating and go from there.
As for fascism, people can make claims about how much people had property rights to them, but when you have such a government controlled economy as Italy and Germany had, and they called themselves national socialists...
|
|
|
Post by mcdermott on Feb 25, 2019 5:42:33 GMT
One of the primary doctrines of socialism is the power of the working class. Mussolini crushed labor unions and made working against the owners of "the means of production" a state crime. Monarchies have state control of the resources too, it doesn't make them socialist.
What people DO determines what they are, not what they say they are.
Edit: I mean do you think they DPRK is actually democratic? I mean Democratic is right in the name after all!
|
|