[Far-Right Sage]

Apart from being anti-communist (and knee jerk rejection based on ideology isn't realpolitik)

What an ignorant simplification. There is no "knee jerk reaction". I have praised left-wing heads of state for their leadership and styles of governance, even if I disagree with their politics. However, I'm obviously not going to favor Castro's politics, no matter what his leadership skills.

and 'inspiring the people with strength (which we established was done by both figures), what real differences are we talking about here?

I'm talking about political differences, not differences in terms of leadership. We've already established that. As far as political difference, I refuse to draw a map of the obvious.

[Donna]

Apart from being anti-communist (and knee jerk rejection based on ideology isn't realpolitik) and 'inspiring the people with strength (which we established was done by both figures), what real differences are we talking about here?

Realpolitik and beholding an ideology are not mutually exclusive. Simply because one is opposed to a certain ideology does not mean you have to wage reckless wars against all its incarnations. I despise Pan-Arabism as a racist, imperialist gutter-thought, but I also realize it can be used to counter Islamist threats.

[Torwan]

@FRS:

If I might jump in, you definitely share a lot common interests with the "general fascist". You definitely lack the racist element that made up national-socialism, but I guess you'd fit in quite well into Mussolini's or Franco's regime.

Interesting that I'm always debating the advantages of democracy over authoritarianism with Glenn D and NewEra and not you...

[Potemkin]

It has more to do with my analysis of these figures than the actual figures in question. What I mean to say is, I can objectively praise Stalin's stunning performance as a leader, but if there is not some form of common ideological ground, it's impossible to support such a person. Incidentally, this is precisely the way I feel about Hitler, though I'd take the Fuhrer over old Uncle Joe any day of the week.

Reverse the names 'Hitler' and 'Stalin', and that pretty much sums up my own position. Though I regard Hitler as a failed political leader, and Stalin as a successful one.

Can you picture me as a Marxist?

Actually, yes I can. You have some of the pre-requisites: hatred of liberalism, an authoritarian streak, belief in the inevitability and desirability of settling political conflicts through violence, and the certainty that the ends justify the means. If I keep chipping away at you for long enough, who knows....

I simply state and list my beliefs(militarism, anti-Communism, nationally-oriented capitalism, authoritarianism, etc.). I don't attempt to classify them under any one ideology. Though, I'd be interested in hearing your analysis on the matter.

Most of those beliefs are compatible with Marxism. As for the 'nationally-directed capitalism', what could be more nationally-directed than Stalin's policy of 'socialism in one country' and his stunningly successful Five Year Plans for the economy? In fact, given your contempt for liberalism and bourgeois democracy, I really can't understand why you oppose Communism. What are you trying to protect or save from the Communist 'threat'?

Using your model, one would just remove all mentions of ideology. I can judge a leader's performance objective and non-ideologically, but when assessing the man/woman as a person, one must take into account their political belief system, and whether it falls in line with one's own.

In other words, ideology matters. I would agree with that, though you must explain why it matters. It is still not clear to me what core values you feel are threatened by the ideology of Communism. A liberal opposes Communism because it threatens their core value of 'freedom' - which of your values does it actually threaten?

[independent_turkiye]

A speculative information about him also ) but I am not sure, Mussolini is on the left side of Communist Party of Italy before in his political career. It is easy to change direction when you are in the edges to the other edge. Goshism and faschism resemble.

[Smilin' Dave]

There is no "knee jerk reaction".

Emotive styles of argumentation would suggest otherwise (eg. red slime). Particularly, as I have shown, when the two case studies are similar.

I have praised left-wing heads of state

But we are talking about extremes here. You praise Mussolini, but reject Castro. Basically you think anything right wing is by default okay (show me an example here you have made a similarly harsh criticism of a right-wing government) while anything left-wing is immediately suspect.

I'm talking about political differences, not differences in terms of leadership.

Supports of Realpolitik, like Kissinger or Kirkpatrick (which if memory serves, you have endorsed in past) would say that political differences are not that important.

Realpolitik and beholding an ideology are not mutually exclusive.

But the rejection of other ideologies is still required to be from a logical basis. The American approach to Castro is anything but realpolitik. As FRS aptly shows.

[Far-Right Sage]

@FRS:

If I might jump in, you definitely share a lot common interests with the "general fascist". You definitely lack the racist element that made up national-socialism, but I guess you'd fit in quite well into Mussolini's or Franco's regime

I'll take that as a compliment, but I must admit that I find your second sentence rather peculiar. While I do consider National Socialism an off-shoot of fascism(much in the same way I consider Stalinism an off-shoot of Marxism), can you name a fascist regime, with the exclusion of Nazi Germany, which was openly racist? Democrats and other left-wing elements are just as likely to promote racism as fascists; Stalin was a known anti-Semite.

Reverse the names 'Hitler' and 'Stalin', and that pretty much sums up my own position. Though I regard Hitler as a failed political leader, and Stalin as a successful one.

I would agree with your analysis. I would much prefer Hitler's ideas, but as a leader, Stalin ultimately dwarfed him.

Actually, yes I can. You have some of the pre-requisites: hatred of liberalism, an authoritarian streak, belief in the inevitability and desirability of settling political conflicts through violence, and the certainty that the ends justify the means. If I keep chipping away at you for long enough, who knows....

I find it interesting that everything you mentioned are generally the factors referenced when people are trying to draw comparisons between Hitler and Stalin on ideological grounds, or Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union's similarities, if you prefer. In other words, it speaks little of me personally if one considers the context.

Most of those beliefs are compatible with Marxism. As for the 'nationally-directed capitalism', what could be more nationally-directed than Stalin's policy of 'socialism in one country' and his stunningly successful Five Year Plans for the economy?

Again, Stalin's opposition to laissez-faire capitalism was/is not unique politically. To give the issue some context, Mussolini and the Italian fascists favored corporatism, which I would categorize as far closer to my beliefs than socialist economic policy.

In other words, ideology matters. I would agree with that, though you must explain why it matters. It is still not clear to me what core values you feel are threatened by the ideology of Communism. A liberal opposes Communism because it threatens their core value of 'freedom' - which of your values does it actually threaten?

For starters, I oppose Marxist economic policy, and I believe that economic policy is the primary factor which shapes a country's foreign policy and its overall national attitude. I do not believe in equality, but in getting the most out of the population for the benefit of the nation. I support many capitalist institutions, such as private property. I simply believe that they should exist for the benefit of the state. I advocate a monitored market as a tool to increase national wealth and strength, but the "freedom" of which laissez-faire capitalism symbolizes is reckless, and in some cases, treasonous. Not to portray the man as any kind of political mentor, but I believe Hitler actually expressed my basic point in a much more articulate fashion.

Emotive styles of argumentation would suggest otherwise (eg. red slime). Particularly, as I have shown, when the two case studies are similar.

I do have emotive styles of reaction, but for personal reasons, rather than as principles of basic argumentation.

But we are talking about extremes here. You praise Mussolini, but reject Castro. Basically you think anything right wing is by default okay (show me an example here you have made a similarly harsh criticism of a right-wing government) while anything left-wing is immediately suspect.

Yes, because I generally disagree with left-wing policy in nearly every way/category, not out of a philosophy of reaction. I have praised Castro as well as slammed him; the same can be said about Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Tojo, Pol Pot, Nasser, or any other controversial world leader who I have discussed in the past.

Supports of Realpolitik, like Kissinger or Kirkpatrick (which if memory serves, you have endorsed in past) would say that political differences are not that important.

When assessing effectiveness as a leader, yes, but not when discussing one's personal opinion of a leader's politics. Castro is an effective leader. I also dislike him greatly for what he's done.