It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 21
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Nope. In the days of classical liberalism as some of our founders were, they used the word: Liberal, if they were trying to describe ideology or philosophy at all. They were trying to build a country after all, not an easy task when all the rich men with influence in the process ran the gambit of ideologies.

Libertarianism was born in France by Joseph DeJacque.




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:49 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

It would be lovely if you could ever read all the posts in a thread... just once.

*sigh*



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
Why am I obligated to read every post in every thread I engage? More demanding people behave the way you want them to which is what collectivist tend to apparently even the "libertarian socialists". Collectivism and liberty are at odds.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 07:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

... seriously? You aren't obligated but it would be nice. You cause much repetition. A little personal responsibility on your part would be refreshing.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Ok I'll concede that point about original libertarian in France. I much prefer the classical liberalism of our founding fathers. Here's an interesting dictionary on the subject www.urbandictionary.com...
edit on 22-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74
Oh please stop with the ad hominem bull
And don't lecture me on personal responsibility. Socialism of any kind always diminishes personal responsibility. The difference between libertarian socialism and other forms of socialism is that they apparently hope that all citizens will voluntarily comply with whatever totalitarian collectivist ideals they espouse.
edit on 22-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Nope. I'm not implying anything.

I'm stating outright that your posts are generally so far away from any meaningful relationship to the subject that you're trying to talk about, that, coupled with your misconception that you are indeed not only knowledgeable but are actually intellectually superior to anyone else about these subjects you weigh in on, and you're so utterly snide to anyone who disagrees with you, corrects your many mistakes, or tries to give you the benefit of the doubt and actually tries to help you take advantage of the many teaching moments available on ATS, that over time it's simply too much trouble to keep trying.

I know you think you "win debates" but what really happens is that the other person becomes so fatigued with your nonsense or so appalled by your pure ignorance, that they move on to something else to avoid further interaction with you.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: xuenchen

Your mistake is in thinking that left wingers are definitely collectivists and that right wingers can't ever be. Also you are mistaken that collectivism is always authoritarian.


That's not a mistake, that's an agenda.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Obviously you would, you're a Capitalist and believe in a governed society.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Socialism in it's purest form represents the highest form of economic and personal responsibility. Of course you'd have to move beyond whatever woo-woo, agenda driven drivel you read to understand that.
edit on 8/22/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: redhorse

/shrug

Don't like it; don't read it.

I'm sorry that I can't offer you some meaningful critique in return, but honestly, I've never noticed anything you've written before.

Perhaps, if you've not enjoying your ATS time, it would be prudent for you to follow your own advice and "take a break."

That's just ... basic logic.

Best,





posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to: [post=19728343]Gryphon66[/post
You haven't changed a bit in 8 months have you.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to: [post=19728343]Gryphon66[/post
You haven't changed a bit in 8 months have you.


I change every day. Now, kindly ignore me. Thx.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

No it does not. But I will have to argue that point later as it's too cumbersome with a smart phone. But i think you might be confusing personal responsibility withresponsibility to the collective or you would choose classical liberalism instead.
edit on 22-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:37 PM
link   
So, while all this is great fun and provides stress relief, who's ready to actually talk about the subject?

For example, how many are aware that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels didn't "invent" socialism or even communism for that matter (well, technically)?

The Communist Manifesto was written on contract ... for money, as a paid writing job for the Communist League of London.

Marx, was not Russian, but was German and Jewish.
edit on 20Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:45:27 -050015p082015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)

edit on 20Sat, 22 Aug 2015 20:54:14 -050015p082015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:38 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

If we're just going to go in circles again, don't bother. We've had this argument like 50 times at least.
edit on 8/22/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Socialism in it's purest form represents the highest form of economic and personal responsibility. Of course you'd have to move beyond whatever woo-woo, agenda driven drivel you read to understand that.


You cannot take responsibility for yourself when there is no responsibility to self.

Collectivism does not need responsibility to self. It is a collective. There is no "self" in the greater good of all. To have self is to be separate from the collective.

The idea in a church is collective salvation where it is taught that no one can be saved unless we are ALL saved. So you are not responsible for your salvation because it doesn't matter. Even if you are forgiven and saved, if your neighbor isn't, then you are still damned.

So it is in a collective society. What does it matter if you are responsible for self? If there is responsibility for everyone else above self, then there is no collective. The individual ant matters not to the colony.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Socialism isn't necessarily collective and when people choose to be part of a collective their individuality and personal responsibility don't disappear.

In Capitalism, the state must leash the owners or we end up in oligarchy. In Socialism, where workers own the means of production, their labor and their product there is no need for a state to intervene.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sounds very interesting.

Please go ahead.




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

It was a bit more synergistic than what you would portray even if the fact itself is (technically) true. I'm not sure what that little historical factoid has to do with the conversation though.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 18  19  20    22  23  24 >>

log in

join