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: 22
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Obviously anything contrary to your opinion is going on circles. I will do it however for the benefit of others reading the thread. Whatever version you think is pure socialism I guarantee what is being implemented now in the US and worldwide is Totalitarian in nature and contrary to individual liberties. I guess in terms of French socialism they thought they were liberating the masses from the domination of the Monarchy and used the masses in uprising, and today we also see mass uprising with ppl demanding relief from their personal debts and loans(oh wait that's taking personal responsibility ?)
edit on 22-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74


Socialism in it's purest form represents the highest form of economic and personal responsibility.


Interesting. Please expand upon this.What scale is economic responsibility measured on? In what units is it measured? Please provide a range of historical examples to illustrate this scale. Here is your chance to shine!
edit on 22-8-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 09:40 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.


I think that's what Jesus would want. Everyone works to the best of their ability and Everyone receives what they need from the collective.
Purest form of social organization and Biblical as well.






edit on 22-8-2015 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:14 PM
link   
"There is no difference in totalitarian states, call them Nazi, fascist, or communist – they are
all the same."

– Harry Truman



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: redhorse
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.



Are you talking about something in particular, or babbling in general?

And why in the heck are you doing either to me about it? I'm the jerk who's grating on your nerves, remember?

Feel free to ignore me.
edit on 22Sat, 22 Aug 2015 22:16:22 -050015p102015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

What was below that was one person saying that they had not "failed" that others just didn't let them "suceed".

It was showing the flaw in the argument that Libertarianism has not "failed" but that socialists had not let it "succeed".



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
"There is no difference in totalitarian states, call them Nazi, fascist, or communist – they are
all the same."

– Harry Truman



That's an interesting observation. I often think that right-wingers really mean to claim that both Nazi fascism and Soviet communism were the "same" because they were both totalitarian and/or authoritarian systems.

This whole thing can't really be that simplistic, can it?



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Context (something xeuchen has little truck with): An essay about the Russian domination of eastern Europe.
"We only want justice and a just peace. That we'll have and that we'll get. There is no difference in totalitarian states, call them Nazi, fascist or communist -- they are all the same. The present dictatorship in Russia is as terrible as the czar's ever was."

edit on 8/22/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Nazism and Communism were both big government despotism. The difference was in how they controlled their citizens. One was primarily by propaganda, the other was primarily by intimidation. The lines blurred, and they both used nationalist pride of the 'Fatherland' and 'Motherland' to oppose each other. Just because the Soviets fought the Axis did not make them the 'good guys', it only made them the 'more reasonable bad guys' that wanted to put their global vision into play on their own terms and on their timetables.



posted on Aug, 22 2015 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Thank you for clarifying that for me.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Here 's an interesting tidbit I found reading Wikipedia on different classifications of libertarianism


Social anarchists believe the state defends private property, which they view as intrinsically harmful, while market-oriented left-libertarians argue that so-called free markets actually consist of economic privileges granted by the state.
en.wikipedia.org...
I would have to say that right now the State does not defend private property, it punishes it and taxes it to death. That is one important element of why our economy is tanking. The State is taxing all of our property in it's efforts to create the perfect Utopian Social and Economic Justice. One can hear today various people talking about social justice, in these forums, on the Net, in the news media, etc. Yet the people who write these kinds of Draconian laws have plenty of wealth of their own. All anyone has to do is google the net worth of most of these career politicians and they are on both the left and the right. How is it that so many of these people have accrued so much personal wealth while advocating we give up ours for the common good? That is a Marxian concept, giving up our property for the common good. This is what is common to both communism and socialism, the need for certain people to force others to give up what is their property for the common good, and it is always what the State happens to determine what is important whether it is truly moral or not. Enforcement is necessary to make people comply with the wishes of the State for the common good( this is not the true teaching of Christ no matter how Progressives would like it to be) Christ multiplied the loaves and fishes, he didn't confiscate them from one person and give it to somebody else. That is just my answer to the guy who just engaged in apologetics...
and oh yah I just love that little bit about how market socialist libertarians iimagine the state grants economic priveleges..... that is what is happening and it's not such a good thing. We see the results all around us. For the record this is exactly what the Founding Fathers were talking about when they stated that our rights are natural and not granted by the State.
edit on 23-8-2015 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 12:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66






That's an interesting observation. I often think that right-wingers really mean to claim that both Nazi fascism and Soviet communism were the "same" because they were both totalitarian and/or authoritarian systems.


yah not to mention it was Harry Truman, also a Democrat. However...

Truman approved the use of atomic weapons against Japan, intending to force Japan’s surrender and spare American lives in a planned invasion; the decision remains controversial. His presidency was a turning point in foreign affairs, as his government supported an internationalist foreign policy in conjunction with European allies. Following the war, Truman assisted in the founding of the United Nations, issued the Truman Doctrine to contain communism, and passed the $13 billion Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe,
en.wikipedia.org...

Sometimes people just don't go according to stereotype.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're supposed to attack the material, not the source.

Can you do this or will you fail at this as well?

Do it point by point please.

You cannot ever touch these issues because you know you've got nothing to stand on.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:57 AM
link   
***** ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS *****

Attack the ball and not the player. If you can't stay on topic and continue to discuss one another, posts will be removed and posting bans will be applied.

Discuss the topic at hand or walk away.

***** DO NOT REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE *****



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're supposed to attack the material, not the source.

Can you do this or will you fail at this as well?

Do it point by point please.

You cannot ever touch these issues because you know you've got nothing to stand on.


There's no further "point by point" debate needed: the meaning of the word "fascism" is well-established.

Numerous citations have been offered of the word, historical examples have been given of its origin, regular applications, etc., and further the meanings of political left and right have been analyzed from their inception to the present day with multiple examples given of each.

All of that documentation, offered by several members over 22 pages presents an overwhelming mountain of evidence that puts the lie to the supposition that "fascism is far left." An argument that insists that any member do all that again is merely specious in the extreme.

Best,
edit on 4Sun, 23 Aug 2015 04:59:16 -050015p042015866 by Gryphon66 because: Added the word "further" to the first sentence



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 05:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Could you list and explain any successful system of organizing a nationally-sized government that would not, or could not be generically classified as "big"? I.e., isn't every national government by definition "big"? What does "big" mean in this context? Number of departments? Number of internal employees? Geographical distribution?

Aside from that simply classifying a political system you don't agree with as "the bad guys" seems overly simplistic. Do you know much about actual Soviet history, for example, or the political structure of Russia pre-Soviet?

Those are important factors in your analysis as well.


edit on 5Sun, 23 Aug 2015 05:22:57 -050015p052015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 05:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Well. As I recall, our discussion was a deviation on the main theme.

What you say holds true, but to say that the left doesn't engage in fascism would also be specious in the extreme. Especially these days when progressives are becoming more and more militant.

I do not lie when I say I am a Swede, I do not lie when I say that the left is always the first to use violence here. I do not lie when I say that they can get you fired from most jobs if you don't tow the line. I do not lie when I say that this extreme push is only polarizing the populace. That's what happens when a party that has been shut out in every possible way have gone from 2,96% of the votes to around 22% now.

Soft totalitarianism. You should look it up;


At the time, Sweden was a nation controlled by the Social Democratic Party of Sweden, which had ruled the country's government for over 40 years. Huntford argues that this had led to the complete dominance of socialist thought at all levels of the government, including the bureaucracy and the judiciary, which were all controlled by a powerful interconnecting network of Social Democratic labour unions, lobby groups, and partisan organizations. He also points to the fact that these networks made it very difficult for non-socialists to achieve any position of real power in Sweden, but noted that few Swedes seemed to view this massive politicization of their state with any concern.


That was 45 years ago. The thought corridor has only gotten narrower. Thought crimes are palpable and they are driven mainly by the left.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 05:47 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod



What you say holds true, but to say that the left doesn't engage in fascism would also be specious in the extreme. Especially these days when progressives are becoming more and more militant.


Care to explain more and provide a few examples?



Soft totalitarianism. You should look it up


I looked it up and I get many results blaming Obama and Obamacare.

The left is all about equal rights and progress. It is very antithesis to totalitarianism.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 05:51 AM
link   
a reply to: TheLaughingGod

As far as I can tell, you're merely mixing together terms to suit.

What "left" are you referring to particularly regarding the US?

The Democratic Party as a whole? The Progressive Caucus in the US Congress?

Let's review:

Basic definition of fascism: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Now, let's ignore the fact that fascism is and has been noted throughout history as "right-wing."

The other two characteristics of fascism are authoritarian and nationalistic:



authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

nationalistic: devotion, especially excessive or undiscriminating devotion, to the interests or culture of a particular nation-state.


(Source, either a simple Google search or dictionary.com)

Now, it can be seen that every government and governmental system is to some degree authoritarian, and it would be fair to say that most are nationalistic to some degree, at least, those that are national.

HOWEVER, to apply the term "fascist" rather than merely "governmental" or "political" to a movement, thought, system, etc., requires logically that there be some compelling REASON to do so, a greater quantity or quality of either authoritarianism or nationalism.

It was merely a tactic on my part to question your stated national status. However, utilizing your posted source:



He also points to the fact that these networks made it very difficult for non-socialists to achieve any position of real power in Sweden, but noted that few Swedes seemed to view this massive politicization of their state with any concern.


I realize that you are offering your own experiences of your system as evidence here. However, there exist multiple "indices of freedom" that cite Sweden as one of the freest nations in the world, as well as one of the most economically successful. I would say the facts of those would be a bit off the mark in this discussion, however: Press Freedom Index, Index of Freedom in the World etc.

So, in short, no I am not Swedish and have never been to your country. However, early on you loosely compared your subjective experiences with your governmental system to mine, which I do have a fair amount of experience with. You spoke generically about "the left," and it is in that vague attempt to equate multiple systems of government and economy, over nearly 85 years in some cases (Soviet system), that your argument fails miserably, for the reasons previously given.
edit on 5Sun, 23 Aug 2015 05:56:33 -050015p052015866 by Gryphon66 because: Minor spelling, punctuation corrections



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

A worker owned economy has never come to fruition so there are no examples only theory. It's my opinion however that such would be the epitome of personal responsibility. When you're the boss, success as well as failure falls squarely on your shoulders. An economy that rewarded labor vs random ownership (share holders) would seem to me, a truer free market.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join