Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

originally posted by: Kali74
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.

Petty political distinctions become irrelevant when the people involved are struggling to keep a business (small or large) afloat. To the extent that "a worker-owned economy" would be the ultimate expression of "a business" I can't help but agree completely with your summation here.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yes, of course. Because as we all know, when a corporation, a politician or someone else in power tells people they're for progress and equality it is to be taken at face value. A most skeptical stance that.

It is only progress to the left, is that so hard to understand. That the left's definition of progress isn't universal, I mean come on. Are you freaking kidding me.. Do you believe Google too when they tell you they could do no evil? Is there no end to the gullibility.

Do you need examples? How about feminists pulling fire alarms and attacking people for wanting to speak at places and having different opinions? That has become the norm for third wave feminists. Every day there is a new story where some leftist loonie does or says something that in all actuality shouldn't ever be taken seriously. Instead they're pandered to and their hissy fits are taken for the new norm. It's a self-organizing consensus that is forever moving the goalpost and changing definitions. Did you not notice the change in definition of racist? The totalitarian tip toe should be obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

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

Not to mention, a seminal defiance and denial of authoritarianism. Your comment really cuts to the heart of the issue however; beautiful verbal efficiency in action!

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yes, of course. Because as we all know, when a corporation, a politician or someone else in power tells people they're for progress and equality it is to be taken at face value. A most skeptical stance that.

More hopelessly vague comparisons. Alien's comment goes to the philosophy and history of "the left."

It is only progress to the left, is that so hard to understand. That the left's definition of progress isn't universal, I mean come on. Are you freaking kidding me.. Do you believe Google too when they tell you they could do no evil? Is there no end to the gullibility.

Again what "left"? The Social Democrats in Sweden? The Democrats in America? Who are you talking about SPECIFICALLY?

The definition of progress is universal; implying that there is more than one general meaning of "progress" is about as far off the mark as implying that "fascism" is leftist.

Do you need examples? How about feminists pulling fire alarms and attacking people for wanting to speak at places and having different opinions? That has become the norm for third wave feminists. Every day there is a new story where some leftist loonie does or says something that in all actuality shouldn't ever be taken seriously. Instead they're pandered to and their hissy fits are taken for the new norm. It's a self-organizing consensus that is forever moving the goalpost and changing definitions. Did you not notice the change in definition of racist? The totalitarian tip toe should be obvious to anyone with their eyes open.

You are opposed to civil disobedience now? It sounds like you can't tolerate anyone else's definitions or ideas, and can only accept your own. What anyone else believes or holds important is "loony." In distinction to your presentation, most would agree that the acts of government and politics are cooperative in their very essences.

You're sounding more authoritarian all the time. I think you're upset because you aren't able to impose YOUR will on everyone else.

a reply to: Kali74

A worker owned economy has never come to fruition so there are no examples only theory.

Actually, there have been truly communal societies. The first Israeli settlements were socialist kibbutzim. Although some are still run as a commune, most have long since become capitalist corporations. The historical record suggests that true socialism is not a viable economic option.

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.

Not necessarily; remember, if all the workers own the means of production and share in the decision making process, there will be differences of opinion. Some workers will contribute more, whether in terms of strategy or labor, than others. If the venture fails, there will be a tendency to blame everyone but oneself.

An economy that rewarded labor vs random ownership (share holders) would seem to me, a truer free market.

But ownership is not random! People choose where to invest their money. If they invest wisely they make a profit; if they invest foolishly, they should take a loss. It is the willingness of the government to bail out losers that is America's greatest failing.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You read my post dealing solely with Sweden and then you go on talking about the democratic party. I'm not talking about parties here. I see the big picture of dialectic movements playing off each other. You're caught up with the trees.

Corporatism. “You're living in the past, man. You're hung up on some clown from the '60s, man!”
You still use the Cold War definition of fascism but fascism has already come to the US and it came on both sides. I say this because of modern lobbying and the revolving door between Washington and high corporate positions.

It is true that Sweden is one of the freest nations in many regards. It's the ideological monopoly and total stagnation in free thought that is fascist in its nature. The economy and the social security systems couldn't last if current trajectories are followed. In 10-20 years the immigration population could double, which would also double the nationalistic party.

Sweden is an inversion of the socialist utopia many American socialists imagine Scandinavia to be. It is standing on its head, having went around 360 degrees it does not know left from right or up from down. Only that progress and equality is right, which makes one good. And in relation to this, not subscribing to this memeplex automatically makes one bad.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You're talking about political parties. Don't be myopic. I'm talking about intellectual movements and trends.

And the fact is that the Western progressive movement has massively overextended itself. It's anti-thesis will be just as enormous.

Yes and no. Progress may be universal, progress musn't be universal. Progress can be subjective, Chinese people could embrace legalism and make progress, not all other people could.

What you seem to claim though, is that the progressive idea of progress is universal or the correct one. Which of course is quite laughable.

There's a difference between civil disobedience and boorish and idiotic bullying. When they disrupt talks on universities they should be arrested by campus security.

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

So, you want to discuss your political theories with no reference to their real-world applications?

Fair enough. Then the rebuttal to any and all of your presentation is "I don't think so; prove it."

Just a few notes: I gave you (and have several times previously) a generic easily available definition of fascism. You want us to use YOUR definition, and I don't care to. Your "definition" is merely your opinion with no general consensus.

You don't want to discuss American politics, and then you proceed to do so. Let's be clear once more, YOU don't want to go by the rules that YOU set for everyone else. Classic authoritarianism.

Again, YOUR opinions about Sweden are not backed up by anything. YOU are welcome of course to YOUR opinions, but don't try to inflict them on the rest of us, and when YOU do so, expect it to be pointed out to YOU.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Gryphon66

You're talking about political parties. Don't be myopic. I'm talking about intellectual movements and trends.

And the fact is that the Western progressive movement has massively overextended itself. It's anti-thesis will be just as enormous.

Yes and no. Progress may be universal, progress musn't be universal. Progress can be subjective, Chinese people could embrace legalism and make progress, not all other people could.

What you seem to claim though, is that the progressive idea of progress is universal or the correct one. Which of course is quite laughable.

There's a difference between civil disobedience and boorish and idiotic bullying. When they disrupt talks on universities they should be arrested by campus security.

Intellectual movements and trends eh? Can you cite anything as a resource other than your own opinions?

If not, again, we aren't talking about any movement or trend, and certainly not about anything intellectual.

"Blah blah progressive, blah blah leftist." That's your whole schtick.

Come up with something based in fact, even loosely, and we'll talk. Until then, you're talking to yourself.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, I am authoritarian alright. Never claimed anything else. I don't believe in democracy, that is rule by the stupid and the weak. I could believe in the divine right of kings for all that mattered. Doesn't really matter in this discussion.

The left is fascism in its theory and in its application. The fact is, weak people with a boner for authority seek out these power positions because of their own fascism which they constantly project on the outside world. These people are basically psychotic and totally delusional. Their mental process is akin to a möbius strip, their personality is tied in a knot and they're entirely clueless about the harsh contrast and contradiction that is so central to their character.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh, I am authoritarian alright. Never claimed anything else. I don't believe in democracy, that is rule by the stupid and the weak. I could believe in the divine right of kings for all that mattered. Doesn't really matter in this discussion.

The left is fascism in its theory and in its application. The fact is, weak people with a boner for authority seek out these power positions because of their own fascism which they constantly project on the outside world. These people are basically psychotic and totally delusional. Their mental process is akin to a möbius strip, their personality is tied in a knot and they're entirely clueless about the harsh contrast and contradiction that is so central to their character.

So, it'd be appropriate to call you a fascist then? Do you consider yourself left-wing?

/thread

a reply to: Gryphon66

What could you ever expect me to cite for such broad comments. That comment was asinine.

Everything I speak of is fact. You cannot deny this. Everything I say about modern progressivism is true, it's the political affiliation of the most sheepish and self-righteous people. The people that dare not be different but still try so hard(hipsters), the people that believe everything they're told because their naivete is unparalleled in history.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Monarchism could never be fascism. That is utterly impossible.

And I could never hold leftist ideals or ideas, that is utterly preposterous.

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Gryphon66

Monarchism could never be fascism. That is utterly impossible.

And I could never hold leftist ideals or ideas, that is utterly preposterous.

Now we have your position clearly which obviously relates to nothing except your own ... unique ... belief system.

What say we let the other folks have a go at the topic, eh?

a reply to: TheLaughingGod

Oh, I am authoritarian alright. Never claimed anything else. I don't believe in democracy, that is rule by the stupid and the weak. I could believe in the divine right of kings for all that mattered. Doesn't really matter in this discussion.

Seig heil!

The left is fascism in its theory and in its application.

Equality = Fascism? Got it.

The fact is, weak people with a boner for authority seek out these power positions because of their own fascism which they constantly project on the outside world.

They do exist but how does that show that the left wants fascism?

I'd love to see the left create a totalitarian government that forces equality and progress for the humankind.

Hey wait a minute!

originally posted by: TheLaughingGod
a reply to: Gryphon66

What could you ever expect me to cite for such broad comments. That comment was asinine.

Everything I speak of is fact. You cannot deny this. Everything I say about modern progressivism is true, it's the political affiliation of the most sheepish and self-righteous people. The people that dare not be different but still try so hard(hipsters), the people that believe everything they're told because their naivete is unparalleled in history.

Er, but I did just deny it, and I'll do so again: Nothing you say is true.

Nothing you say has been proven by any evidence. On the contrary, what you've said has been proven completely and utterly in error both by what I have offered you and the content of this discussion.

I know actual word meanings are not your strongest concern, but you might do well to look up "solipsism" and perhaps "megalomania."

We're done.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

I'd love to see the left create a totalitarian government that forces equality and progress for the humankind.

Like Maoism? leninism?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Like Maoism? leninism?

Hmm what equality and progress do you speak of?

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Cultural Revolution or dictatorship of the proletariat for example.

It's kind of funny. Only in the US do we engage in this sort of doublespeak.