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: 47
23
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: beezzer

You're down with this silliness as well?

You really believe that Fascism, Communism, Socialism and Totalitarianism are all exclusively Left-wing?


Since it suits leftists to throw out Somalia and other failed states descended into states of near total anarchy as right wing Utopias, I would think this is apt.

If Somalia is an example of the extreme right, then those others where the state takes total control would be examples of extreme left.




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: amfirst1

Either you have never seen a right fascist or the fascists you have seen were labeling themselves erroneously. Fascism is by definition for government control.

If you are talking about Neo-NAZIs, I'm not sure they belong to any real political spectrum. They have the total governmental control desires of the left, but they would use it to enforce ethnic cleansing policies, something the left is adamant they would not do. However, sometimes the very radical leftist rhetoric leaves me in doubt of that. They may not enforce ethnic cleansing but they may institute policies of social control that more or less amount to the same effect on various groups.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko


Since it suits leftists to throw out Somalia and other failed states descended into states of near total anarchy as right wing Utopias, I would think this is apt.


Somalia is a good example of what happens when you take "less government = more freedom" as a conservative philosophy. It is not. You are confusing Libertarianism, which is liberal, with the right. Iran is a good example of the ideal right wing state. Family values, religion based laws, etc.


If Somalia is an example of the extreme right, then those others where the state takes total control would be examples of extreme left.


False analogy. The characteristic of the left is a concern for individual rights, and a communal approach to society. Absolute government control is right wing.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Great example of your usual attempts to lie and twist what others say in order to prop up your own faulty arguments.

No one has ever thrown out Somalia as a "right wing Utopia" to my knowledge, though I have seen it used as an example of the ultimate result of the lack of centralized government as glorified in various libertarian fantasies, but again, as usual, you're misrepresenting the truth.

No one's surprised at this point, I'm sure.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
The characteristic of the left is a concern for individual rights, and a communal approach to society. Absolute government control is right wing.


We've been stating that general concept for 40 pages.

We've traced the history of the terms.

We've given generally-accepted definitions, references, links to scholarly articles, etc.

Evidence presented logically makes no difference to some.

Belief wins.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
What isn't clear to some of you, is that what you think of as "conservative=anti-government" is a phenomenon of the last decade or so as certain aspects of libertarianism were co-opted by radical right-wing elements and promoted through the rightwing media.

American Conservatives have not, traditionally, been against government, but rather have been government's champions. "Law and order" "being a good patriotic citizen" etc. have been the traditional goals of the American Right.

American Conservatives were and have been against the government providing a social safety net, and with government regulations regarding business practices particularly in regard to environmental concerns and assurance of civil rights. American Conservatives always try to portray that what is good for business is good for all (the argument, by the way, of the Federalists under Hamilton, which were also opposed by that Leftist Thomas Jefferson.) and when the rich businessmen become richer, somehow, the droppings will "trickle" down to the great mass of people (the Reagan "voodoo economics" aka supply-side.)

American Conservatives, more then anything else were against Soviet Communism (and later Maoism). The rise of anti-communist thought after WWII serves as the philosophical and existential CORE of the modern American conservative movement. McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, et. al. are the true "heroes" of American Conservationism because, conversely, they were terrified that The Revolution would be coming to American shores (and upend the economic system they were all so heavily invested in and profiting from).

That's right, ironically, it was Leftists that were at the heart of The Revolutions, the French and American (as well as the Russian Revolution, as much as that will make some of you scream.) These Revolutions overturned the existing authoritarian centrism and replaced it with what was intended to be egalitarian communalism (or republicanism in the original sense.)

Because historically "the left" was opposed to monarchical control (and/or totalitarian control) and were in favor of (representative) rule by the People (Republicanism) or by the Workers (Marxist Communism) or were against government ALTOGETHER! (libertarians/anarchists).

Look up the actual original meaning of the word "Soviet" sometime for an enlightenment.
edit on 11Wed, 26 Aug 2015 11:00:09 -050015p112015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
While I personally believe in a mixed economy with a balance between pure capitalist and socialist extremes, I would be the first to admit that what Soviet Russia (and Maoist China) became AFTER the Revolutions was anything but Leftist (although that certainly has not kept the American Right to continue to try to hang that pejorative on them.)

Stalinism (which is what many of you actually think of when you hear "communism") is dictatorial totalitarianism.

Maoism is more at oligarchical totalitarianism.

Why did these movements that began in The Revolution toward leftist idealism become corrupted by totalitarianism?

In my opinion, this relates to a very simple fact: it is virtually impossible to govern a modern Nation without centralized authority.

I would argue that the Founders knew this very truth when they left the loose-knit Confederation behind and formed the Federal Union, and yet, the number one feature of the US Constitution is compromise ... there is a balance struck between centralized national power and localized state or municipal power. So far, this system has been proven the most effective system ever developed for governance of human society.

The weakness of such a system, of course, is our fundamental DIFFERENCES as a People coupled with the fact that we all have equal rights to express those DIFFERENCES in our preferences for government.
edit on 10Wed, 26 Aug 2015 10:45:49 -050015p102015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ketsuko


Since it suits leftists to throw out Somalia and other failed states descended into states of near total anarchy as right wing Utopias, I would think this is apt.


Somalia is a good example of what happens when you take "less government = more freedom" as a conservative philosophy. It is not. You are confusing Libertarianism, which is liberal, with the right. Iran is a good example of the ideal right wing state. Family values, religion based laws, etc.


If Somalia is an example of the extreme right, then those others where the state takes total control would be examples of extreme left.



False analogy. The characteristic of the left is a concern for individual rights, and a communal approach to society. Absolute government control is right wing.


You are comparing different levels of intensity.

Soft on the left side

The characteristic of the left is a concern for individual rights, and a communal approach to society.


Extreme on the right side

Absolute government control is right wing


You are also comparing a non-material philosophy to a real government.

Absolute government control is only 100 years old, and is always on the socially holistic Left. Religiousness is a quality of the indigenous culture, not of political philosophy.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Absolute government control is only 100 years old, and is always on the socially holistic Left. Religiousness is a quality of the indigenous culture, not of political philosophy.


I did not know that the word "tyranny" was only 100 years old. I never realized that Ivan that Terrible was on the socially holistic left. Also, I guess theocracy is not a "thing."



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Absolute government control is only 100 years old, and is always on the socially holistic Left. Religiousness is a quality of the indigenous culture, not of political philosophy.


I did not know that the word "tyranny" was only 100 years old. I never realized that Ivan that Terrible was on the socially holistic left. Also, I guess theocracy is not a "thing."


If you say so.

The Left is tyrannical and ignorant.

Theocracy is socialism with a religious ideology.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Interesting* to know that before 1915 there were no governments, or at least ones in absolute control .

And all all government, at least by your definition, is "left."



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Absolute government control is only 100 years old, and is always on the socially holistic Left. Religiousness is a quality of the indigenous culture, not of political philosophy.


I did not know that the word "tyranny" was only 100 years old. I never realized that Ivan that Terrible was on the socially holistic left. Also, I guess theocracy is not a "thing."


If you say so.

The Left is tyrannical and ignorant.

Theocracy is socialism with a religious ideology.


Why?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Absolute government control is only 100 years old, and is always on the socially holistic Left. Religiousness is a quality of the indigenous culture, not of political philosophy.


I did not know that the word "tyranny" was only 100 years old. I never realized that Ivan that Terrible was on the socially holistic left. Also, I guess theocracy is not a "thing."


If you say so.

The Left is tyrannical and ignorant.

Theocracy is socialism with a religious ideology.


Why?


The Left takes the entire sphere of human behavior as subject to intervention and never offers an opt out, so the Left is tyrannical.

The Left assumes it can run everything without knowing everything, so the Left is ignorant.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You keep saying left as if there is anything other than AC on your right.

If you are "AC or bust" why do you keep addressing things in left-right context?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

LOL

Early 1950s: Social revolution



The People's Republic of China was founded on a land that was ravaged by a century of foreign invasion and civil wars. Both urban and rural communities as both agriculture and industry experienced significant growth between 1949 to 1959.[citation needed] Mao's government carried out mass executions of landowners, instituted collectivisation and implemented the Laogai camp system. Execution, deaths from forced labor and other atrocities resulted in millions of deaths under Mao.




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

What are you LOLing about?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I think you are confusing the Left with Religion



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Not really.

Iran is a better example of another totalitarian state which sets it to the left on the left/right axis being argued.

On the European axis, then you would be more correct - fascism was put on the right in an attempt to differentiate it from communism because round about WWII and just prior, those two ideologies were locked into a war for the hearts and minds of Europe.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Great example of your usual attempts to lie and twist what others say in order to prop up your own faulty arguments.

No one has ever thrown out Somalia as a "right wing Utopia" to my knowledge, though I have seen it used as an example of the ultimate result of the lack of centralized government as glorified in various libertarian fantasies, but again, as usual, you're misrepresenting the truth.

No one's surprised at this point, I'm sure.


Ah, birdie, birdie, clearly you are so persecuted!

Please continue to attack the messenger rather than the message. Ad hominem is a sure sign you have nowhere else to go.

But perhaps you never have set foot in threads about libertarianism where the charge in question is a frequent one.
edit on 26-8-2015 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   
And really, it's parsing hairs here whether we are talking society on the order of Brave New World or The Giver as opposed to 1984 or The Hunger Games. Sure you can make the argument that in the first two, the cages of total government control are gilded while in the latter two the cages are ugly and rusty, but not matter which of the four you read, the one constant is absolute control of the central authority.

I'm sure our thread friends who want so very much to differentiate socialism from fascism want us to see only the gilding and forget that for all that the fascism of Hitler and Mussolini laid bare the ugliness of the total control cage, the cage in socialism is still very much there and very much total. We don't get to choose whether or not we're put into it.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 44  45  46    48  49  50 >>

log in

join