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: 50
23
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
That is what Lefties do to other Lefties after they denounce them as Fascists.

What would Righties do?


I know I know!

Waft around on invisible ethereal breezes?




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


That is what Lefties do to other Lefties after they denounce them as Fascists.


What is your solution? Armed resistance?



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
a reply to: daskakik
a reply to: DJW001



Thoreau's Civil Disobedience and State Nullification are the only options for Liberty, and respecting the rights of others.

If you feel like it, and can take time off from work.

Most gargantuan problems are best dealt with by prevention. The State is best negated by preventing it. But as slavery has passed, the State will pass too, after each human decides to use his own mind the best that he can.



edit on 26-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

That sounds like wishful thinking.

At least there were no promises.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
That is what Lefties do to other Lefties after they denounce them as Fascists.

What would Righties do?


I don't know what did happen to all the lefties after we pointed out what they had become during the GW era?

Oh, that's right, nothing. Lefties continued to do as they have always done, but they whined when we called them what they were/are.

In other words, I may disagree vehemently with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. Most true leftist states don't extend the same courtesy to their ideological opponents.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Guess you didn't understand the question.

Maybe you missed Semicollegiate's post and didn't catch the context.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

We're wasting our time you and I.

Your entire presentation is riddled with outright ignorance, willful deception and stupefying nonsense. I realize you think the same about what I say. There's simply no where to go from here.


Obviously, since by your insults you have acknowledged a lack of substantial evidence for any of your points and therefore surrendered the debate.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
Scorecard Time.

Arguments/Rebuttals

Fascism is Left +6

Fascism is Right +2

Fascism is Authoritarian +10




posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

Lovely that you continue to harp on this idiocy.


Math and History are not idiocy, not sure what you are talking about.


Look at xuenchen's post. Calculate the change in government spending from one year to the next.


I did. I pointed out how the 1.4 trillion deficit in Bush's last fiscal spending year was padded with Stimulus, Omnibus, and SCHIP to the tune of 1.17 trillion before Obama's first spending year.

2001 +128B
2002 -157B
2003 +377B
2004 +412B
2005 +318B
2006 +248B
2007 +160B
2008 +458B
2009 +242B (W)

I won't pad W's numbers with the 2001 numbers. The W admin deficit spent 2,372B in 8 years, or an average of 297B per year. That's nothing to be proud of.

2009 +1,170B (O)
2010 +1,219B
2011 +1,300B
2012 +1,086B
2013 +680B
2014 +483B

Meanwhile O has deficit spent 4,852B in *SIX* years, or an average of 809B per year.

Notice that Obama has yet to deficit spend in one year less than any of Bush's years.


Which presidency had a decline in government spending?
HINT: It ain't Bush.


Has O deficit spent less in one year than any of W's years? Any of them?

It's really easy to generate a decreasing trend of spending when you pad the first data point excessively high.


How much do you claim Obama added?
"So that's 1.17 trillion in spending during the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year that was not implemented by Bush or a Republican controlled (or even half-controlled) Congress."

Does that mean that, according to you, Bush cut the budget in his final year in office by $0.634867 trillion which Obama made up for nearly twice over?


No, it means that Obama and the Democrat supermajority added 1.17 trillion to the deficit in less than 8 months with three bills.


Do you see some inconsistency with this claim?


I see you trying to twist and contort numbers to fit your paradigm.

I see 2014 revenues of 3,021B which are higher than any of W's annual revenues+deficit, and still O had to spend another 483B.

So while I will not deny W grew government (and I have never denied it), he didn't hold a candle to O.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
Yes...Yessss....Gooooood. (Said in the voice of Darth Sidious.)

Keep working on that Orwellian Newspeak Doublethink. Right is left and left is right! Black is white and white is black! Fascism is Left and Rainbow Unicorns are Right!

Is this 1984????



“War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.”




“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”




Everything faded into mist. The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became truth. Just once in his life he had possessed – after the event: that was what counted – concrete, unmistakable evidence of an act of falsification. He had held it between his fingers for as long as thirty seconds. (1.7.11)
(All quotes are from George Orwell - 1984)


So now here we have a great lie being told by a certain faction of the political right, that is attempting to rewrite history in an image more favorable to the factions perceptions. "Fascism is far left, not far right." I have already given an historical argument why fascism is far right and has always been considered so in a previous post. Now I'm just dumbfounded. Keep working it, and who knows? You could have Doublethink for the WIN!

Yes, Authoritarianism is present in MANY different political structures. It is easy to confuse it with Fascism. In fact, Fascism has an authoritarian element, as well as a nationalistic and often racist bent.



xuenchen, no disrespect towards you, personally, by the way. This is one of those weird things that is happening on the right, because the right wants to throw this ugly word at the left and cleanse themselves from any possible taint.

What is the benefit to rewriting history?
Could this be the answer??


"It is a useful political weapon to say a modern political movement is like fascism," says Mr Passmore.


Oh. Bother. I'll try one more time... Source


Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and Anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]

Fascists identify World War I as a revolution. It brought revolutionary changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[5][6] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines or provide economic production and logistics to support those on the front lines, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[5][6] Fascists view World War I as having made liberal democracy obsolete, and regard total mobilization of society under a totalitarian single-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict. To respond effectively to economic difficulties, such a totalitarian state is led by a strong leader — such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party — to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions of violence automatically being negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11]



peace and non-fascism,

AB



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

I like the references to 1984.

1984 applies


But I would like your assessment of the problem with the wiki definition of Fascism and the "sources" that seem to be held in high regard.

We really need an in depth analysis.

I referred to this back several pages -----


(backquote)


Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and Anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]



Take notice how they establish a "rock solid" definition with 4 references ( [1]+[2]+[3]+[4] )

Then look deeper into those so called references and see how cleverly they elude to books.

Books that are more than likely just simple novels in reality.

The hidden references exposed






posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

George Orwell was indeed a socialist and of the ilk that you folks would likely sympathize with.

When he spoke of the fear of fascists, he meant the Nazis and Italians as he correctly saw that they were all totalitarianisms as was the Soviet Union.

This was not international marxism, socialism to Orwell. So too was he disappointed in the USSR for not living up to the hopes and dreams of the proletariat.



Position in the political spectrum

Fascism was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational. A number of historians regard fascism either as a revolutionary centrist doctrine, as a doctrine that mixes philosophies of the left and the right, or as both those things. Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who combined left-wing and right-wing political views. Some scholars consider fascism right-wing because of its social conservatism and authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism. Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the right, explaining that, "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be." It should be noted all fascist regimes have been statists socialists with totalitarian centralized power.


The difficulty with failing to recognize that each of these systems was socialist springs from the bloodlust that the various flavors have for each other.

So much energy was spent demonizing the other variations that history itself seems to be pockmarked with logical fallacies.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Doublespeak indeed. They want you to think the opposite is true.





The rightists can be scary at times.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven

Lovely that you continue to harp on this idiocy.


Math and History are not idiocy, not sure what you are talking about.


Look at xuenchen's post. Calculate the change in government spending from one year to the next.


I did. I pointed out how the 1.4 trillion deficit in Bush's last fiscal spending year was padded with Stimulus, Omnibus, and SCHIP to the tune of 1.17 trillion before Obama's first spending year.

2001 +128B
2002 -157B
2003 +377B
2004 +412B
2005 +318B
2006 +248B
2007 +160B
2008 +458B
2009 +242B (W)

I won't pad W's numbers with the 2001 numbers. The W admin deficit spent 2,372B in 8 years, or an average of 297B per year. That's nothing to be proud of.

2009 +1,170B (O)
2010 +1,219B
2011 +1,300B
2012 +1,086B
2013 +680B
2014 +483B

Meanwhile O has deficit spent 4,852B in *SIX* years, or an average of 809B per year.

Notice that Obama has yet to deficit spend in one year less than any of Bush's years.


Which presidency had a decline in government spending?
HINT: It ain't Bush.


Has O deficit spent less in one year than any of W's years? Any of them?

It's really easy to generate a decreasing trend of spending when you pad the first data point excessively high.


How much do you claim Obama added?
"So that's 1.17 trillion in spending during the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year that was not implemented by Bush or a Republican controlled (or even half-controlled) Congress."

Does that mean that, according to you, Bush cut the budget in his final year in office by $0.634867 trillion which Obama made up for nearly twice over?


No, it means that Obama and the Democrat supermajority added 1.17 trillion to the deficit in less than 8 months with three bills.


Do you see some inconsistency with this claim?


I see you trying to twist and contort numbers to fit your paradigm.

I see 2014 revenues of 3,021B which are higher than any of W's annual revenues+deficit, and still O had to spend another 483B.

So while I will not deny W grew government (and I have never denied it), he didn't hold a candle to O.

It seems more about propaganda than any math or history.

I don't know why you even bring up deficit and revenues.

When you are talking about increasing the size of government that is talking about increasing government spending - not revenues, nor deficits. Revenues might fall due to some particular calamity (like, I don't know, the 2007-2008 crash that started well under Bush but people still try to blame on Obama).

When you look at the two most recent presidents, under one, the government always increased spending. Under the other, it was nearly the same from the first to the last.

Your excuse there is that Obama front-loaded his spending then moved it up and down. Again, let me point out spending changes from 2008 (purely Bush) to 2009 (mixed Bush / Obama):
2008 2.982544 T 9.30%
2009 3.517677 T 17.94%
Difference: $535,133 billion.

Yet, you say the difference is 1.17 trillion... but wait a second, you're changing the terminology around at-will. Previously, this is what you said:

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
So that's 1.17 trillion in spending during the 2008 to 2009 fiscal year that was not implemented by Bush or a Republican controlled (or even half-controlled) Congress.

Now you are saying this:

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
No, it means that Obama and the Democrat supermajority added 1.17 trillion to the deficit in less than 8 months with three bills.

Deficit is not equal to spending. This second quote was after asking what exactly you meant, given that $1.17 T is much higher than the difference between the budgets of $535,133 B.

If you'll look at the numbers, revenues dropped substantially. You ignore this, and instead twist things to justify your prior claim that the 'side' that increases government is:

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
Liberals and Progressives, of course.

When in fact, we can see quite clearly your agenda.

You are just too unwilling to see beyond your nose. Besides, if you want to play the 'deficit matters' game - go look at Clinton; budget surplus for 4 years straight. You might want to check out which presidents previously had them, if you think that signifies government growth (again, it does not).



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

We're wasting our time you and I.

Your entire presentation is riddled with outright ignorance, willful deception and stupefying nonsense. I realize you think the same about what I say. There's simply no where to go from here.


Obviously, since by your insults you have acknowledged a lack of substantial evidence for any of your points and therefore surrendered the debate.


If insults are surrender, you lost before you started.

Too bad you don't get to make evidence disappear because you say so, but you, a true believer, are unswayed by any evidence.

Like I said, waste of time.



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Scorecard Time.

Arguments/Rebuttals

Fascism is Left +6

Fascism is Right +2

Fascism is Authoritarian +10





Actually, that makes sense to me, since fascism was designed to incorporate both "right and left" aspects, while being a vehicle for dictatorial rule.

I guess we're better at this than I thought!




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Actually, that makes sense to me, since fascism was designed to incorporate both "right and left" aspects, while being a vehicle for dictatorial rule.


I guess we can finally end this argument.



I guess we're better at this than I thought!


Yep some people here are very smart but too smart to realize what it means.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
Or we can look at the definition, and how what is known as fascism emerged, historically speaking...


fascism
[fash-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.
(initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.



History - Encyclopedia
Origins of Fascism
While socialism (particularly Marxism) came into existence as a clearly formulated theory or program based on a specific interpretation of history, fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction against socialist and democratic egalitarianism. The growth of democratic ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was terrifying to some conservative elements in European society, and fascism grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass parties based largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie, exploiting their fear of political domination by the lower classes. Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stöker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism, and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property.

Source

OR, for another source:


The history of Fascist ideology, or fascism and ideology, is long and involves many sources. Fascists took inspiration from as far back as the Spartans for their focus on racial purity and emphasis on rule by an elite minority; it has also been connected to the ideals of Plato, though there are key differences. In Italy, Fascism styled itself as the ideological successor of Rome, particularly the Roman Empire. The Enlightenment-era concept of a "high and noble" Aryan culture as opposed to a "parasitic" Semitic culture was core to Nazi racial views; from the same era, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's view on the absolute authority of the state also strongly influenced Fascist thinking. The French Revolution was a major influence insofar as the Nazis saw themselves as fighting back against many of the ideas it brought to prominence, especially liberalism, liberal democracy, and racial equality; on the other hand, Fascism drew heavily on the revolutionary ideal of nationalism.
Source



Soooo... How is fasicm a "liberal left" movement? Answer: It's NOT. It is a reaction against liberal left movements.
I can't help it if history doesn't agree with you.

Liberal left movements aren't all shiny and without flaws, but they are not inherently fascist. Let's compare:


While communism is a system based around a theory of economic equality and advocates for a classless society, fascism is a nationalistic, top-down system with rigid class roles that is ruled by an all-powerful dictator. Both communism and fascism originated in Europe and gained popularity in the early to mid 20th century.


Communism is a "people's uprising" type of movement based on railing against elites and rigid class structures that prevent upward mobility and create large masses of impoverished folks. The beginnings of Communism looked a lot more like the Occupy Wall Street movement than the hyper-nationalistic and racist beginnings of Nazism and Mussolini.

- AB


Dictionary definitions are tricky in matters connected to the ruling class. The dictionary relects usage, which can change a denotaion over time, especially since the ruling class influences education and culture.


fascism
[fash-iz-uh m]
noun
1.
(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2.
(sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3.
(initial capital letter) a political movement that employs the principles and methods of fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


Even so, your definition of Fascism above does not put Fascism on the Right. Unless Lenin and Stalin were also Fascists.

Both Lenin and Stalin in turn led a country with

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc.,


The part of the definition stating

and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
is not true of Communism technically. However, the USSR did invade all of its European neighbors, nationalism or not.[2] And the USSR was deployed to invade Germany in 1941. Although Communism was not anti-semitc, neither was Mussolini the Fascist.

So basically your definition of Fascism is that Mussolini wasn't a socialist. Mussolini was raised as a socialist, headed the socialist party in Italy and made his Fascists by

Borrowing from Russian Communism a system of party organization
[1]. Mussolini was socialistic, at least. A collectivist Progressive for sure. Certainly on the politically holistic Left.

The Right is the opposite of the Left, not a subset of the Left. The opposite of central planning and control is anarchy, so the Right is Anarchy and putting Fascism on the Right is impossible. Since Fascism is extreme and not on the Right, Fascism must be on far Left.

BTW All modern States are on the Left. They all claim conscription, confiscation, taxation, and regulation of anything as within state power.





1. www.infoplease.com... AboveBoard's 1st encyclopedia source
2. And the USSR was deployed to invade Germany in 1941, with its army on the border, supplies stockpiled on the border, and its air force staged close to the border so as to fly missions into Germany. A defensive deployment would have put the suppies and aircraft on the ground further from the border, out of reach from German planes based in Germany, and the army back from the border for reaction time and freedom of movement.


edit on 27-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate




The Right is the opposite of the Left, not a subset of the Left. The opposite of central planning and control is anarchy, so the Right is Anarchy and putting Fascism on the Right is impossible. Since Fascism is extreme and not on the Right, Fascism must be on far Left.


Oh wow this is an example of orwell's novel.

The left is about equality. I can't understand why some people don't understand that.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I am drunk but I will end with my last post.

Is North Korea a "left"?




top topics



 
23
<< 47  48  49    51  52  53 >>

log in

join