It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Semicollegiate
BTW All modern States are on the Left. They all claim conscription, confiscation, taxation, and regulation of anything as within state power.
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
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.
The basis of the conflation of nazism and socialism is the term "National Socialism," a self description of the Nazis. "National Socialism" includes the word "socialism", but it is just a word. Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively. The Nazis arrested more than 11,000 Germans for "illegal socialist activity" in 1936.
Nazism is a right wing ideology. It is violently racist, anti-socialist, and it targets the political left for extermination. This is underscored by Albert Einstein's embrace of socialism throughout his life -- and in particular in his 1949 essay, Why Socialism? -- along with the fact that Einstein's name was included on a nazi death list with a bounty of $50,000 offered for his assassination. If nazism really is socialism, why would Einstein have identified himself as a socialist a scant four years after WWII?
Myth: Hitler was a leftist.
Fact: Nearly all of Hitler's beliefs placed him on the far right.
Many conservatives accuse Hitler of being a leftist, on the grounds that his party was named "National Socialist." But socialism requires worker ownership and control of the means of production. In Nazi Germany, private capitalist individuals owned the means of production, and they in turn were frequently controlled by the Nazi party and state. True socialism does not advocate such economic dictatorship -- it can only be democratic.
Hitler's other political beliefs place him almost always on the far right. He advocated racism over racial tolerance, eugenics over freedom of reproduction, merit over equality, competition over cooperation, power politics and militarism over pacifism, dictatorship over democracy, capitalism over Marxism, realism over idealism, nationalism over internationalism, exclusiveness over inclusiveness, common sense over theory or science, pragmatism over principle, and even held friendly relations with the Church, even though he was an atheist.
To most people, Hitler's beliefs belong to the extreme far right. For example, most conservatives believe in patriotism and a strong military; carry these beliefs far enough, and you arrive at Hitler's warring nationalism. This association has long been something of an embarrassment to the far right. To deflect such criticism, conservatives have recently launched a counter-attack, claiming that Hitler was a socialist, and therefore belongs to the political left, not the right.
The primary basis for this claim is that Hitler was a National Socialist. The word "National" evokes the state, and the word "Socialist" openly identifies itself as such.
However, there is no academic controversy over the status of this term: it was a misnomer. Misnomers are quite common in the history of political labels. Examples include the German Democratic Republic (which was neither) and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's "Liberal Democrat" party (which was also neither). The true question is not whether Hitler called his party "socialist," but whether or not it actually was.
originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AboveBoard
I like the references to 1984.
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 -----
Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism 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.
Take notice how they establish a "rock solid" definition with 4 references ( +++ )
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
3. Roger Griffin. Fascism. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995. pp. 8, 307.
Roger Griffin is the author of several studies of fascism, including The Nature of Fascism (1991, 1993), and contributor to Contemporary Political Ideologies (1993). He is Principal Lecturer in the Department of History at Oxford Brookes University.
About the author (1975)
Historian Henry Ashby Turner, Jr. was born in Atlanta, Georgia in 1932. He received a bachelor's degree from Washington and Lee University in 1954. He attended the University of Munich and the Free University of Berlin on his way to receiving a Ph.D. from Princeton University in 1960. He taught at Yale University for 44 years. He wrote numerous books about Germany including Stresemann and the Politics of the Weimar Republic (1963), German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler (1985), Hitler's Thirty Days to Power (1996), and General Motors and the Nazis: The Struggle for Control of Opel, Europe's Biggest Carmaker (2005). He died from complications of melanoma on December 17, 2008 at the age of 76.
originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: xuenchen
My God. What is considered a rock solid source in your universe, pray tell? Breitbart?
Please, I'm waiting...
Benito Mussolini said Fascism should be called Corporatism, and that quote seems to be widely "accepted", but never proven beyond doubt that he actually said or wrote it.
If Il Duce never said that, why would somebody pass it off as true?
All the sources about "Fascism" going as far back as Marx seem to be tainted to large extents.