It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

page: 51
<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:24 AM

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.

So did the founding fathers of the US which you seemed to be exempting in a previous post.

Bakunin's quote about it being anarchy does not make it fact.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:31 AM

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.

Some people are more equal that others -- George Orwell socialist.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:57 AM
The confusion about Left and Right comes from the status of the revolution. The revolutionaries are always Left because they are the new millennial system. At the time of the revolution and the aftermath and the consolidation of power, reaction to the revolutionaries is called Right. Once the revolutionaries are the undisputed government that revolutionary Right is gone. An authoritarian Right is only possible for the duration of the revolution, any other time it is an oxymoron.

To put Fascism on the Right requires the point of view of a Communist engaged in revolution.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:04 AM
The implantation of cantaloupes required in the amortization of Platonic annihilation is indicative of the recurring maintenance drama first predicated by Machiavelli. Excelsior, the Left maturates der Fledermaus.

(Happy Birthday! this word salad tastes platinum!)

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:41 AM
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Please, please, please do some research. You have no idea how foolish you are making yourself look. I realize that the terms "left" and "right" can be confusing, especially when one is looking at countries that are nominally Communist, but they do have actual definitions. Communism is not Fascism. Socialism is not Fascism. The Democratic party is not Fascist. Obamacare is not Fascist. The New Deal was not Fascism. The New York Times is not Fascist. Please, please, please stop using words improperly.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:10 AM
a reply to: xuenchen
a reply to: greencmp
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I don't have infinite amounts of time, which is why wiki is so convenient. However, if its simply sources you are after, let's look at different ones.

David Klein, 2011 (Professor of Mathmatics at California University Northridge, doctorate at Cornell) has a brief essay that I will share from, titled "Hitler, Nazis, Socialism, and Rightwing Propaganda."


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?

Also in the essay is the mention of the great American capitalist, Henry Ford, who was given a medal by the Third Reich which he accepted as an honor for his role in supporting the Nazis. Was he a leftist? Nope. Pure rugged individualist Capitalist all the way (though generous with his workers salaries).

Steve Kangas has written a detailed argument against the Myth that Hitler was a leftist:
Link to argument

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.

Also from the argument:

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.

(There is also very interesting commentary on how the Soviet Union was NOT socialist but dictatorial - those two things can't sleep in the same bed, so to speak but I digress...)

We humans like to put things in neat little boxes, and history and political movements are messy, evolving creatures that sometimes snub their noses at labels and USE labels to both gain support and disparage enemies.

So here is the deal. The average conservative or libertarian on the right is not some sort of extreme fascist and I would not call you one (nor are the folks on the left so don't even go there). The average liberal or progressive is not in any way relatable to the dictatorships of the not-so-socialist-after-all Soviet Union, which was a Communist Dictatorship with totalitarian and authoritarian controls. They might be relatable to the democratic socialism of, say, Norway. Is Norway fascist?? Hardly.

The only reason this argument is happening is because people (both left and right leaning) use the word fascism as a weapon to injure "the other side." The problem is that the word fascism not only begins to lose its original meaning but the lessons of history - mainly of how to avoid it - are also lost.

Mussolini gained popular support by PRETENDING to be leftist and populist in the early stages until he showed his true fascist dictatorial authoritarian face. Hitler used red on the posters and behind the symbols of his Nazi movement to attract the liberal socialist so he could, in his words "break them up." He later killed the leftists FIRST in his camps. Go figure.

We should all be watchful of evil, for it wears whatever face is convenient. Don't let the Newspeak Doublethink win. If you do, we all lose.

edit on 27-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: ack!

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:31 AM

originally posted by: xuenchen
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 -----


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

Wait. My wiki sources were really "simple novels?"

Um. So Oxford University Press isn't a valid source???
Oxford University Press: Fascism by Roger Griffin

3. Roger Griffin. Fascism. Oxford, England, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995. pp. 8, 307.

Hm. Who is this Roger Griffin? Ah... here it is...

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.

Historian Henry Ashby Turner isn't a freaking valid source??? Reappraisals of Fascism - Henry Ashby Turner

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.

Did you really look at these sources in the wiki article on Facism? Seriously.

Nice try.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:32 AM
a reply to: AboveBoard

Very good post, but it will not make a damn bit of difference. In this thread and others I have laid it all out for them to see, especially the "national socialism" bit, but they refuse to understand.

This is all part of the recent push by propagandists and right-wingers to portray and blame the atrocities of fascists regimes as being Leftist so that they do not have to accept that even their precious right-wing has blood on their hands.

One member in particular, which I'm sure you can figure out whom, is one of these propagandists and is also a right-wing troll/shill that purposefully posts false information to further push this narrative.

So, in all honesty, there is no point trying to actually educate them.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:35 AM
a reply to: introvert

Ah, dear introvert, I am not doing it for those who are pushing an agenda and have their minds firmly rooted in bringing fallacy forward as truth. I am doing it for those who are not sure, and who need solid arguments from good sources so that they don't walk away buying the propaganda...

- AB

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:39 AM
a reply to: AboveBoard

As far as using Wiki as a source collator ... if someone is truly interested they will follow the actual sources provided by WP.

It is indeed a matter of time. Why trace the primary source when the response will only be "well, that's just more leftist lies."

Nonetheless, I appreciate your work, and effort.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:39 AM
Once again, if anyone wants to know what Fascism is, you can find it described here in the words of an actual Fascist. Please deny ignorance, not spread it.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:44 AM
a reply to: AboveBoard

Well your reply is OK except that the author of the story is a mathematician and has a degree in psychics.

He also is active in the climate change controversies, and that alone could be a reason for scrubbing Fascism off any possible Left Wing connections.

I fail to see any expertise in Fascism or other political/economic systems to his credit.

Again, we see a "rock solid" assessment based on not much credentials.

These are very clever and convincing.

Welcome to Prof. David Klein's Home Page


posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:46 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

Check my next post to you regarding my ORIGINAL wiki sources. "Simple novels" indeed...

You lost points there, friend.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:47 AM
a reply to: AboveBoard

Good replay again.

But I'm still not seeing anything "rock solid" in any of the sources.

Almost like the whole thing is simply opinion.

I would rather believe what I see, not what I "hear" about.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:51 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

My God. What is considered a rock solid source in your universe, pray tell? Breitbart?

Please, I'm waiting...

Conse rvative daily news - Thread Source

Who is the author of this article?

Richard Larsen. What does he do?? Oh. He owns a financial company. He's in banking...

Richard Larsen

So, this source is somehow better than career Historians?

I can't tell you how unimpressed I am.

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

ETA Also. In fairness he has a Idaho State University
BA, History, Political Science

Bachelors does not trump Professor, though...

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

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:29 AM
Fascism, from Italian fascismo, from fascio meaning "bundle, political group"

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"


So the way I look at it, left-wing, right-wing, chicken-wing. Giving a "side" to fascism is erroneous to the fact that it involves the government working for private entities. Which sounds very familiar to the way the western world works.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:30 AM
I'm still not accepting these opinionated academic "sources".

But I will draw one conclusion.

American Democrats and Republicans at higher levels of government are and have been increasingly engaging in "Corporatism". Many people accept that right?

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.

As far as Communists denouncing Fascism, maybe that is evidence of the anti-Thesis in action.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:41 AM

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...

One that actually show the "rock solid" basis for their conclusions.

I'm not seeing that in these academic "sources".

The "citations" are being smoothed over and don't even exist.

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:44 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

Well then. You have said that you prefer only to acknowledge what YOU see with your own eyes. And that you don't like "opinionated academics."

So your only source that is rock solid is your own self, your own perceptions and your own interpretations, or dare I say "opinions."

The role of academia in relating the rise of the Third Reich from such a conservative institution as Oxford is not to push some liberal agenda - it is the in-depth relation of events that actually happened which, like a detective, historians seek out through actual documentation - real pieces of paper and photographs, diaries, official government writings, Mein Kampf, the meticulous records the Nazi's kept for everything they did.

This is not OPINION. This is RESEARCH of REAL events. One may debate the subtleties of interpretation of the events, but the documentation is copious and well marked. What happened happened. What was written down by those involved in the times is on the permanent record. Photos happened.

Tell me, how does your opinion, the opinions of conservative daily news authors or daily kos authors, or mine, for that matter, hold up against FACT? That should be the real question. History may be written largely by the victors, but in terms of the rise of the Nazi's so much has been recorded and sourced. Heck, Hitler even gave the first TV broadcast!!

There is no confusion among those who have spent years of their lives studying the historical periods that gave us the word "fascism" as to where it came from and what it means and what elements, like authoritarianism and totalitarianism go with it. Frankly, I think the professors put WAY more time into it than either of us, or the people touting the lie that fascism is left not right.

- AB

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:54 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

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.

The only thing you have posted that is true:

If Il Duce never said that, why would somebody pass it off as true?

Because they don't know any better and it makes a good talking point.

All the sources about "Fascism" going as far back as Marx seem to be tainted to large extents.

And, having momentarily touched down in the real world, you launch back into your own bizarre world. Marx did not write about Fascism since it didn't exist back then.

top topics

<< 48  49  50    52  53  54 >>

log in