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: 52
23
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:57 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Again, I appreciate your views.

Really I do.

But it's not that I don't "Like" or "dislike" the sources, It's I don't 'trust" the sources (that includes all sources, not just Left Wing sources).

We all know how bias plays a major role in all concepts.

As for all the "known proof" ....

Then those actual points need to be cited with more detail in references like wiki.

Only then would I consider the opinions less biased.





posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

A quote you might like from FDR:


Franklin D. Roosevelt wrote about fascism: "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"[32][33][34][35]


It's from one of those pesky wiki pages dedicated to definitions of the term Fascism. LINK

I would agree with you (I know you may be shocked so I hope you are sitting down) that private power and ownership of government is a BAD thing. You know, Citizen's United? Who put that through the Supreme Court again... ???


peace,
AB


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



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

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.


Actually I got that from your thread, and I wondered why that would be quoted as it was .....


Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
-- Karl Marx

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Another false quote I imagine.

All part of the game.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:10 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Then I guess you would have to buy the books, read them, check the books sources, and spend years of your life tracking down the original letters, documents, etc, and have them translated by someone you trust - or learn extreme fluency yourself and translate them yourself. I'm not being facetious. This is why there are people who dedicate their lives to this and the average person cannot. It may seem like "elitist knowledge" but there is no other way to do it than drill down to the originals and the people who wrote about what happened at the time it was happening and see if what THEY are saying matches the events in other documents, cross referenced, etc.

I don't have time for that. I am willing to bet that academics who use lousy methodology get trounced by other academics looking to make a name for themselves. It weeds out the bad research over time. That's how it works and so I think ultimately my own conclusion is something like that of the above mentioned historian Richard Griffin:


[Fascism is] a genuinely revolutionary, trans-class form of anti-liberal, and in the last analysis, anti-conservative nationalism.


Fascism is inherently narcissistic and benefits NO ONE on the conservative right or the liberal/progressive left. It lives to destroy liberalism (moral decadence) and ultimately destroys all the values that traditional conservatives hold dear in terms of freedom and small government. It is another word for Big Lie, and it is full of them.

I appreciate you making a conclusion you sly, elusive fox you!!


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



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
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.


You are correct on the technicalities.

You are totally wrong on the underlying reality.

The Left requires a government that can fix any situation that is unequal. That is a strong government.
The Right is in opposition to the Left.
The Right is a weak government. Fascism cannot be on the Right.

Except in the context of a civil war.

Useful idiots -- Lenin



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen

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.


Actually I got that from your thread, and I wondered why that would be quoted as it was .....


Fascism in power is the open, terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, the most chauvinistic, the most imperialistic elements of finance capitalism.
-- Karl Marx

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Another false quote I imagine.

All part of the game.




I believe that quote is actually attributed to Georgi Dimitrov, not Marx.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Oh never mind... I give up.
edit on 27-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Another point I see is many people are saying the past and present governments going as "Communist" are not really following the Marxist philosophies.

The USSR, China, and all others like Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, N. Korea, etc. etc.
(Communist Countries, Past and Present)


A comparison needs to listed to determine their levels of "Marxism".

And I do see major similarities to Marx's Ten Planks practiced by many nations today regardless of their self identities.

In particular, the central banks and tax systems seem to be worldwide already.




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: xuenchen
a reply to: greencmp
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Sigh.
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."

Link

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.

Summary

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.

peace,
AB


I'll be brief.

Socialism has never made an economy. Socialism takes over an economy and redistributes the wealth "equally". The NAZIs took over an economy and did it "for the people". The NAZIs made the VW, the people's car, and did not begin war time austerity until 1943.

The NAZIs were socialist.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
originally posted by: xuenchen

I believe that quote is actually attributed to Georgi Dimitrov, not Marx.


That could be.

And oddly, that quote is present on websites.

I wonder how many people believe Marx said that?

"source"1

"source"2


edit on Aug-27-2015 by xuenchen because: [wok]44



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


'll be brief.


So will I.


Socialism has never made an economy.


Israel was founded as a socialist state. That is one of the reasons the Soviet Union sponsored it at the UN.


Socialism takes over an economy and redistributes the wealth "equally".


No it doesn't. Most European countries have mixed economies. Wealth is not redistributed equally, the wealth is taxed and spent on social programs that ultimately benefit the commonwealth.


The NAZIs took over an economy and did it "for the people". The NAZIs made the VW, the people's car, and did not begin war time austerity until 1943.


The Nazis did not take over the economy, they directed it. Except for Jews and other selected victims, private property rights were retained. You are right about the austerity, however.


The NAZIs were socialist.


No they weren't. They were


FASCIST!


edit on 27-8-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


The Right is a weak government. Fascism cannot be on the Right.



So now we're back to Somalia is a right wing paradise. I give up.
edit on 27-8-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:05 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


Another false quote I imagine.


Correct.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

Somalia is a remnant of failed "Communism".

It has progressed into criminal anarchy.

Maybe?




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
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.


On your page, in the fifth text block from the top


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Your source confirms the Fascism is Socialism stance.



Further down the page


Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.)

Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically. In doing all this, fascism denatured the marketplace. Entrepreneurship was abolished. State ministries, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
www.econlib.org...


Fascism is on the extreme Left.
edit on 27-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
It has progressed into criminal anarchy.

There is the truth.

Some people can't accept real world examples. A capitalist economy is doing bad? It isn't real capitalism it's corporate capitalism, oligarchy, crony capitlaism. Well, to use your own argument against you, all those are closer to capitalism than socialism.

Here we have anarchy but it can't be plain old anarchy it has to be "criminal" anarchy.

You have gone on for more than 50 pages dismissing the differences in political ideals that others are pointing out and here you are doing the same thing.
edit on 27-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Somalia was never a modern Capitalist economy.

Still isn't.

Al-Shabaab is the criminal organization.


edit on Aug-27-2015 by xuenchen because: [3967]



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The article contrasts Fascism with Socialism. Fascism is a right wing ideology with socialist characteristics.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Somalia was never a modern Capitalist economy.

Still isn't.

Didn't say it was.

My point was that you are pointing out differences after criticizing other for doing the same.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The article contrasts Fascism with Socialism. Fascism is a right wing ideology with socialist characteristics.


I think that basic premise was lost by the other member.

It was a compare and contrast piece.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 49  50  51    53  54  55 >>

log in

join