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: 53
23
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

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.


All of the abuses of Capitalism come from politics, which is legalized coercion.

All of the monopolies, cartels, and cronies are enabled and supported by the State.

Small doses of poison are usually enough to make the whole meal toxic.




posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
All of the abuses of Capitalism come from politics, which is legalized coercion.

Not all of them.


All of the monopolies, cartels, and cronies are enabled and supported by the State.

That doesn't mean that they need a state to exist. All they need is an agreement between the parties.


Small doses of poison are usually enough to make the whole meal toxic.

AC doesn't get out of that one either.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 01:30 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Almost all agreements will be broken in a Capitalist Anarchy, because agreements always restrict some one in some way. If some number of parties collude to raise prices, a new company will get excellent business by selling at a lower price than the colluders.

That is why agreements need the force of government, to enforce the club rules and to prevent new companies from selling lower or making better products.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Almost all agreements will be broken in a Capitalist Anarchy, because agreements always restrict some one in some way. If some number of parties collude to raise prices, a new company will get excellent business by selling at a lower price than the colluders.

In theory, but that is all you have.


That is why agreements need the force of government, to enforce the club rules and to prevent new companies from selling lower or making better products.

You need this to be true for your theory to work. Guess what, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

You know what, even if a group does decide to implement government, as you said in an earlier post, you still end up in the same situation.

Your theory just doesn't work.
edit on 27-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven
When you are talking about increasing the size of government that is talking about increasing government spending - not revenues, nor deficits.


Well you certainly do, especially when it can be massaged to push your point of view. Most other people look at just the overspending because revenues typically represent taxes pulled in from standard cost of living increases and inflation, while deficits represent bloated government expenditures on new projects, agencies, and bureaus.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.


Even more lack of substance, and bad memory to boot.


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.


You sure like wasting your time replying to me though...



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Almost all agreements will be broken in a Capitalist Anarchy, because agreements always restrict some one in some way. If some number of parties collude to raise prices, a new company will get excellent business by selling at a lower price than the colluders.

In theory, but that is all you have.


That is why agreements need the force of government, to enforce the club rules and to prevent new companies from selling lower or making better products.

You need this to be true for your theory to work. Guess what, it doesn't work that way in the real world.

You know what, even if a group does decide to implement government, as you said in an earlier post, you still end up in the same situation.

Your theory just doesn't work.


Actually, all of the government actions about economics have been based on theory.

and backed by propaganda and deficit spending.

The government theories all involve more power to the government, what a coincidence.


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 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Actually, all of the government actions about economics have been based on theory.

Yes, many of those don't go as planned either.


and backed by propaganda and deficit spending.

Sure are.


The government theories all involve more power to the government, what a coincidence.

Right again, still doesn't make your theory viable.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Greven
When you are talking about increasing the size of government that is talking about increasing government spending - not revenues, nor deficits.


Well you certainly do, especially when it can be massaged to push your point of view. Most other people look at just the overspending because revenues typically represent taxes pulled in from standard cost of living increases and inflation, while deficits represent bloated government expenditures on new projects, agencies, and bureaus.

Oh so you can't justify any of the rest. Please explain your logic here.

Say you have $1000 in tax revenue and $1000 in spending in the 1st year.
The 2nd year, you only have $500 in taxes but still have $1000 in spending.
The 3rd year, you have $1500 in taxes and $1500 in spending.

With your logic of deficit spending meaning increasing government, the 2nd year would be 'government growth' while the 3rd year is hunky-dory.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand how you arrive at this conclusion.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Actually, all of the government actions about economics have been based on theory.

Yes, many of those don't go as planned either.


and backed by propaganda and deficit spending.

Sure are.


The government theories all involve more power to the government, what a coincidence.

Right again, still doesn't make your theory viable.


Wrong.

In the late 1800's, no railroad cartel survived more than 6 months before one its member was caught "cheating" by selling below the agreement and making bigger profits.

Until the ICC. The Interstate Commerce Commission required all railroads to make their books public, so the cartels were able to detect "cheating" and the cartel rules could be enforced.

All government regulation favors cartel agreements.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Like is a strong word ... I mostly do it to see what absurd, arrogant BS comes spilling out of your fingers next. And often, I admit, I'm just ridiculing your extemism.

Feel free to keep cutting and pasting and making it seem like you're actually saying something though ... You're one of my best sources of reliable entertainment.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Wrong.

What is wrong?


In the late 1800's, no railroad cartel survived more than 6 months before one its member was caught "cheating" by selling below the agreement and making bigger profits.

Not sure what you think this proves.


Until the ICC. The Interstate Commerce Commission required all railroads to make their books public, so the cartels were able to detect "cheating" and the cartel rules could be enforced.

All government regulation favors cartel agreements.

Just because government makes things easier doesn't mean that cartels and/or monopolies can't exist without one.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Wrong.

What is wrong?


In the late 1800's, no railroad cartel survived more than 6 months before one its member was caught "cheating" by selling below the agreement and making bigger profits.

Not sure what you think this proves.


Until the ICC. The Interstate Commerce Commission required all railroads to make their books public, so the cartels were able to detect "cheating" and the cartel rules could be enforced.

All government regulation favors cartel agreements.

Just because government makes things easier doesn't mean that cartels and/or monopolies can't exist without one.


Cartel failure does prove that unregulated competition is a viable theory.

Another reason you are wrong is that unregulated competition is reasonable.

Anything reasonable is viable. That is why reason is a good thing. At the very least, reason gives a starting point one up from intuition.


Just because government makes things easier doesn't mean that cartels and/or monopolies can't exist without one.


Logically true.

However, no cartel has ever existed without violent suppression of the competition. The government supplies the violence in legal cartels.

An unfair cartel situation always offers a new company or a "cheater" a fortune in profits. Human nature will always take advantage of that.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You have far more patience with this than I do. Sometimes, I have to bow to the definition of insanity.

You can lead horses to water, but you can't make them drink ... or see ... or understand.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Thank you very much.

Let the dogs bark.

Actually what Daskakik said is only logically true depending on his premise.

That would take forever.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Cartel failure does prove that unregulated competition is a viable theory.

One cartel failing doesn't prove anything. Besides, unregulated competition is one thing, AC is more than just that.


Another reason you are wrong is that unregulated competition is reasonable.

Anything reasonable is viable. That is why reason is a good thing. At the very least, reason gives a starting point one up from intuition.

Ok


Logically true.

However, no cartel has ever existed without violent suppression of the competition. The government supplies the violence in legal cartels.

But a government isn't needed unless it is a legal cartel.


An unfair cartel situation always offers a new company or a "cheater" a fortune in profits. Human nature will always take advantage of that.

Not if the cartel uses violent suppression.

Then what?
edit on 27-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Dear OP,

Fascism is decidedly right wing ideology. All you have to do is look at the political landscape during the period when overt fascism was a viable political platform. For example, Adolph Hitler specifically persecuted communists and eliminated the entire leadership of the KPD party which was the second most powerful political party in Germany AND COMMUNIST in nature. The Nazi party and the KPD party were ideologically opposed which is why Hitler intentionally targeted and systematically murdered communists and members of the KPD. You can see the same dynamic in Italy play out and the same in Spain. Three fascist dictators fighting quasi civil wars against left wing communists. As far as how it relates to the american political spectrum, we can see that a great many American left wingers migrated to Europe to join the various communist resistance groups specifically to fight fascist, right wing ideology and that brand of oppression.

You can also note that that period that Right wing resistance groups also fought against Communist totalitarian governments during the same historical period. The Russian "Red Necks" had a very strong and specific views which are in some ways similar to the rural American view. They fought the communists and formed an insurgency, part loyalist, individualist and nationalist.

It is impossible for me to reckon that right wing or left wing are exclusively benevolent. Both ideologies require the use of the government, and that usage in both cases can be entirely overbearing and ruthless. The idea that right wing means being small government is a not realistic gauge to measure political ideology. That is a small component of the American right wing platform, but it is not a policy the the American right practices very often. We can look at the department of homeland security, the patriot act, the war on drugs, the privatization of prisons and the expansion of the security state as being policies that american right wingers pursued. None of these policies indicate an adherence to small government.
Neither can I say that american left wingers are devoted to the idea of limited government either, but they do not claim to own that virtue.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You also need the government to ensure that companies adhere to a legal system which also applies to individuals.
Government becomes the arbitrator and mediators of individuals, and it applies a set of rules that set out the frame work of operation in all manners of society.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 10:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: yesyesyes
You also need the government to ensure that companies adhere to a legal system which also applies to individuals.
Government becomes the arbitrator and mediators of individuals, and it applies a set of rules that set out the frame work of operation in all manners of society.

To be fair, you don't really need the government for that. One could use a system of private arbitrators.

Of course the thing that always bugged me is that you are still dealing with people who can be bought off or persuaded one way or another.

At that point AC claims to be be leery of government because of corruption but seems to place a lot of trust in people who can be just as corrupt. Almost like the goal is to just be anti-gov for the sake of being anti-gov.
edit on 27-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Semicollegiate

You have far more patience with this than I do. Sometimes, I have to bow to the definition of insanity.

You can lead horses to water, but you can't make them drink ... or see ... or understand.



... and it never occurs to you for even a second that it might be your own close-minded beliefs that are wrong?

That's the difference in you and "us" ... I considered everyone of your (and Semi's, at least the one's that were comprehensible) points. I would never conceive of "leading you" anywhere. Facts are facts. Truth is truth.

What you are pushing in this thread is not just a political disagreement ... you're literally trying to rewrite history.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join