Fascism Is Far Left, Not Far Right on Political Spectrum

a reply to: Gryphon66

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

Yes the irony of ketsuko's post is so thick.

What do you think of yesyesyes's posts? I bet they will ignore them or try to poke holes in them.

ketsuko's post here

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

Patience indeed.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
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.

... and here we see the honest attitude of the Right Wing revealed.

"Comply or die, dogs."

Der Fuehrer would be so proud of you ...

"They are insignificant little people, submissive as dogs ..."

Adolf Hitler, noted in Hitler a Study in Tyranny by Alan Bullock

a reply to: Gryphon66 and if we don't agree with the ops biased stance it is we who are insane, despite the overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary. Love it. The op is one of the most biased members of ATS and for me to take political science lessons from them would be insane. On that note I'll leave the op to believe what he they wants You can't argue with fundamentalists of any kind.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Well, we all believe that we're correct in our positions. Even though what they're trying so desperately to sell here is patent nonsense, I could respect them to some extent if they just said, "right or wrong, this is what I believe" rather than pretending to be discussing facts and debating the issues logically.

I have never even once thought of logical argument as "leading someone" to something. Nor do I think of other humans as "dogs."

How unrelentingly arrogant.

a reply to: woodwardjnr

a reply to: Gryphon66 and if we don't agree with the ops biased stance it is we who are insane, despite the overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary. Love it. The op is one of the most biased members of ATS and for me to take political science lessons from them would be insane. On that note I'll leave the op to believe what he they wants You can't argue with fundamentalists of any kind.

Makes you wonder if they are actually paid shills

a reply to: Gryphon66

How unrelentingly arrogant.

That's pretty much explaining them.

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Gryphon66 and if we don't agree with the ops biased stance it is we who are insane, despite the overwhelming evidence provided to the contrary. Love it. The op is one of the most biased members of ATS and for me to take political science lessons from them would be insane. On that note I'll leave the op to believe what he they wants You can't argue with fundamentalists of any kind.

Indeed. Here's a funny thing I'll relate ... for a lot of my life, I was very politically moderate. For example, I believe in balanced budgets for government. I strongly hold that we shouldn't be "spending more than we take in" for example. I can see savings in government programs, but I'd much rather start with a couple less bombs, or a few billion off of what we pay Exxon rather than cancelling music classes in school or cutting some elderly person's pension.

That's just me.

What I cannot deal with in the "modern" conservative movement (since Reagan) is an absolute departure from facts and reason. This hatred of academia and science smacks of rank barbarism. I'd like to tell myself that these folks are just stupid ... but that's the sad part ... they aren't! They are willfully deluded.

You can't fix willfully deluded.

a reply to: Deaf Alien not very good one, I don't know anyone daft enough to pay someone to be so relentless in their obvious biased stance on every subject. The op must have run out of Obama stories, usually at least one a day

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Deaf Alien not very good one, I don't know anyone daft enough to pay someone to be so relentless in their obvious biased stance on every subject. The op must have run out of Obama stories, usually at least one a day

OP is certainly committed to their craft, I admit. I don't think anyone here is strictly speaking a "shill" though. That's the problem with this nonsense, it is spread willingly, like most programmed nonsense. Notice how many on the American Right are ALSO extremist in their religious beliefs. It is the basis of reality on proudly ignorant belief, rather than observed facts, that is what I see as most dangerous here. That we might be able to prevent at least one person from being taken in by what truly seems to be some kind of ... psychological virus ... is what keeps me going when I'd much rather be playing a video game or reading a book.

I could be wrong though. That's the difference in "us" and "them."

a reply to: Gryphon66 well being from the UK I know what fascism is because there was quite a big movement back in the 1930s here run by Oswald Mosley and his brown shirts who formed the British Union of fascists BUF.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
a reply to: Gryphon66 well being from the UK I know what fascism is because there was quite a big movement back in the 1930s here run by Oswald Mosley and his brown shirts who formed the British Union of fascists BUF.
en.m.wikipedia.org...

You have experience... they don't.

I do not understand why they wont admit that fascism is far right.

I guess it's too uncomfortable for them.

originally posted by: daskakik

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?

There is no proof that anarchy would kill more people than government did in the 20th century.

There is no proof that government is necessary.

originally posted by: yesyesyes
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.

Prove the need.

Government is made of people. People can enforce the law without the State.

a reply to: yesyesyes

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.

Socialists kill socialist rivals as much as they have to. The NAZIs killed the SA. Stalin killed anyone.

Propaganda has gotten you this time.

Both ideologies require the use of the government

Not on the spectrum of all possible governments. Read the OP.

The spectrum goes from no government power, Right, to total government power, Left.

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik

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?

There is no proof that anarchy would kill more people than government did in the 20th century.

There is no proof that government is necessary.

Zero content statements.

Show that government is not necessary.

Show any group of human people anywhere at any time who live without a government.

Your assertions are absurd.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

People enforcing the law become "the State."

Are you listening to yourself?

a reply to: Semicollegiate

I see you don't understand the innate problems with reducing a subject as complex as human politics to a one-dimensional analysis either.

Qualitative thinking is not your strong point.

The "graph" in the OP is fabricated solely on the basis of a political agenda.

There is absolutely no general consensus that the adjective "Right" means "no government." In fact, in terms of history and all common usages of the term, THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. The word that means "no government" is anarchy.

Right is government by the few or one; left is government by the people or their representatives.

The Right favors nationalism; the left favors egalitarianism.

The Right focuses on government control to maintain the status quo; the left focuses on government as the vehicle for the general welfare of the people.

Dictatorships, republics, democracies are systems of POLITICS or GOVERNMENT.

Anarchy is the absence of POLITICS or GOVERNMENT and cannot be shown to exist for any significant period.

Capitalism, socialism, and communism are systems of ECONOMICS which intersect with POLITICS to form POLITICO-ECONOMIC systems.

Examples, Communist Dictatorship, Capitalist Republic, Socialist Democracy (which is ironically closest to what a libertarian or "low government of the people" would look like.

And of course, reality is infinitely more complex than these simple statements ... LITERALLY.

originally posted by: daskakik

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.

Economic anarchy, minarchism, does concede the existence of the state but, only for constitutionally necessary functions.

"Socialism states that you owe me something simply because I exist. Capitalism, by contrast, results in a sort of reality-forced altruism: I may not want to help you, I may dislike you, but if I don't give you a product or service you want, I will starve. Voluntary exchange is more moral than forced redistribution."

-Ben Shapiro

a reply to: Semicollegiate

The spectrum goes from no government power, Right, to total government power, Left.

Once again, that's not what those terms mean. Please do a little bit of research. You are confusing anarchy with totalitarianism.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The spectrum goes from no government power, Right, to total government power, Left.

Once again, that's not what those terms mean. Please do a little bit of research. You are confusing anarchy with totalitarianism.

It seems clear to me anyway, and this is no dig, just an observation, that the Republicans with their economic and social interventionist policies are no less socialist than the Democrats are.

Having concluded this, it is easy for me to explain this apparent incongruity. What you folks call "right" is in fact fascist because it is socialist and not minimal government. You simply disagree with the social ends indicated by their policies. Certainly the trade unions are an example of proto-syndicalism/fascism in this country.

What I would call "right" (actually, I don't use these terms for this very reason) is the absence of government economic and social intervention.

I think this effort, long and arduous as it has been, is fruitful in that I believe that you believe what you believe.

Now, if you can just believe that I believe what I believe, maybe we can hammer out the grey areas of dispute in the terminology.

In the end, our tangible positions will not change but, our terminology must if we are to be able to communicate.

Aside from the people who are adamant that the socialist tyrannies of history were not socialisms, does this make sense as a first step?