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: 55
23
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Easy answers are the easiest to enforce and propagate.

It's easy to track here that the attitudes (not to mention the understanding or lack thereof) toward socialism are related directly to the American anti-communist trends of the 1950s. This is one of the core existential qualities of the modern right-wing/Republican Party. That in turn was and is centered (except for the adherents who repeat the message for free) in the wealthy-business classes that want to maintain the illusion that only they "deserve" the wealth of a given society. (We've seen this for centuries; it's the old "Divine Right of Kings" re-cobbled).

Reforms made in the 1930s in America helped counter the world-wide financial reign-of-terror that had resulted from decades of the monied and powerful interests giving themselves free reign to manipulate the world's economies for the most profit. When that casino finally failed completely after WWI, governments had to take on more elements of social safety nets (not socialism, per se) in order to balance out the flow of wealth through the economies ... which worked out well until more wars (and war-profiteering) were needed to further try to prop up the system, usually about every five years or so.

Ask yourself a question, speaking of "political correctness" ... when did the word welfare become such a dirty word with so many negative connotations ... trace that back in your mind and you'll see who the real traitors are.

Welfare, by the way, means "health, happiness, and good fortune; well-being" as in "provide for the general welfare."

What you see among the monied classes (and their cadre of willing acolytes) here is pure propaganda putting forward the notion that any effort to have those who have profited MOST from the society that we have ALL built TOGETHER should contribute a portion of that largess back to the care and maintenance OF THE VERY SYSTEM THEY TOOK IT FROM is actually theft.

What is more morally repugnant? The thieves who steal from everyone, or the government who "steals" a pittance back from the thieves for the good of all?
edit on 8Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:11:09 -050015p082015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:22 AM
link   
I'm all for people "believing what they believe" exactly as long as they don't try to enforce that belief on anyone else. I noted earlier that we have slowly eroded from a society that valued science and academia (evidence-based) toward one that glorifies mere belief-based nonsense (religion, political propaganda, etc.)

Americans have the right to say what they want so long as it causes harm to no one. Having a right to speech does not, for example, allow for the false public defamation of other people (fraud and slander).

You can believe, for example, that we live on a flat disk floating in space or water or being carried on the back of a giant turtle ... that doesn't harm me. When you try to enforce laws that affect everyone based on that belief, we have a problem.

Words have specific definitions. They mean what they mean. It is a matter of poetry or philosophy to say otherwise.

It is also a matter of deceit.

What we always see, however, is not merely a desire to be "allowed" to hold whatever beliefs one holds, we, the other people in society, must bend to the will of these alternate beliefs, to the extent that we call black white and up down.

(Of note, extremists use this same argument to promote their extremism, which tells you how troubled the overall culture is.)

We've shown exhaustively here what the terms right and left mean in regards to politics. We've shown standard definitions, history, scholarship ... everything that our society has always accepted as facts ... and these get countered (or INVERTED in this case) by those who believe that their opinion (unfounded on evidence) is just as good as others' facts.

This is not the case.
edit on 8Fri, 28 Aug 2015 08:23:22 -050015p082015866 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:36 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


What you folks call "right" is in fact fascist because it is socialist and not minimal government.




wordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordsh avemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemea ningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwo rdshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshav emeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeani ngwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningword shavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavem eaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaning wordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordsh avemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemea ningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwo rdshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshav emeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeani ngwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningword shavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavem eaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaning wordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaning
edit on 28-8-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Republican Party Platform 1956



On its Centennial, the Republican Party again calls to the minds of all Americans the great truth first spoken by Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."




We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.


This is referred to as "Eisenhower Republicanism." It has been utterly replaced in the modern Party, as can easily be seen.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
... and if you really want an "eye-opener" on just how far the Republican Party has fallen, and how desperately they have betrayed their original beliefs, check THIS out:

Republican Party Platform 1860



That the Republican party is opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.




That, while providing revenue for the support of the general government by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these imports as to encourage the development of the industrial interests of the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges, which secures to the workingmen liberal wages, to agriculture remunerative prices, to mechanics and manufacturers an adequate reward for their skill, labor, and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence.


... and my personal favorite ...



That the maintenance of the principles promulgated in the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Federal Constitution, "That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed," is essential to the preservation of our Republican institutions; and that the Federal Constitution, the Rights of the States, and the Union of the States must and shall be preserved.


THESE were the actual words and positions of "The Party of Lincoln."

edit on 9Fri, 28 Aug 2015 09:33:39 -050015p092015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: greencmp


What you folks call "right" is in fact fascist because it is socialist and not minimal government.




wordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordsh avemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemea ningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwo rdshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshav emeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeani ngwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningword shavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavem eaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaning wordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordsh avemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemea ningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwo rdshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshav emeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeani ngwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningword shavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavem eaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaning wordshavemeaningwordshavemeaningwordshavemeaning


Oh dear, I have been warned not to try to be reasonable with unreasonable people.

Carry on with your denials. Fascism, national socialism and communism are all forms of socialism.

At least we have established that it isn't obtusity but, rather, fanaticism (or something worse?) that is at work here.
edit on 28-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


Oh dear, I have been warned not to try to be reasonable with unreasonable people.


Using words incorrectly is not reasonable.


Carry on with your denials. Fascism, national socialism and communism are all forms of socialism.


As is liberal democracy, Christianity, Pure Land Buddhism, and the Parent Teacher Association, using your idiosyncratic definition.


At least we have established that it isn't obtusity but, rather, fanaticism (or something worse?) that is at work here.


What is that even in reference to? Your inability to understand basic word meanings baffles me.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

I hope you aren't expecting to converse with me now.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:36 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

To the extremist, any and all opposition is fanatical.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Unreasonable people. LOL.

Yes, the folks who draw on the accepted and published meaning of words and terminology, who have quoted primary sources, who have quoted scholarly works, are the ones being "unreasonable" in comparison to those who rely on nothing more than belief, repetition of absurdities, and general obnoxiousness as their "reasonability."

In those terms, I am happy to be counted among "the unreasonable" in such an inverted and ridiculous conception.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: DJW001

To the extremist, any and all opposition is fanatical.



You got one thing right.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 09:55 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Yip yip.

ETA: Actually greencmp, I should amend this. You do remind me of a chihuahua we had when I was a kid, but, in light of what I've said here, it's wrong, in any way, to compare you to a dog. I was out of line with that, and I do apologize.

What I meant and should have said directly, is that your posting style in this thread is nothing more than sniping cowardice composed of no substantial content.

Beg pardon.
edit on 10Fri, 28 Aug 2015 10:01:08 -050015p102015866 by Gryphon66 because: ETA noted



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: DJW001

I hope you aren't expecting to converse with me now.


Why start now? There is no point in having a discussion between two people who do not share a language.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
I noticed on this thread that socialists have a synthetic process in their heads.

They always connect "prefect people" or what not with 'socialist". Socialists tend to be synthetic rather than analytic.

I'm still stuck on the Socialist premise,

People are bad so we need to give people the power of life and death our us.

Capitalism assumes that people will do what they want to. Everybody adapts to everybody else.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
There is no proof that anarchy would kill more people than government did in the 20th century.

I'm not is saying that it would.


There is no proof that government is necessary.

I'm not sying that either.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:28 AM
link   
Socialism maxim

Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man, Socialism is the opposite of that.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
Economic anarchy, minarchism, does concede the existence of the state but, only for constitutionally necessary functions.

Minarchy is not AC.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Just because some of us disagree with the ludicrous proposition in the OP combined with the absurdities posted here in support of that idea, doesn't make us socialists. I favor a constitutional republic with a mixed economy myself, for example.

I know that the real world doesn't comply with your idealized requirements that everything be black-and-white and in agreement with your extremist philosophies ... but still, reality persists regardless of your beliefs.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Economic anarchy, minarchism, does concede the existence of the state but, only for constitutionally necessary functions.

Minarchy is not AC.

Yes, I was just adding that there is a happy medium between statism and AC.

One that is the only real option in my opinion considering the fact that there will likely always be nationalist states in the world so a military is indispensible. Though a poor analogy, it is the same reason that peaceful people find firearms necessary.

Don't get me wrong, I will argue the merits of AC but, I generally do so because the principals of the free market are easiest to explain sans political considerations though, they will work almost as well in a minarchist framework.
edit on 28-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I would say that anarchists are worst off in that department.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 52  53  54    56  57  58 >>

log in

join