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: 57
23
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Would minarchist say that because they uphold some form of government so, they would be included in that bunch.

It is after all what you are proposing.


I would say that there are also gradations of minarchism.

Our constitution could be viewed as a minarchistic construct if only because it expressly attempts to limit government but, it clearly hasn't been able to prevent the explosive expansion of government.

From the point of view of an individual, minarchism ought to be irrelevant since, for all intents and purposes, they would be living in a near anarchy. So no, they would not and I would not call minarchism insufficient coercion.
edit on 28-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Now you are just putting words into peoples mouths. You would not call it insufficient coercion. Some would call it too much others not enough.

Bottom line is that there is some. How much would there actually be?

I'll say this, some statists are trying real hard to convince themselves that they and the founding fathers are/were not statists.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Rothbard has the best argument for AC which attempts to account for external aggression.

That sounds like a strawman.

In any case the real threat is internal. In that example the real threat is an existing political structure. At that point anarchists or no longer on board anyway.


He was just addressing the legitimate question of what defense an AC region might have against statist expansionism.

It is an argument born from Mises' observation that India could not have been subjugated by Britain without its caste system.


I didn't know that.


Early in World War II, when all of the Blitzkreig victories happened, the German tanks were a joke, and the infantry had to walk everywhere, no trucks. The tanks were small, crew of 2, and had only machine guns and thin armor. The Blitzkreig worked because it attacked the supply and chain of command infrastructure. That is power lines, telephone lines, and transportation systems. Blitzkreig attacked the enemy's government and the centralized economy, kind of like a guerilla army would. A major difference being that the Germans had to move into the target country where as the guerillas are already there.

The architect of Blitzkrieg, Heinz Guderian, was a signal corps officer in WW1.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
Yes, I was just adding that there is a happy medium between statism and AC.

I agree, I'm apolitical. I'm not rooting for one side or the other but to those who say any government is wrong, minarchy is not right.


Don't get me wrong, I will argue the merits of AC but, I generally do so because the principals are easiest to explain sans political considerations though, they will work almost as well in a minarchist framework.

AC will never work unless everyone agrees to it.

We can't even agree on the meaning of a handful of words.


Minarchism is like social security. Its a rip off, but I still want the money back that I have paid in.

That is, minarchism relates to the special circumstances of mega States and their aftermath.

In AC the only border in the world would be around the naturally-born-altruist state.

In Minarchism, the border might be there but all of the passports would be from the altruist state, and no one would check them.

There were no passports until after WW1. Before WW1, all you needed was travel fare to go anywhere in the world.


That could very well be, as you pointed out the tariffs and other elements of our constitution make it proto-socialistic.


A difference in degree can be a difference in kind.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Now you are just putting words into peoples mouths. You would not call it insufficient coercion. Some would call it too much others not enough.

Bottom line is that there is some. How much would there actually be?

I'll say this, some statists are trying real hard to convince themselves that they and the founding fathers are/were not statists.


I put words into the mouths of minarchists (perhaps erroneously) at your specific request.



Would minarchists say that because they uphold some form of government so, they would be included in that bunch. It is after all what you are proposing.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

It was a rhetorical question.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

It was a rhetorical question.


Word.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Glad that was sorted out.

So, minarchist are statists who like their governments small.
edit on 28-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Glad that was sorted out.

So, minarchist are statists who like their governments small.


I did notice that.




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Glad that was sorted out.

So, minarchist are statists who like their governments small.


At that level of government there is a distinction between "government" which every society has, and the State. Taxes rather than user fees might be a good dividing line.

Book Discussion "The Art of Not Being Governed" by James C. Scott about 30min audio

States fasten on to a region after the region has become prosperous.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Glad that was sorted out.

So, minarchist are statists who like their governments small.


At that level of government there is a distinction between "government" which every society has, and the State. Taxes rather than user fees might be a good dividing line.

Book Discussion "The Art of Not Being Governed" by James C. Scott about 30min audio

States fasten on to a region after the region has become prosperous.


Excellent point.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
a reply to: Gryphon66

The socialist part of a mixed economy still makes socialist economic mistakes. Those mistakes require further intervention by the government to "fix" them. Socialist "fixes" treat a symptom, something that can be seen, and ignore the underlying problem.

The mixed economy will always evolve into a command economy just like rocks fall down.



You have no proof of socialist economic mistakes. You have no proof of further "fixes" to problems that don't exist.

We've been in a mixed economy for, arguably over 200 years, but specifically over 85. No "command economy" yet.

Again, nothing but absurdity.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:33 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

The mixed economy that you grew up in is what supported you and allowed you to concoct your current "theories."

And everyone else reading this "debate."



But however mysterious is nature, however ignorant the doctor, however imperfect the present state of physical science, the patronage and the success of quacks and quackeries are infinitely more wonderful than those of honest and laborious men of science and their careful experiments.

PT Barnum, The Humbugs of the World



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You have no proof of socialist economic mistakes.


National Debts of all countries are evidence.

Most countries (governments) are engaging in the Marx ideas of central banking and taxation.




posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Taxes rather than user fees might be a good dividing line.

Sounds like a good dividing line but at what point does a fee become a tax?

Is it just semantics?

Is paying the bill collector any different than paying the tax man?



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

You have no proof of socialist economic mistakes.


National Debts of all countries are evidence.

Most countries (governments) are engaging in the Marx ideas of central banking and taxation.



Nope. National Debts are proof of debt, not socialism.

What evidence do you have for your claim that most governments are engaging in the "Marx ideas" [sic] of central banking and taxation?

Which Marx? Groucho, Zeppo, Harpo, Gummo? Those are heroes of yours, I'm sure.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:40 PM
link   
I know we've beaten this horse to death with no real consensus, but I feel the need to make further points.

The argument being considered here, that “conservatives are trying to re-write history” like Orwell’s 1984 is entirely unfounded and unwarranted, and an ad hominem tactic of the lowest kind, especially when it is parroted between people like it is some sort of joke. This is, once again, a surreptitious attempt to their connect fellow posters to Fascism. Very low form, in my opinion.

Obviously the issue isn’t so black a white, and to claim otherwise with such conviction is untenable, given that this sort of debate has been occurring for quite some time with no actual consensus. If I had to judge the debate here according to tactics, I must side with those on the side of reasoned debate and argument out of principle. Name calling, appeals to the populace, appeals to authority, appeals to emotion, and a whole host of ipse-dixitism is not a sign of so-called “logic and evidence-based” debate. In fact, it’s the exact opposite, not to mention it is a hilarious case of irony to assert the the issue is so black and white without the evidence and logic to do so.

There are many quotes about Mussolini from people of around that time, which only clouds the supposed black and white issue further.
en.wikiquote.org...


• Some of the things Mussolini has done, and some that he is threatening to do go further in the direction of Socialism than the English Labour Party could yet venture if they were in power.
• Letter from G. Bernard Shaw to a friend 7th Feb, 1927.



• [Mussolini was] farther to the Left in his political opinions than any of his socialist rivals.
• George Bernard Shaw quoted in Socialism and Superior Brains, Gareth Griffith, Taylor and Francis e-Library (2003) p. 253. Shaw made this statement in the Manchester Guardian in 1927.



• [Mussolini] was the only man who could have brought about the revolution of the proletariat in Italy.
• As quoted from Trotsky in Il Duce: The Life and Work of Benito Mussolini, by L. Kemechey, New York: NY, Richard R. Smith (1930) p. 47.



• Long live Mussolini! Long live socialism!
• Quote from Italian communist Nicola Bombacci before being shot with Mussolini in 1945. Quote from Heaven on Earth: The Rise and Fall of Socialism by Joshua Muravchik, (2002) p. 171.



• Mussolini was a reluctant fascist because, underneath, he remained a Marxist, albeit a heretical one.
• Quote in Modern Times: A History of the World from the 1920s to the 1980s by historian Paul Johnson, (2001) p. 101.



• The sweeping social changes proposed by Mussolini's first Fascist program of April 1919 (including the vote for women, the eight-hour day, heavy taxation of war profits, confiscation of church lands, and workers' participation in industrial management) stand in flagrant conflict with the macho persona of the later Duce and his deals with conservatives.
• Robert O. Paxton, "Five Stages of Fascism." The Journal of Modern History, Vol 70 no. 1 (March, 1998)



• Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say "But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time."
• Ronald Reagan. Time in 1976. Reagan adviser Jude Wanniski has indicated that, in 1933, New Dealers as well as much of the world admired Mussolini’s success in avoiding the Great Depression.



• From 1912 to 1914, Mussolini was the Che Guevara of his day, a living saint of leftism. Handsome, courageous, charismatic, an erudite Marxist, a riveting speaker and writer, a dedicated class warrior to the core, he was the peerless duce of the Italian Left.
• David Ramsay Steele, in "The Mystery of Fascism" in Liberty (29 January 2002); also quoted in Where Have All The Fascists Gone? (2007) by Tamir Bar-On, p. 79



There seems to be no question that [Mussolini] is really interested in what we are doing and I am much interested and deeply impressed by what he has accomplished and by his evidenced honest purpose of restoring Italy.
• Franklin D. Roosevelt to US Ambassador to Italy Breckinridge Long, Schivelbusch, Wolfgang. ''Three New Deals : Reflections on Roosevelt's America, Mussolini's Italy, and Hitler's Germany, 1933-1939. Macmillan.



“…it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the Left, a century of Fascism…”

““For if the 19th century was the century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State.”

The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism, Jane Soames’ Authorized English translation


Fascism had left and right elements. It had left and right members. Mussolini was socialist and then fascist, but I find it hard to believe he abandoned all the tenants of the left. The Nazis considered themselves socialists, but then again they considered themselves nationalists. In other words, the left-right dichotomy is inefficient in explaining fascism.

The left’s consensus that Fascism is right-wing, and the right’s consensus that Fascism is left, is ample evidence of the political stake in the distinction. So who do I believe? I am personally on the fence with this contentious issue. It is apparent that Fascism adopted both right and left ideas, while at the same time opposing both right and left politics. It was anti-liberal and anti-conservative; I think we can all agree on this. I personally wouldn’t place it on the political spectrum at all, or if anything, place it precariously at the center.

However, I am in agreement with Trotsky, historian Zeev Sternhell in Fascism, A Reader's Guide, Analyses, Interpretations, Bibliography (which I was inspired to read by participating in this thread) and Bertrand Russell that Fascism was the natural progression of the revolutionary romanticism and Jacobinism which arose during the French revolution, or in other words, from the left.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: greencmp

Glad that was sorted out.

So, minarchist are statists who like their governments small.


At that level of government there is a distinction between "government" which every society has, and the State. Taxes rather than user fees might be a good dividing line.

Book Discussion "The Art of Not Being Governed" by James C. Scott about 30min audio

States fasten on to a region after the region has become prosperous.


Well, since you've changed the standard meanings of the words right, left, Fascist, socialist, and so forth, you might as well change the meaning of the words "government" and "State."

I mean, why stop when you're on a roll? Using made up terminology is standard for the nonsense you're spewing.



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:51 PM
link   
It is astounding to see those who post here claiming some sort of intellectual and/or ethical superiority, who in their first paragraph do exactly the same things that they are damning others for doing. Talk about lowest form of debate, what's lower than low? Guttersnipe hypocrisy, perhaps?

Personally, I have no issue with the comment that Italian Fascism and German Nazism (not the same thing, ironically), have mixed qualities of both "left and right" traditional elements, and have never said anything otherwise. But if they are both, then they are functionally neither, and Fascism/Nazism are not solely "Far Left" in the reality of their function and actions, as had been argued here ad nauseam. These philosophies were both seen as a "third way" between the extremes, some might remember. One plus one does not equal three, even in non-Euclidean geometries.

However, what cannot be denied, and what has been pointed out time after time in post after post, both systems required unquestioning obedience to the State which is and has been more of a traditional "Right Wing" idea than a Left one.

The carefully-selected opinions of the learned George Bernard Shaw, and not-so-learned Ronald Reagan and contemporaries, notwithstanding ...
edit on 15Fri, 28 Aug 2015 15:12:46 -050015p032015866 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 28 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: xuenchen

Nope. National Debts are proof of debt, not socialism.

What evidence do you have for your claim that most governments are engaging in the "Marx ideas" [sic] of central banking and taxation?

Which Marx? Groucho, Zeppo, Harpo, Gummo? Those are heroes of yours, I'm sure.


You are avoiding the Marx 10 Planks like the plague.

2 of those are exactly on target, and they are the most widely used today.



as Grampaw Karl himself wrote:

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax



edit on Aug-28-2015 by xuenchen because: [happy santa karl]



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 54  55  56    58  59  60 >>

log in

join