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: 74
23
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Well that must mean Fascism is closely related to the generally accepted "Left Wing" authoritarian systems afterall I guess.

neener neener.



just




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I think you are not serious. This is funny to you. Your pervasive use of smiley faces tells me you aren't serious.



neener neener.

How juvenile of you. It further proves that you are not serious.

But anyway we've reached a stalemate. You won't even accept Mussolini's own words. That tells me how entreached your belief is. There is no point in discussing with you any further.

At least my posts and others' posts will enlighten and educate those who are willing to listen.
edit on 8/29/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: MOMof3
Do you have a source other than the Conservative Daily News?


Well laws that governments enact and enforcement levels are a good example.

Taxes, extreme laws that make everything illegal, ultra-I.D. systems etc.

but here is another opinion...

fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer





This source?

This was an essay written by Sheldon Richman. He is the editor of The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty at the Foundation for Economic Education in Irvingtonon-Hudson, N.Y.


FEE was founded in 1946 to promote free-market economics, with financial backing provided by the William Volker Fund.[7][8] The founding documents of FEE said: "The job of economic education must be undertaken now while those who appreciate the value of liberty are still in a position to support it."[9]


Founding vice-president Henry Hazlitt
In its first years, FEE opposed the Marshall Plan, Social Security, and Minimum Wages, among other American social and economic policies. In its programs, FEE supported the advocacy of its free-market views with evocations of Christian morality alongside economic efficiency. Referencing the influence of religion on the economic policy proposals of FEE, board member Jasper Crane stated, "we are going to be beaten if we rely entirely on the argument of dollars and cents."[8]
link

This FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) has some interesting initial Trustees... Hm.


Initial
Harold Luhnow, president of William Volker & Company
A.C. Mattei, president of Honolulu Oil Corporation
William A. Paton of the University of Michigan
Charles White, president of the Republic Steel Corporation
Leo Wolman, professor of economics at Columbia
Donaldson Brown, former vice-president of General Motors
Jasper Crane, former vice president of Du Pont
B.E. Hutchinson, chairman of the finance committee of Chrysler Corporation
Bill Matthews, publisher of the Arizona Star
W.C. Mullendore, president of the Southern California Edison Company


How very corporatist.

David Goodrich, a chairman of the FEE, also founded the "Liberty Fund" to promote/promulgate his libertarian ideals, passing it off as an "education foundation." The website the "Library of Economics and Freedom" is directly funded by the "Liberty Fund."


FEE was founded in 1946 by Leonard Read, general manager of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, for whom "the free-enterprise philosophy had already become almost a religion".[2] FEE's initial officers included Read as president, Henry Hazlitt as vice-president, and B.F. Goodrich chairman David Goodrich as chairman.

Link - SourceWatch

So, the author is the editor of "The Freeman" which is funded and produced by FEE (Foundation for Economic Education). The article was on a website called "The Library of Economics and Freedom" which is funded by "The Liberty Fund." These are all hard-core economic libertarian sources.

Well, at least we have sussed out more of your actual views? Maybe??




I can see this is all going to spin in circles.

- AB



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



And I certainly wouldn't expect any Left Wing sources to agree Fascism is even remotely related to anything Left Wing.


Didn't you mean Far Left Wing?

Both Far Left and Far Right Wings are authoritarian in nature.

Are you authoritarian? Am I authoritarian?

Didn't think so.


Once again a confusion of the right wing.

If you are referring to European right wing, I agree it is authoritarian at the extreme.

If you are referring to USA right wing the extreme is anarchy, meaning no government to be authoritarian.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
It's very interesting how the liberal/progressive response to cited material is to attack the writers and source instead of actually respond to the material.

"Oh that's a conservative/libertarian source, so of course they are going to say fascism is left wing!"

Well then what is the alternative, for a liberal/progressive source to say fascism is obviously right wing?



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:37 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Good critique.

At least the information isn't hidden or "for sale".

Not seeing any real discrediting of the points made in the article though.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

It's very interesting how the liberal/progressive response to cited material is to attack the writers and source instead of actually respond to the material.

"Oh that's a conservative/libertarian source, so of course they are going to say fascism is left wing!"

Well then what is the alternative, for a liberal/progressive source to say fascism is obviously right wing?


It's an old trick.

And sad.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I go by the definition but fine. It's irrelevant to this topic anyway. Let's go with your definition.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu



It's very interesting how the liberal/progressive response to cited material is to attack the writers and source instead of actually respond to the material.


LOL you and your people do the very same and even started it in this thread. Actually I don't know about you but Xuenchen is the one who started it.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
[ talking to myself ]

Looks like they are at the "bargaining and depression" stages.

The "acceptance" is near.

Should we help them?

Sure, why not. We're all victims of the same tyranny anyway right?

Begin Your Healing

[/talking to myself ]




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Actually there could be some truth to that. Where the confusion lies.

The USA Far Right Wing you are referring to is what is called the radical right. Not the same as far right but we call them that anyway.



edit on 8/29/2015 by Deaf Alien because: grammar



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Actually the question in the OP was answered way back, applying the logic of the author of the article that right=freedom and left=authoritarianism then, the answer is yes.

What Xuenchen seems to have a hard time accepting is that there are those who don't accept the authors logic that right=freedom and left=authoritarianism.

As this thread has shown, nothing is really ever going to change.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:10 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I think we finally have made some kind of progress. Maybe? Am I being too hopeful?

I think Teikiatsu has made an excellent point. There is so much confusion.


edit on 8/29/2015 by Deaf Alien because: grammar



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: AboveBoard

Good critique.

At least the information isn't hidden or "for sale".

Not seeing any real discrediting of the points made in the article though.





I was not doing a "point by point analysis" of the article. I have a family to take care of and so I didn't get to read it yet. lol! My point was to establish your point of view in siting that as a legitimate source - one of the ONLY sources you even want to consider. I find that interesting because these organizations are agenda-driven. It makes them NOT pure "academic" sources, but academically biased towards their libertarian viewpoints.

You slammed my source (the mathematician) earlier for not being an historian, and having a liberal bias. So your source is equally disqualified - is the double standard lost on you?

You've been harping all over sources I've sited from the wiki article because you have a problem with Oxford University Press actually selling a book, and the professor, presumably, being paid for his years and years and years of labor. Because it wasn't "freely available" to you on the net, you have apparently dismissed it as a possible source, have done no research into the background of the author and have pretty much shut your eyes and stuck your fingers in your ears saying "lallalalalalala I can't hear you because your source isn't free on the net!"

Why should I trust an agenda-baised source of your choosing, when you won't accept a source whose mission is the uncovering of what actually happened and who lets the chips fall where they may - an academic worth their salt doesn't base their arguments on what they want the answer to be.

Your source is backed by corporatists who are NOT making their products, their labor "freely available." Why should a top professor in his field who specializes in researching fascism not be paid for his labor? Double standard.


So - why should your source be trusted above all others? Dare you answer a direct question like that?

- AB

PS - I've purchased books by two of the wiki sources...can't wait to see what these erudite professors, specialists in the field, have to say. Who knows? Maybe they will back your bias? Maybe they will back mine? Maybe they will uncover a truth that is bigger than both our little boxes? Boxes are dangerous places to put the ebb and flow of human history - we rarely fit neatly. I won't be able to post on it immediately as one is coming snail mail and, again, family.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!


Whew!

That was a good one!




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Actually there could be some truth to that. Where the confusion lies.

The USA Far Right Wing you are referring to is what is called the radical right. Not the same as far right but we call them that anyway.


That's an interesting observation.

I always wondered what "radical right" meant and it sort of explains the confusion.

From my point of view, both the Republicans and the Democrats are socialist parties, Democrats could be considered communists and Republicans could be considered fascists.

So, that would mean that the "radical right", a term which I presumed was the most disparaging epithet summonable by socialists actually refers to classical liberals (libertarians).

So, if you accept the terminology contained within this postulate, that would mean that the "radical right" (libertarians) are perceived to be more of a threat than "fascists" (Republicans).

Also, the extreme disdain that fascists hold for classical liberals is reflected in the Republican party.

I am, of course, using the big "R" here which refers to the GOP, not constitutional republicans.



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

That's kinda funny. You are asking if the spin-docs know their trade? Seriously? Of course not!

Socialism with a capitalist veneer is the social market (for ex. the BRD... after WWII), hence the addition of capitalism per se to the non-existence of markets in a state-controlled production. What else you've got?

The Newspeak is strong with this election, innit?




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Good that you bought the books.

Can't wait to see the actual pages and if any of those few words are part of a major support reference in the hundreds of pages involved.




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
I think we finally have made some kind of progress. Maybe? Am I being too hopeful?

Some might have but, Xuenchen just posted that he can't wait to see the contents of the books cited in wiki, as if we have not already concluded that they will show that they were authoritarian and therefore left according to the article in the OP.


edit on 29-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:35 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Oh yeah. I have long forgotten about the radical right and what we Americans (some of us anyway) meant as the right or the far right till Teikiatsu brought it up stating that is where the confusion is. I had to reread the OP and realized it.

I have been following the accepted definition of right wing ideology.

It has been quite an education for me.

So yes if we were to accept their definition then Fascism is not far right (radical right).




top topics



 
23
<< 71  72  73    75  76  77 >>

log in

join