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: 75
23
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:40 PM
link   
Here's more to pick apart ...

Socialism, Communism & Fascism - Many Things In Common


Socialism, Communism and Fascism have many things in common. Whether Socialist, Communist or Fascist leaders come to power by election, or seizing power, they all speak in terms of collective good over individual freedom. Throughout history, Socialist, Communist and Fascist leaders have jailed, or murdered their opposition to silence critics. They all did it in the name of presumed collective good; though rarely did any good come of it, only repression, misery and poverty. Socialists, Communists and Fascists have all implemented a centralized command economy where the "state" dictates the focus and means of production; rather than a free market economy allowing supply and demand to determine those decisions and outcomes. The end result of Socialist, Communist, or Fascist tampering with the economy has always been slower growth and higher unemployment than would otherwise be the case.







posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Oooh! Sourced from "Blogger!"

The author has no bio!

Sorry. Couldn't resist. I'm out for now...

LINK to "National Freedom Forum"




posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:50 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Did you not read Teikiatsu's post and my replies?

You are confusing the two different meanings of far right. Your article is correct according to your and the radical right people's point of view.

Here let me quote Teikiatsu's post:

Teikiatsu



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.



edit on 8/29/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2015 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
It has been quite an education for me.

For me as well.

I see three general opinions:
Right and Left are determined by authoritarianism

Right and Left are determined by Egalitarianism

Right is absolute freedom and everythign else is on the left

I see the OP hoping from the first to the third and back whenever it suits the argument.

In the end it really doesn't matter because there is no agreement to what left and right mean. The idea is so garbled and the use of the labels so inconsistant that it has become meaningless.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Well the opening article assumes "left-wing extremist" to "models of communism and socialism" ....



There are many logical incongruities that are maintained on a populist level, especially when it comes to politics. Not least of these is the composition of the political spectrum in identifying ideologies and systems of governance. The most common fallacy is identifying fascism as a right-wing ideology, even though its ideological roots originate in the left-wing extremist models of communism and socialism.






posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:05 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Right. That is what the radical right means.

You are right by your definition.

I am right by my definition.

Read Teikiatsu's post again:



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, 30 2015 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Well the opening article assumes

The author of the opening article can assume whatever he wants.

Seems to me that others refuse his assumptions.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

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.


By what definition? By who's definition?

That is not what the "right wing" was traditionally and historically called in the US.

The terms right and left wing have only been used in American politics for about a century.

In fact, before the last decade or so, the ideas that "the right" was against government is an absolutely laughable statement.

We can look at historical examples and sources if you'd seriously like to explore the facts.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



That is not what the "right wing" was traditionally and historically called in the US.


That is true but we can see where the confusion came from.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
It has been quite an education for me.

For me as well.

I see three general opinions:
Right and Left are determined by authoritarianism

Right and Left are determined by Egalitarianism

Right is absolute freedom and everythign else is on the left

I see the OP hoping from the first to the third and back whenever it suits the argument.

In the end it really doesn't matter because there is no agreement to what left and right mean. The idea is so garbled and the use of the labels so inconsistant that it has become meaningless.


That is exactly the new "spectrum" I adopted in my own mind as replacements for "right and left" which are hardly descriptive of anything. I guess, to that extent, the conversation has been useful.

I would, however, not still not set authoritarian and egalitarian as the 'end points' of a line segment and try to push everything in between the two "extremes" but would rather consider a "point scale" for each category.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: Gryphon66



That is not what the "right wing" was traditionally and historically called in the US.


That is true but we can see where the confusion came from.


True enough. We've touched that basic "sore spot" numerous times during the conversation.

Both "sides" in the US tend to believe that they are not "authoritarian" (at least in the last decade).

For an accurate picture though, we'd have to consider that the American right is only AGAINST "big government" and "authoritarianism" sometimes ... for certain subjects and under certain conditions ... i.e. they are AGAINST "government" in terms of providing our social safety net, providing national protection for civil rights, education and the environment, and FOR said "government" in terms of defense/war spending, corporate welfare, adherence to "law and order," and religious protectionism.

The American right also tends to prefer less "authoritarianism" when they are the minority party rather than in power.

Is government for the imposition of more or less control AND is government more focused on the good of the many or the few (or the "one).

edit on 0Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:48:56 -050015p122015866 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I would, however, not still not set authoritarian and egalitarian as the 'end points' of a line segment and try to push everything in between the two "extremes" but would rather consider a "point scale" for each category.

I hope that you didn't think that that was what the first two "opinions" meant.

They would be two seperate graphs, probably plotted by different people, trying to express two different ideas. Much like we have seen here.

The first would set anarchy on one extreme and authoritarianism on the other.

The second would put classism on one extreme and egalitarianism on the other.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I would, however, not still not set authoritarian and egalitarian as the 'end points' of a line segment and try to push everything in between the two "extremes" but would rather consider a "point scale" for each category.

I hope that you didn't think that that was what the first two "opinions" meant.

They would be two seperate graphs, probably plotted by different people, trying to express two different ideas. Much like we have seen here.

The first would set anarchy on one extreme and authoritarianism on the other.

The second would put classism on one extreme and egalitarianism on the other.


I do see that. I think we would also consider a third parallel "scale" communitarianism versus individualism, i.e. some way to acknowledge "the good of the many" alongside "the good of individuals" (whatever terms we choose to represent those concepts.) Good call on setting classism against egalitarianism ... that really does point out significant political differences!
edit on 0Sun, 30 Aug 2015 00:47:38 -050015p122015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 12:53 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Good call on setting classism against egalitarianism ... that really does point out significant political differences!


Yes that was really good. I had to look up classism even though I knew what it mean but I think I haven't seen that word before (I probably did anyway).



some way to acknowledge "the good of the many" alongside "the good of individuals"



Sorry I couldn't resist.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Ok, I can see that, which is why I said that the three examples where what I see, meaning that those three are the three that I see people referring to most of the time.

We can add as many as we like but, unless people decide to discuss a particular one, the discussion will probably turn out as bad as this one.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Yeah, I know ... I had that scene going through my head as well.

I couldn't necessarily think of a better way to say it that weren't overly "elitist" sounding.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
I think any system is capable of egalitarianism. It's simply a matter of how it's meddled out, is participation forced or voluntary? If it's not voluntary, it seems like that would be fascist...to me.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:21 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox



I think any system is capable of egalitarianism. It's simply a matter of how it's meddled out, is participation forced or voluntary? If it's not voluntary, it seems like that would be fascist...to me.


Actually Mussolini is very very anti-egalitarianism.

You were probably thinking of USSR.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Actually Mussolini is very very anti-egalitarianism.

Actually Mussolini is very very dead. Sorry, just had to.

Seriously, I think Mussolini was mixed in this regard. Italian Fascism seemed to give everyone an equal chance but he did believe that an individuals ability would help him rise to the top and that it was well deserved.

So, if we take into account the gray area of the classism/egalitarianism scale it would not be hard left or right.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:43 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



Actually Mussolini is very very dead. Sorry, just had to.


LOL. Yeah




Italian Fascism seemed to give everyone an equal chance but he did believe that an individuals ability would help him rise to the top and that it was well deserved.



Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.




REJECTION OF EGALITARIANISM

In rejecting democracy, Fascism rejects the absurd conventional lie of political equalitarianism, the habit of collective irresponsibility, the myth of felicity and indefinite progress.


Out of horse's mouth so to speak. Take it as you will.



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 72  73  74    76  77  78 >>

log in

join