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: 76
23
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 01:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlyingFox
I think any system is capable of egalitarianism.

That is what is lost when the scale is anarchy/authoritarianism or anarchy/everything else.

When you have to force people to respect the rights of other people it is authoritarian. It starts going left on those scales but on the classism/egalitarianism scale it starts to move towards the right.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Sure but he said "political equalitarianism"

Political egalitarianism is where members of a society are of equal standing in terms of political power or influence.


This was a spot you had to win:

Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it.


Still, he sees the individual as a sevent of the state, which is why I said that it must be in the gray area.


edit on 30-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:04 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



When you have to force people to respect the rights of other people it is authoritarian. It starts going left on those scales but on the classism/egalitarianism scale it starts to move towards the right.


Maybe a good point.

The way I see it is that the left is reactionary. Take slavery for example. Yes some people will have reaction to that. Some form of government will be needed to ensure that people are free. Is it authoritarian? Nope.

It seems that some people here in this thread and elsewhere are afraid of "leftists" taking over and making this country totalitarian much like Fascism.

People here can't answer a simple question... are we violent? Are we for authoritarianism? All of the people in this thread is not like that (unless I am missing a few people?)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:08 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



This was a spot you had to win:

Not sure what you mean by that?



Fascism wants man to be active and to engage in action with all his energies; it wants him to be manfully aware of the difficulties besetting him and ready to face them. It conceives of life as a struggle in which it behooves a man to win for himself a really worthy place, first of all by fitting himself (physically, morally, intellectually) to become the implement required for winning it.

Correct. People is to be active and work for the State.



Still, he sees the individual as a sevent of the state, which is why I said that it must be in the gray area.

Sorry I didn't see your edit but yeah that is anti-egalitarianism.
edit on 8/30/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien
This:

win for himself a really worthy place


Classes exist in the fascist model but you have class mobility based on your abilities.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



Classes exist in the fascist model but you have class mobility based on your abilities.


LOL not sure why you trying to argue with me. You are arguing with me that Fascism is far wing which I agree.

I might be drunk right now.

Again YES they were anti-egalitarianism. Pretty funny - two people arguing with each other that actually agree with each other.
edit on 8/30/2015 by Deaf Alien because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Take slavery for example.

Slavery might be a bad example because it was sanctioned by the government. In that case it was a move towards egalitarianism.

Still people reacted against it. They showed that they had no intention of recognizing the right of those individuals. They had ro be forced.


Is it authoritarian? Nope.

It is authoritarian in this day and age when the government forces people to respect the rights of people for which they might have no respect for.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: daskakik



When you have to force people to respect the rights of other people it is authoritarian. It starts going left on those scales but on the classism/egalitarianism scale it starts to move towards the right.


Maybe a good point.

The way I see it is that the left is reactionary. Take slavery for example. Yes some people will have reaction to that. Some form of government will be needed to ensure that people are free. Is it authoritarian? Nope.

It seems that some people here in this thread and elsewhere are afraid of "leftists" taking over and making this country totalitarian much like Fascism.

People here can't answer a simple question... are we violent? Are we for authoritarianism? All of the people in this thread is not like that (unless I am missing a few people?)


I don't see the need for government as being necessary to the liberty of individuals (my interpretation of freedom in this context) but, for the defense of the borders. Or, maybe it is more accurate to say that I can't fathom a mechanism for national defense that couldn't be considered government. There must also be some additional useful functions for the state that so far elude me that I have put a placeholder into.

When I think of rights I think of negative rights, that which encompasses the Bill of Rights. They are not there to protect me from my neighbor, they are there to protect me from my government.

While there are some openly authoritarian views expressed amongst us here on ATS, I don't think they are knowingly expressed as such. As you say, they are reactionary expressions of frustration which seem to the speaker as solvable only through government intervention. I vehemently disagree with that conclusion in almost all cases.

It is the interventionism that I find problematic because it cannot fail to be authoritarian and it is the authoritarianism that requires the threat of state or state-sponsored violence.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:27 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



It is authoritarian in this day and age when the government forces people to respect the rights of people for which they might have no respect for.

I assume you are talking about the same sex marriage thing?
No. Not of those people have agreed to not discriminate in their business practices, which they have done by pulling a business license. That is not authoritarian.



edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

We are not arguing, we are talking.

I'm just saying that Mussolini seemed to be middle of the road. Fascism was supposed to be just that.

Not "very, very anti-egalitarianism" but more equal rights and chances but still with classes. In the gray area of that scale.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:29 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Are you drunk like me? heh.




egalitarianism

n. The political doctrine that holds that all people in a society should have equal rights from birth.
n. the doctrine of the equality of mankind and the desirability of political and economic and social equality



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: daskakik



Classes exist in the fascist model but you have class mobility based on your abilities.


LOL not sure why you trying to argue with me. You are arguing with me that Fascism is far wing which I agree.

I might be drunk right now.

Again YES they were anti-egalitarianism. Pretty funny - two people arguing with each other that actually agree with each other.


What fun is it to agree with one another?




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:32 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



We are not arguing, we are talking.


Allright then. I must be very drunk heh. I guess I get too used to arguing in this thread.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

Not yet but, I'm thinking about it.

I agree to the definition but we are talking about a scale with that definition being on one end and classism being on the other.

Gray area means that it doesn't fit either definition to a tee.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp



What fun is it to agree with one another?


LOL that is funny.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I'm talking about the criminalization of any act that infringes upon the rights of others.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp
I don't see the need for government as being necessary to the liberty of individuals

It isn't needed if everyone agrees to respect those rights. Not everyone does.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



I want to see the entire context of those cherry-picked references.


There you go. They are cheap. Happy reading.

www.alibris.com...
books.google.co.uk...
www.amazon.com...
www.historyinreview.org...


Very Authoritarian to demand a purchase of a corporate product.

Excellent example.





You expect them to give you their products???

Socialist! Entitlement!


Of course not.

But I expect to be able to see sources in their entirety when used to make definitive and absolute assessments.



So you want to take advantage of the labor of others without compensating them for it? It really doesn't matter how you try to spin it.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen

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.



You have simply GOT to be joking! You, more than any of us here, have challenged sources, usually illegitimately.

I thought you at least had some sense of irony ...



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: xuenchen



I want to see the entire context of those cherry-picked references.


There you go. They are cheap. Happy reading.

www.alibris.com...
books.google.co.uk...
www.amazon.com...
www.historyinreview.org...


Very Authoritarian to demand a purchase of a corporate product.

Excellent example.





You expect them to give you their products???

Socialist! Entitlement!


Of course not.

But I expect to be able to see sources in their entirety when used to make definitive and absolute assessments.



So you want to take advantage of the labor of others without compensating them for it? It really doesn't matter how you try to spin it.


I will avoid pointing out the irony of xuenchen asking for full context.
No I won't. It's very ironic that xuenchen would ask for full context.




top topics



 
23
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join