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: 77
23
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:46 AM
link   
a reply to: daskakik



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


You said it all.

Agreement and respect are what it takes. If some won't do that for whatever reason what else could we do?




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien



Agreement and respect are what it takes.

Nah.
I disagree with a lot of folk.
That doesn't mean I don't respect them...necessarily.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Just as a note, I personally find genuine libertarians a lot more egalitarian than authoritarian.

Also, there's actually a lot to be said for your comparison, even in your terms, of Republicans with Fascists and Democrats with Communists.

The issue comes in with libertarians being subsumed in typical Republican "fascist" ideologies, and having to try to square both "sides."



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Nah. I disagree with a lot of folk. That doesn't mean I don't respect them...necessarily.


Heh. I think I'll stop watching Comedy Central and watch this thread.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

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.


I thought it was high farce that they were chiming in with agreement on the "liberals attack the source" postulation, until I realized they were serious.

Then it just became ... sad.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

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.


I wove the negative rights comment into the earlier post thinking I could skim over the issue but, what you are describing is positive rights.

I am certain that, with the possible exception of the right to counsel, etc. there are no positive rights in our constitution.

Thus, any non-violent disagreements between people within a community are essentially non-criminal and do not concern the justice system.

As an aside, I am remembering the loose definition of fascism that I formed when I was a kid, that fascism is the criminalization of non-criminal behavior. I suspect that many of us have a variation of that definition.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Fascism, to me, rather than a formal definition, is the glorification of the State for the State's sake.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:56 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I was going to suggest "belief in negative rights" vs. "belief in positive rights" in to the different scales earlier ... that's another great point.
edit on 2Sun, 30 Aug 2015 02:56:52 -050015p022015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66



Fascism, to me, rather than a formal definition, is the glorification of the State for the State's sake.


Yes as per Mussolini's very own words.

I have linked a few times his essay:

www.worldfuturefund.org...

It is truly enlightening.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Just as a note, I personally find genuine libertarians a lot more egalitarian than authoritarian.

Also, there's actually a lot to be said for your comparison, even in your terms, of Republicans with Fascists and Democrats with Communists.

The issue comes in with libertarians being subsumed in typical Republican "fascist" ideologies, and having to try to square both "sides."



Yes, I really don't understand the association, I presume it is purely out of necessity that libertarian ideas have found a voice in the Republican party or, perhaps more specifically, the (small r) republicans.

Much of the rhetoric of the republicans is attractive to libertarians and vice versa but, the underlying statism disqualifies the otherwise well intentioned attempts at the inclusion of libertarians into any statist party.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:03 AM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen



article claims Fascism is a far "Left Wing" ideology, not "Right Wing" as many believe



they both are, if you go to the extreme in either direction it ends up with essentially the same results, only for different reasons



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Well, it is the loss of true liberalism/libertarianism in the Democratic Party that has weakened its philosophical strength, at least, in my opinion.

The state exists to maintain the national infrastructure and to protect civil rights. There is no other purpose for the state.

Again, in my opinion only.

Perhaps, to amend your comment, I'd say that both Republicans and Democrats are more Fascist than anything else, they just focus their fascism on different areas.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66
It's the loss of moderatism (moderation?) in all parties. Intransigence. My way or the highway.
Extremism is a road to nowhere no matter which lane you're in.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Tellurian

I'd still claim that socialism/communism doesn't belong with tyranny and serfdom, because they are economic rather than governmental in concept.

However, I would definitely put Stalinism and Maoism in that lower middle (nadir) position.

This still suffers from only utilizing two dimensions though.

I'd favor something that looked more like a bar chart combining different scales simultaneously.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gryphon66
It's the loss of moderatism (moderation?) in all parties. Intransigence. My way or the highway.
Extremism is a road to nowhere no matter which lane you're in.




That's a perfect way of saying it ... as we saw here earlier (which we have seemed to work through, somehow?).

Very little if anything regarding human psychology can be measured with scientific precision.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: greencmp

Well, it is the loss of true liberalism/libertarianism in the Democratic Party that has weakened its philosophical strength, at least, in my opinion.

The state exists to maintain the national infrastructure and to protect civil rights. There is no other purpose for the state.

Again, in my opinion only.

Perhaps, to amend your comment, I'd say that both Republicans and Democrats are more Fascist than anything else, they just focus their fascism on different areas.


That's awfully close to a description of libertarian beliefs. For me, the inclusion of civil rights is the only sticking point for the authoritarian implications mentioned earlier.

"National infrastructure" also has a broad scope of interpretation.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

National infrastructure, at least as I use it, follows the powers enumerated in COTUS Article I Section 8.

In point of fact, there's some of those I would leave off ... but I didn't write it.

As far as civil rights, the list would be a lot simpler if I made it: in public dealings treat everyone equitably, in private, do as you will so long as no one is harmed damaged.
edit on 7Sun, 30 Aug 2015 07:17:11 -050015p072015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Gryphon66
It's the loss of moderatism (moderation?) in all parties. Intransigence. My way or the highway.
Extremism is a road to nowhere no matter which lane you're in.




I generally use balance and balanced (and sometimes centrist) to refer to "moderatism" and moderation.

We have more than enough -isms in the political vocabulary to deal with, LOL.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

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.



I don't know of any system where you DON'T have to force some individuals to respect the rights of other people. Do you? And by force I mean "apply pressure" - that doesn't have to be physical.

If you are speaking of physical force - there may always be an element of that too, mostly criminal.

Would you agree or am I not getting what you mean?

Thanks for an interesting discussion - I'm enjoying reading it!



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:51 AM
link   
The closest thing to a nascent fascist regime in our time, in my opinion, is ISIS. If they were to coalesce into an actual State, it would be a fascist one: violent, authoritarian in extreme, and totalitarian with a theocratic/religious absolutism. This is certainly debatable, but the KEY element here is VIOLENCE and INTOLERANCE of anything outside their own elitist creed. They are hearkening towards the end of the world and the glory of Islam replacing all the decadence of the West in a bloody rush of judgement and subjugation. This is similar to the fascist ideal of "going back in time" to create a bold new era that is purified from the excesses and liberalism of the day.

They may not yet have all the characteristics of fascism, but it is still very early on - they are somewhat parallel to other fascist movements in the early stages, with a radical interpretation (and the vast majority of Muslims feel they have a WRONG interpretation) of Islam. They may fail to meet all the criteria in the end, but I sincerely hope that we as a world of nations will see this and crush them before they begin their apocalypse.

Do you feel American liberals are somehow equivalent to the violent force that is ISIS? No one who is claiming fascism is leftist has begun to answer this argument, but then again my head is spinning from all the redefinitions of words.

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

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



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 74  75  76    78  79  80 >>

log in

join