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: 82
23
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Did you provide us with your definition of socialism?

If so, I missed it. Could you let us know what you think in regard to that term?

Thank you kindly.



In the mid 1800's socialism promulgated the ownership of industry by the workers. Not because it was the order of nature, like Capitalism is, but because the workers deserved more. [1] The only way to accomplish the control of industry by the workers was to control industry by democratic forces. The State was grown[3] by lobbying between TPTB [2] and the leaders of masses of voters. So the power of the State was accomplished by promising to use that power for the good of the masses.

In America the voters were Populists in the 1800's followed by Progressives after the turn of the 20th Century. The Communists and Fascists were the first openly socialist political systems.

They were Socialist because they controlled a State from the top down by claiming or intending to do the will of the people. Once power is gotten, the most important thing about Socialism is that it claims justification to rule over anything.

Socialism is the sine qua non of the Totalitarian State.












[1] Wishful thinking and unnecessary as the Capitalist economy was raising the standard of living for everyone. And not just raising it short term, Capitalism, over a few generations, completely transformed society to a level of affluence never before enjoyed in the history of the world.

[2] The Powers that Be know that individuals can be controlled. A State is made of individuals. So the more power the State has, the more power TPTB have through controlling the various individuals in the government.

[3] In 1860, Germany, Italy, and the United States were collections of sovereign units of smaller governments. Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were showing signs of break up in the future. The American War Between the States set a rhetorical precedent used by all nationalists who were also all socialists.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu




Depends on your idea of violence. Anyone who wishes to use the force of the government to restrict my rights is using the threat of violence to enact their agenda.


What threat of violence? I'm sorry, did I miss the lynchings and beheadings of American Conservatives in the news by organized gangs of Liberal Brown Shirts? You are attempting to put an extremist label on something that is your own fantasy - it does not exist in reality.

I realize some people are doing the Newspeak thing again on racism and sexism, but that's a whole other thread as well.

Sheesh!

- AB



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: greencmp

Wow. Just... Wow.

I know a TON of liberals and progressives. NONE of them are violent nor would use violence to achieve their means. I think you need to source this, friend, because it just ain't so.

There may be a few really radical nuts out there, but I guarantee there are on the Right as well... I'm talking the Average American, not some hunkered down cell of would-be communist rebels. Do you think for one moment that the Average American liberal is a Brown Shirt???

Now, seriously, this is an accusation that goes beyond the pale. It is not just offensive, it is wholly baiting and frankly, absurd. Prove it or lose it.

- AB


Just read some threads around here for a taste.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

People on this thread are saying they feel threatened by American liberals/left leaning people as if they are violent fascist. I just read about that in some other posts.

Perhaps I've misconstrued their meaning but it seems they have determined "liberal" = Brown Shirt.

If you want to talk Governments, then fine. Communism and Socialism were what the fascists in Germany despised. How could they simultaneously despise and seek to destroy a form of government while embracing it at the same time???

This thread is like a merry-go-round. We get about as far, too.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: xuenchen


And I'm sure those examples can run an entire country.


How odd. Whenever anyone points out that it is possible for groups of people to work together cooperatively and without coercion, you dismiss that as impossible. Are you sure you are advocating the form of government you actually believe in? It sounds like you think people cannot be trusted to work things out democratically, but need to be ruled by a strong central authority.


Without coercion would mean without coop rules. Do coops have no rules?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I have. No Brown Shirts. Sorry.

As a person on the left side of things, I feel threatened by right wing ideology and fundamentalism in the US. Are they coming to rip me from my home and murder my family because I'm liberal?

Gack. I have to go now. Family.
edit on 30-8-2015 by AboveBoard because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Where are the organized groups of Brown Shirts? Where are the people being pulled from their homes, their possessions taken by the State to give as favors to elite members, their bodies murdered or sent to "Labor Camps" (Concentration Camps)? You think America is ANYTHING like that? Do you know what happened in Germany?
For the love of God and all that is Holy, this is not what liberals stand for, nor what they would do. Get over it.



SWAT.

Prisons.

Most of the above is concentrated in urban areas.

The 2010 census claims 80% of the population is urban, 20% rural.

Big city/ Big county police have no jurisdiction in rural towns.

Crime much less proportional in rural areas I think.

Maybe does compare to Germany a little?



SWAT team use has spiked from around 3,000 strikes per year in 1980 to as many as 80,000 raids a year now. A battering ram or other forced-entry device is used in two-thirds of these raids, nearly 80 percent of which target private homes like Cady's. The great bulk of SWAT raids are in service of the drug war, though nearly four out of 10 find no contraband at all.


Many police departments (like St. Louis, Missouri, which includes Ferguson in its jurisdiction) make it a matter of policy to execute all search warrants — targeted at anyone from the most innocuous pot smoker to the most dangerous murder suspect — with a SWAT team.


The troubling rise of SWAT teams




edit on Aug-30-2015 by xuenchen because: almost forgot



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: greencmp

I have. No Brown Shirts. Sorry.

As a person on the left side of things, I feel threatened by right wing ideology and fundamentalism in the US. Are they coming to rip me from my home and murder my family because I'm liberal?

Gack. I have to go now. Family.


If we are talking about (big "R") Republican right-leaning socialism (fascism) you may have a point. Socialism of that flavor does not respect your views nor your right to express them. Whereas your left-leaning flavor of socialism, (big "D") Democrat (fabian) doesn't respect my views or rights.

Only true liberals (classical) are actually advocates of free speech.

But, for actual classical liberals, why would someone who is happy, self-sufficient and minding their own business want to castigate you?

Pardon the extensive annotation but, I think it is the only way to be clear at this point.
edit on 30-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Crime much less proportional in rural areas I think.

You might be wrong.

I'd post a link but you probably wouldn't accept it.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard

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!


Social pressure is usually enough.

People make choices. Criminality is encouraged as a viable choice in some way, or else it wouldn't happen as much. Could criminality be encouraged by subconscious perception of the Might makes Right mentality of our military and political history?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Teikiatsu



Depends on your idea of violence. Anyone who wishes to use the force of the government to restrict my rights is using the threat of violence to enact their agenda.


What threat of violence? I'm sorry, did I miss the lynchings and beheadings of American Conservatives in the news by organized gangs of Liberal Brown Shirts?


As I said, it depends on your definition of violence. Anything that imposes government force over free will is not soft and cuddly as far as I'm concerned.

If the above is your idea of violence, please point out the inverse. I must have missed the mass persecutions from the conservative side of the aisle. In the meantime...

• “A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: http: / / soundof4gunshotsbeingfired. Just try it, you little b*stard. http: / / ofgunbeingcocked.” — from the Randi Rhodes Show

• “..And then there’s Rumsfeld who said of Iraq ‘We have our good days and our bad days.’ We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall and say ‘This is one of our bad days’ and pull the trigger.” — From a fundraising ad put out by the St. Petersburg Democratic Club

• “I believe in ecoterrorism.” — James Cameron

• “…In an ideal world, American consumers could be convinced to do the right thing through an appeal to logic with public service messages like the ‘What Would Jesus Drive?’ TV campaign, but the kind of people who would buy a car that increases the risk to other motorists in an accident can’t be reasoned with. They’re selfish and stupid. It’s unfortunate that drivers must worry that their SUVs are being targeted by insulting stickers and Molotov cocktails, but one thing’s for sure: It couldn’t be happening to a more deserving group of people.” — Ted Rall winks at ecoterrorism

• “F*** God D*mned Joe the God D*mned Motherf*cking plumber! I want Motherf*cking Joe the plumber dead.” — Liberal talk show host Charles Karel Bouley on the air.

• “Republicans don’t believe in the imagination, partly because so few of them have one, but mostly because it gets in the way of their chosen work, which is to destroy the human race and the planet. Human beings, who have imaginations, can see a recipe for disaster in the making; Republicans, whose goal in life is to profit from disaster and who don’t give a hoot about human beings, either can’t or won’t. Which is why I personally think they should be exterminated before they cause any more harm.” — The Village Voice’s Michael Feingold, in a theater review of all places


• “O&A – ‘Condoleezza Rice'”
Charlie – “I’d love to f— that b*tch dude” (laughter)
Charlie – “She’s the F—in man”
O&A – “yeah”
Charlie – “I’d F…that b*tch….”
O&A – “I just imagine the horror in Condoleezza Rice’s face….”
– “(laughter) ….. as she realizes what’s going on”
– “…as you were just holding her down and F’n her.”
Charlie – “punch her all the F’n face, shut the F— up b*tch”
O&A – “that’s exactly what I meant” (laughter in background)
Charlie – “you know F— it …. and George Bush wife? I’d F— that b*tch to death” — “Shock Jocks” Opie & Anthony talk rape & violence with their guest “Homeless Charlie.”

• “Obama promised us the dream of post-partisanship-a cuckoo land where party affiliation and factional animosity were forgotten. Turn on cable news or open any newspaper, however, and you’ll quickly discover that the dream has yet to materialize. But there is a way to reach across the aisle without letting principles fall by the wayside. We speak, naturally, of the hate f***. We may despise everything these women represent, but goddammit they’re hot. Let the healing begin.” - Playboy magazine, Guy Cimbalo

• “For those of you who do, as a matter of principle, oppose war in any form, the idea of supporting a conscientious objector who’s already been inducted [and] in his combat service in Iraq might have a certain appeal. But let me ask you this: Would you render the same support to someone who hadn’t conscientiously objected, but rather instead rolled a grenade under their line officer in order to neutralize the combat capacity of their unit?” — University Professor Ward Churhill on supporting soldiers who frag their officers

• “Drudge? Aw, Drudge, somebody ought to wrap a strong Republican entrail around his neck and hoist him up about six feet in the air and watch him bounce.” — Liberal radio host, Mike Malloy

• “I know how the ‘tea party’ people feel, the anger, venom and bile that many of them showed during the recent House vote on health-care reform. I know because I want to spit on them, take one of their ‘Obama Plan White Slavery’ signs and knock every racist and homophobic tooth out of their Cro-Magnon heads.” — The Washington Post’s Courtland Milloy

And let's not forget this little gem, the best part has to be the poster defending it.





You are attempting to put an extremist label on something that is your own fantasy - it does not exist in reality.

I realize some people are doing the Newspeak thing again on racism and sexism, but that's a whole other thread as well.


I realize you don't realize it, but what you are doing is called 'projection' - assigning negative characteristic endemic to your own ideology to the opposition. Not that there isn't a violent fraction of people on the Right, but do not try to pretend it does not exist on the Left.
edit on 30-8-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: greencmp
And so I would, eventually people would be allowed to live their lives in peace.

I don't see a downside.

It will never happen, for reasons previously posted.

If it was so good why did the people between 1800 and now not hold on to it?


Because political people are working 24/7 while the regular gal or guy are living their lives.

That is the growth of government.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I disagree.

People will trade freedom for security whether you think it is a bad thing or not.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Are American Liberals, as a group, violent? Violence and racism are hallmarks of fascism. Are liberals violent? There may be some liberals who are racist, but as a group they are not - they are egalitarian, for the equal rights of all members of society.

Do Liberals want to take America back to some mythical golden age of purity against the degenerating excesses of the modern age?

Both of these are Keys to the Fascist Kingdom. Neither of these describe American Liberals.

- AB


As far as number of murders, Fascism is number three, behind Maoism and Bolshevism.

Liberals, for good intentions undeniably, want a system that must lead to economic ruin at best and starvation and slavery at worst.

Capitalism made all of the affluence that Liberals and everybody else enjoys. I know you have never had that position presented to you. It would require thousands of hours of reading and thinking, which is not normal.

Why does anybody work? They work to get what they want. Socialism provides less of what you want for less work. After some number of reiterations it will run down for sure.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Without coercion would mean without coop rules. Do coops have no rules?


Why don't you go out and join a cooperative group of some kind, say, a book club, and find out how people arrive at consensus without coercion?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Without coercion would mean without coop rules. Do coops have no rules?


Why don't you go out and join a cooperative group of some kind, say, a book club, and find out how people arrive at consensus without coercion?


Are you saying that you agree with us that government has no place in interpersonal interactions?

Voluntary cooperation and international peace are the stated goals of classical liberalism.
edit on 30-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Semicollegiate

I disagree.

People will trade freedom for security whether you think it is a bad thing or not.


And if they do, they deserve neither one. - some smart guy.
edit on 30-8-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate

Capitalism made all of the affluence that Liberals and everybody else enjoys. I know you have never had that position presented to you. It would require thousands of hours of reading and thinking, which is not normal.


It's one of the great ironies... capitalism and free market makes people so comfortable they have time to start thinking of ways to ruin it 'for the greater good.'



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Interesting.

I know of no standard definition of socialism that fits with your statements.

I see that part of the issue here has been that we are talking about two completely different things.

Thank you for your very exhaustive answer; I do appreciate it.

G



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu
And if they do, they deserve neither one. - some smart guy.

Doesn't change the fact that it happens.

The question was about why they lost the freedom that existed in 1800.
edit on 30-8-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 79  80  81    83  84  85 >>

log in

join