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: 83
23
<< 80  81  82    84  85 >>

log in

join
share:

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

originally posted by: Gryphon66
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


Star

I estimate that you are correct.

I haven't searched them but I am sure they were written by Liberals, Progressives, Communists or Collectivists.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


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


Interpersonal interactions are the basis of government, not coercion.


Voluntary cooperation and international peace are the stated goals of classical liberalism.


Correct; so why do you equate it with Fascism? Or are you going to pull one of these again?




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:12 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?


Judging from the biases shown by Google searches, audio book offerings, and Netflix selections, the book clubs are all Leftist.

I do enjoy non committal recreation with congenial people.
edit on 30-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Judging from the biases shown by Google searches and Netflix selections, the book clubs are all Leftist.

You seem to think the same about many people here yet, here you are.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001




Interpersonal interactions are the basis of government, not coercion.


Classical Liberals would say that interpersonal interactions are the basis of Society. All voluntary interactions are consistent with a free society.




Correct; so why do you equate it with Fascism? Or are you going to pull one of these again?



Classical Liberalism is the opposite of Modern Liberalism, AKA Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is Laissez-Faire towards economics and Minarchist towards politics. Rights in Classical Liberalism are Negative Rights, prohibiting actions, not positive rights, providing things.



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



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Semicollegiate
Judging from the biases shown by Google searches and Netflix selections, the book clubs are all Leftist.

You seem to think the same about many people here yet, here you are.


Would you prefer an echo chamber?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not about me.

Maybe you should ask the person who made the original statement.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 05:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate


Classical Liberals would say that interpersonal interactions are the basis of Society. All voluntary interactions are consistent with a free society.


So do contemporary Liberals. Liberals have always sought to expand suffrage; Conservatives to limit it. This places Liberals on the Left and Conservatives on the Right.


Classical Liberalism is the opposite of Modern Liberalism, AKA Liberalism. Classical Liberalism is Laissez-Faire towards economics and Minarchist towards politics.


Classical Liberalism has always opposed monopolies, tariffs and trade barriers. Most, but admittedly not all, Contemporary Liberals do as well. Modern economies have resulted in the necessity for government to take a more active role in infrastructure development and maintenance than in the 18th century, including the development of "human capital."


Rights in Classical Liberalism are Negative Rights, prohibiting actions, not positive rights, providing things.


A false distinction set out by conservative polemicists. The Bill of Rights is a constraint on the power of government. Liberals tend to favor expanding the rights of individuals, and applying them universally; conservatives tend to want to limit them as much as possible. This is why the ACLU insists that even foreign born suspected terrorists have a right to a speedy trial, whereas many Conservatives feel that only American citizens are entitled to one.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:45 PM
link   
My reading is paying off, at least for my own understanding.

Fascism was opposed to "Modernity." What is the definition of "modernity" in terms of philosophy at the end of WWI? What is the concept of Modernity that the Fascists were hell-bent on crushing?


Modernity definition (Oxford English Dictionary) 1b: An intellectual tendency or social perspective characterized by departure from or repudiation of traditional ideas, doctrines, and cultural values in favour of contemporary or radical values and beliefs (chiefly those of scientific rationalism and liberalism). ["liberalism" here doesn't mean liberal politics as much as free trade and free exchange of thoughts]

An identifying feature of modernity is constant change or loss of continuity from one generation to the next. In contrast, traditional cultures work to continue doing what their parents and grandparents did. For careers, for example, most modern people don't think of doing what their parents did—those jobs don't exist or have evolved to new descriptions. In a traditional culture, you would expect to grow up to do what your parents did. (At least in theory, traditional culture still holds in families, where position status and relationships may perpetuate themselves across generations.)


Modernity is against tradition. Fascism is against Modernity.
Modernity is for scientific rationalism and liberalism. Fascism is against. Note that "liberalism" here is defined as "free trade" and "free exchange of thoughts."

The goal of Nazism was to roll in an "Age of Purity." The revolution was AGAINST "Modernity" - meaning it was against materialism (the rise of the middle class and materialistic vs spiritual values), individualism, egalitarianism, the decline of hierarchical structures, and the erosion of traditional "higher" values. (Not directly quoted but derived from Modernism and Fascism, by Roger Griffin)

The book is making it clear that the roots of fascism were primarily right-wing. It was also complex - a cultural milieu of conflict and post-war desperation that drove a desire for renewal - for something great and powerful to arise from the ashes of WWI. The individuals who supported early ideas and put pieces of the fascist puzzle together were reacting to change - they didn't like Darwinism, for example, and created a myth around Aryan superiority.

I can't quote the book due to copyright, and I don't expect you to take my word for it, but there you have it. I have an electronic version purchased online. The electronic version was not expensive.

- AB



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I'm in favor of dispensing with the terms right-wing, left wing, The Right, The Left, and rightist and leftist.

Who's with me?



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Like I said - you are going to have some radicals on the edges. Shock jocks and radio hosts are notorious. A disgraced professor and a movie director who made a passing comment. I can show you lots of quotes like this from the right, too.

The point is, these guys are saying either horrible things that the left has denounced (i.e. the Rice quote - terrible!) or they are on the fringe with their opinions, i.e radicals. Cameron - well that was weird, but if you think all liberals are way into the ecoterrorism, you would be wrong.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

Some might interpret differently.

"Modernity is against tradition"

That could be what some Left Wing agendas are all about.

Lot's of criticisms from the Left about some "Traditions".




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

You could certainly say "modernity is against tradition." Fascism is FOR traditions and hearkening back to them. Mussolini was trying to resurrect the Roman Empire, in his mind anyway.

Personally, I think there are traditions worth keeping, and others that no longer make sense, but through Individualism (a facet of Modernity) I can determine those for myself.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Who's with me?

Even if we choose to drop it, others won't.

Explanation of why, would probably be called leftist propaganda.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I'm in favor of dispensing with the terms right-wing, left wing, The Right, The Left, and rightist and leftist.

Who's with me?


Good idea !!

But not now.

The opening article refers to Left and Right.

You can't just re-write history that easy.

But at the same time, maybe a graduated scale is in order with no "Center" point or end point.

One that ranks idealisms by comparisons as in differences and similarities perhaps.






posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some might interpret differently.

You really don't see it do you?

You are interpreting the same.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

We already cracked that nut.

That is what is behind the proposal.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

I am literally laughing out loud at your statement about re-writing history.

Thank you Xuenchen! I really needed a gut-buster today!




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: xuenchen

We already cracked that nut.

That is what is behind the proposal.


Xuenchen has a point. Perhaps it would be profitable to use our projected scales in some sort of analysis "attempt" to correllate the subjects under discussion (fascism, Stalinism, Maoism, etc.)

So for example:

Anarchy 00000|00000 Authoritarianism

Classism 00000|00000 Egalitarianism

Would be our "blank" and

This would be my personal description of the German Nazi Party

Anarchy 00000|XXXXX Authoritarianism

Classism 00XXX|00000 Egalitarianism


edit on 19Sun, 30 Aug 2015 19:52:39 -050015p072015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 07:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Maybe make some kind of chart comparing political philosophies, ideologies and governments?



new topics

top topics



 
23
<< 80  81  82    84  85 >>

log in

join