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 Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

page: 18
52
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001

Now you're catching on. Stalin was a right winger, that's why Trotsky opposed him. Eventually Stalin was denounced (after his death) and the Cult of Personality (characteristic of Fascism) was banished from the Soviet Union by Krushchev.


ROFLMAO... wow... You want to talk about delusional rhetoric and disinformation?... Stalin was a left wing dictator, not right wing... Amazing how the left continues to try to re-write history...

But this is the same kind of delusional BS from people who claim "there has never been any true socialist, or communist regime, ever"... Whenever things don't go as claimed by the far left, they always resort to "but this isn't what we really, really wanted... And this is exactly the same reason why such dictatorships continue to exist and will continue to exist. Because of the inability of the left to admit their fallacies...

But hey, what do you expect when "according to some" the nationalization of all trusts, the the abolishment of all income not earned through labor, the communalization of large stores, agrarian reform to state control, The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. and the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. All of it is "right wing, according to some...

Heck, after all we also know that COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD is an idea espoused by "right-wingers"...


Not only was Hitler right wing, but now even Stalin was right wing according to some...



edit on 18-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: DJW001

Now you're catching on. Stalin was a right winger, that's why Trotsky opposed him. Eventually Stalin was denounced (after his death) and the Cult of Personality (characteristic of Fascism) was banished from the Soviet Union by Krushchev.


ROFLMAO... wow... You want to talk about delusional rhetoric and disinformation?... Stalin was a left wing dictator, not right wing... Amazing how the left continues to try to re-write history...

But this is the same kind of delusional BS from people who claim "there has never been any true socialist, or communist regime, ever"... Whenever things don't go as claimed by the far left, they always resort to "but this isn't what we really, really wanted... And this is exactly the same reason why such dictatorships continue to exist and will continue to exist. Because of the inability of the left to admit their fallacies...

But hey, what do you expect when "according to some" the nationalization of all trusts, the the abolishment of all income not earned through labor, the communalization of large stores, agrarian reform to state control, The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land. The conception of the State Idea (science of citizenship) must be taught in the schools from the very beginning. and the State must assume the responsibility of organizing thoroughly the entire cultural system of the people. All of it is "right wing, according to some...

Heck, after all we also know that COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD is an idea espoused by "right-wingers"...


Not only was Hitler right wing, but now even Stalin was right wing according to some...




This is comedy gold!

Keep going mate.


+11 more 
posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Greetings all, this is my very first post here on ATS so please forgive me that I'm doing this before I get to the introduction forum, if that is considered a faux pas, as I do plan on getting to the intro shortly.

I noticed this thread and have read some of what posters have thought and felt over the last day or so, and it all reminded me of an article I read a few years ago. It is quite long, so I don't want to try to post it in it's entirety and will instead try to insert the link for those who wish to take the time to read it. It struck me as a very well researched and written documentary of the rise of fascism in the USA, and it taught me a great deal of historical details I was not previously aware of.

I looked through this thread and did not see that this article had already been referred to, and I apologize if it has been and I missed it.

The Rise Of American Fascism



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Left–right politics



The intermediate stance is called centrism and a person with such a position is a moderate.

Amongst published researchers, there is agreement that the Left includes anarchists, communists, socialists, progressives, anti-capitalists, anti-imperialists, democratic socialists, greens, left-libertarians, social democrats, and social liberals.

Researchers have also said that the Right includes fascists, Nazis, capitalists, conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, neoconservatives, neoliberals, reactionaries, imperialists, right-libertarians, social authoritarians, religious fundamentalists, and traditionalists.





Libertarian writer David Boaz argued that terms left and right are used to spin a particular point of view rather than as simple descriptors, with those on the "left" typically emphasizing their support for working people and accusing the right of supporting the interests of the upper class, and those on the "right" usually emphasizing their support for individualism and accusing the Left of supporting collectivism. Boaz asserts that arguments about the way the words should be used often displaces arguments about policy by raising emotional prejudice against a preconceived notion of what the terms mean.[


en.wikipedia.org...

Far left or far right extremists are both bad. Totalitarian and undemocratic.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert





That's not the proper question because rights are not granted by an economic or political model. They are granted by god and the constitution. Socialism has to work within that infrastructure.


I have a an issue with this sentence. Rights are not granted by anyone. "Rights" is a made up concept due to the ignorance and barbarism of previous generations of civilisations of how they treated one another. I would like to think we have moved passed the concepts of 'rights'.

A decent living condition- not a right, it should be a natural state of living.
Equal pay- Everyone is equal, so equal pay should be the norm
Safe working environment- common sense no one should be put in danger unnecessarily to provide a living for themselves and those around them.

Just to name a couple.

If god made us all equal then we have 'right' to everything and anything, we are all equal in his eyes if you believe the rhetoric.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

We have to remember that the Nazi party came to power at a time when Germany's economy was in a pooor condition. People were struggling in their day to day lives. The Nazi's issued propoganda that gave them hope of coming out of this misery, where everyone would be able to feed their families again and get back to a decent standard of living. It was exactly what they wantedt o hear, and Hitler was a great Orator and he rallied the people to his way of thinking.

I don't think any of them realised what they were getting into at the time, they were desperate.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: nonspecific

This is comedy gold!

Keep going mate.


Really? that's your evidence? a one liner to claim "this is comedic gold"?... No mention of what "nationalization of all trusts" means?... Or "communalization of large stores", or "abolition of all income that is not earned through labor" among other policies implemented by Hitler and his Nazis? Interesting...



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: nonspecific

This is comedy gold!

Keep going mate.


Really? that's your evidence? a one liner to claim "this is comedic gold"?... No mention of what "nationalization of all trusts" means?... Or "communalization of large stores", or "abolition of all income that is not earned through labor" among other policies implemented by Hitler and his Nazis? Interesting...


Yep that is all I have, you sir are a legend and I stand by my statement that you are indeed comedy gold.

I have no need to argue your points or contradict you, I do not have to say anything.

I can just sit back and enjoy it for what it is.

Comedy gold sir, Pure gold.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Laugh all you'd like, but anyone with a hint of observational powers has seen what has been slowly but surely and systemically happening in this country in regards to destroying and subjugating the middle class...and who is doing it. I won't give you a label for it because labels are chameleons and have varying definitions, as you should well have seen by now in this thread alone. Labels serve solely to get the ill-informed to flock or despise and otherwise bend at the will of the masters.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Democrats have held more power for longer periods.

What they (the D's) don't do is as damaging as what they really do.

Results and *Failures* show the differences don't they.




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: ~Lucidity

Democrats have held more power for longer periods.

What they (the D's) don't do is as damaging as what they really do.

Results and *Failures* show the differences don't they.


Why are you speaking to me of Democrats?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: UncleSoze
... an article I read a few years ago. It is quite long, so I don't want to try to post it in it's entirety and will instead try to insert the link for those who wish to take the time to read it. It struck me as a very well researched and written documentary of the rise of fascism in the USA, and it taught me a great deal of historical details I was not previously aware of.

The Rise Of American Fascism



*quote reduced to my point*: A truly fascinating read, but, yes, very lengthy. I enjoyed the many polical cartoons and posters included as well as the quoted portions attributed to various players regarding fascism. I particularly liked the summation at the end.




The Enlightenment era of the 18th and 19th century created a whole new world of ideas for mankind. The new ideologies that developed out of The Enlightenment, combined with the sweeping changes ushered in by the development of democracy, science, and industrialization, resulted in a highly ideologically polarized world in the 20th century. All of these changes challenged traditional world-views and institutions. Laissez-faire capitalism had expanded rapidly in America during the late 19th century, but laissez-faire capitalism reached a world-wide stage of crisis in the early part of the 20th century, both moral and practical, resulting in two primary outcomes: The rise of the socialist movement to overthrow capitalism, and the development of fascism to use the State to prop it up.

Fascism, though, embodied more than just that, because the once revolutionary institution of capitalism had now become the potential "victim" of the next revolution. Capitalism, once independent from the State and aligned with liberalism, then became aligned with elements of conservatism. The State and Capital together reached back into the Old World, grasped onto the Church, and called on the name of God Almighty to save them from revolution. This is fascism. The rejoining of Church, State, and Commerce into a unified and mutually supportive relationship for the maintenance of power.

The rise of fascism took a different, non-revolutionary, path in America than it took in Europe. European fascism was certainly more extreme and malignant, but it has to be repeated that the term "fascism" has an unfairly negative connotation today because of its association with the Axis powers. Describing the post Second World War American State as fascist isn't an attempt to stigmatize it, but rather to understand the qualities of the modern American State, for better or for worse, and to understand the many different factors that contributed to the establishment of the greatly more powerful American Federal Government during World War II and to what ends that power would be wielded in the second half of the 20th century.


Excellent.

Thanks, Uncle Soze... star for you.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: pirhanna

When it comes to medical supplies how can this be a bad thing?

The Government have huge bulk buy and storage options making their ability to haggle with the supplier for the best price possible, due to the voulme of their orders of goods.

Passing the savings onto you, even if you had subsidised healthcare or cheaper for the government to run the scheme themselves!!

OOOOOHHH A national Health Service Programme!! (AN NHS) Dun dun Durrrrrr!!



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:06 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

How is the military a social programme?

Other than an occupation for cannon fodder who, without the military and with our educations standards remaining the same would be eternally unemployed?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Stalin was a left wing dictator, not right wing.


Then why did Trotsky oppose his move away from internationalism? Why did Stalin sign a mutual non-aggression pact with Hitler, the ultimate right wing demagogue?



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MrsNonSpecific




How is the military a social programme?


The founders had a different definition of General Welfare' than what people think it means today.

Creation of the military benefits every single person living here. It provides safety, and security. Ok well that was the idea at the time.

What it has come to mean to day is create a bunch of programs that can't pay for themselves., create taxes. create some more taxes. Pick on a minority, and spread the wealth around. Then create some more taxes. Print some fiat currency. Print some treasuries. Then rinse and repeat.

All the while create new programs that can't pay for themselves.

That some people benefit from. Others don't.

Two entirly difference concepts.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:33 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

"Get the definitions right first however."

How ironic, then, that you defend the original post's utter lack of consideration with respect to objectively defining socialism.



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: TramperoJuan



Jump on it.

What *ARE* the unbiased "definitions" anyway?




posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
a reply to: M5xaz

Keep on shaming the people who died during the fascist vs socialist wars on the 20th century, trying to change the definition of a word is not that easy.


Shaming ? That's your best reply ?

NO ! - what I gave you are FACTS you CANNOT refute - documented history! Google it.

NO ONE likes fascism (south american juntas killed tens of thousands) , but its is Socialism in its various forms ( communism, Nazism, "popular socialism" whatever) that killed Millions, MILLIONS

Google North Korea

The tens of MILLIONS that died because of socialism, don't they matter ?

Your "socialism" utopia is more important than life ? People ?

edit on 18-12-2015 by M5xaz because: addition



posted on Dec, 18 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


Stalin was a left wing dictator, not right wing.


Then why did Trotsky oppose his move away from internationalism? Why did Stalin sign a mutual non-aggression pact with Hitler, the ultimate right wing demagogue?


Nazism (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) was socialism, not right wing, as indicated previously
Google it again



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join