Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Please don't confuse a banana republic with a real republic.

Not at all. The international corporation, in your words "Banana Republic", was Dole or Chiquita that moved in, secured a dictator that would brutalize the people and make them slave for that coporation to get the cheapest bananas possible. In that sense it was the same as any dictatorship, beholden to the corporation, in the third world, back then.

The USSR was the dictatorship of the proletariat under an authoritarian regime which conveniently left out the bourgeoisie.

Just iike an Oligarchy or Plutocracy or Corpocracy in the US today.

You think thats not a rose by any other name, thats your prerogative.

Mc Donalds and Walmart pay less than living wages, the police protect the paradigm and arrest those that break the law because they can't afford to pay rent or feed their kids off the wages they get from Mega corp. USA.

Look to Ferguson if you think the police are to police state, look to the rash of cop killings, look to how they spend trillions on defense, move jobs overseas, foreclose on peoples homes, take their retirement, all legal.

originally posted by: raymundoko
...
Governments who are far-right have also typically been left of center.

What? How is far right, left of center?... It is either one or the other, not both.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

 

 

Anyone remembers what i wrote on this thread? Cause i don't remember it being off topic.

originally posted by: Greven

I'm not sure how you can possibly believe that Nazis worked for the common good.

Aryan good, maybe... but they sure killed a whole lot of their countrymen and women.

For the good of the majority... It is what the left professes... "Common good" for the good of the majority, before individual good you have to give up certain rights...

BTW, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, the Castro brothers, Che Guevara, all of these assholes were very left wing and murdered millions of people in total...and it was done "for the common good"...

Hello again.

I learned a long time ago, that ATS beyond facts and breaking news and alternative theory's ect ect is about humans on their collective journey to learn something about who they are and who they want to be. A deeply personal process, without any negative annotation a egotistical one.

Though consider this my ATS friends. It is all well and good and part of live for us to be here in the pits attacking each others persona's. Even I however politely I might have veiled it have done this often enough. But I think we can all understand that most of us are quite unmovable in our positions, especially seen how this thread has cobbled along. So be dam sure why you write on here. I do it for personal gratification and the hope that some might find my words educational or inspiring or at least entertaining. Do not do it out of sadism, or pride or desperation.

Sometimes you have these thread's where everybody is friendly and communal and you get the sense we are really all in this together..... its threads like these that gives me the feeling that most of you on opposite sides would sooner tear each other apart by sheer loathing and contempt than shake each others hand in mutual respect and understanding.

This is what ATS is about and at the same time we could be much better than this.

As far as the isms and organization's and how they are responsible for this or that. I could let some of my friends read one thread on this forum and they might think it a Cesspool of disgusting ignorance and brutality. I could show them another and they will be in awe at the polite, intelligent, respectful, fact based, Inspiring dialogue taking place. Funny fact both these threads inhabit ATS. So it is for all organizations and ideologies.

When men and women are righteous, and compassionate I do not really mind in which ism I live in.

Kind Regards

originally posted by: neo96

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Sooo... are you pro-fascist then?

Here's the thing, while fascism is a complex topic (how it specifically manifests in a given culture, etc.) it is also quite simple.

When governmental systems head towards totalitarian/authoritarian methods, bad things happen to people, and in similar ways. People starve, die, are thrown before war machines as cannon fodder, there is usually a lot of extreme control over people's daily lives, and a great fear that if someone tries to exist outside "the rules" of the regime, that they will be imprisoned, tortured and/or killed. This is the effect of TOTALITARIAN governments.

BOTH "left" AND "right" governmental styles can end up as "totalitarian regimes." This is where the killing, death camps, conformity at all costs, elite class vs everyone else, etc. comes in.

On the "left," you get Stalin, and on the "right" you get Mussolini and Hitler (two flavors of fascism). All three of these men created evil governmental systems. Stalin's sprouted out of leftist ideas of Communism, yes, but he corrupted any good for the people that that system hoped to create by being an evil totalitarian leader. Hitler was a nationalist, expansionistic, social-darwinist, totalitarian leader. ANY statement of Hitler's saying he was a 'socialist,' including the name in the Party, was propaganda.

For example:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler, Quoted in John Toland, "Adolf Hitler", p224.

Notice a couple of things here, first that he only uses one line calling himself a socialist and this is meant to inflame the Socialists and the rest of the Left, just get publicity and to confuse those that may not know the reality behind their party. The latter of which Hitler makes clear in his detailed policy of Lebensraum which has nothing to do with socialism. So not only does he merely state without any justification that he is a socialist, he makes it clear that his policy is not a socialist one but a racial and colonial one. So Hitler does not at all expound on the socialist statement, but he goes into detail on Lebensraum, which makes it clear that there is no real socialism behind his 'socialist' statement but there is to his expansionary and racist policies. "Again and again he hammered at race and the fact that Germany's future lay in the conquest of eastern territories. Over and over he preached his pseudo-Darwinist sermon of nature's way: conquest of the weak by the strong." (Ibid p226) As an honest reading of Toland would indicate; something that those that use this quote like Ray has obviously not done, but had probably only acquired it from a cheap Web search, probably from a Heritage institute or Glen Beck site; The mentioning of 'Socialist' was only propaganda.

Source

What did Hitler say about "the masses" and socialism when he wasn't spouting propaganda?

In Mein Kampf Hitler writes:

The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature and replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight. Thus it denies the value of personality in man, contests the significance of nationality and race, and thereby withdraws from humanity the premise of its existence and its culture. As a foundation of the universe, this doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man. And as, in this greatest of all recognizable organisms, the result of an application of such a law could only be chaos, on earth it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet.

Ah ha! Marxism is a "JEWISH doctrine!" Who knew? It "rejects the aristocratic principle of Nature" - wait a minute - socialism is anti-aristocratic in its very essence! "[Marxism] replaces the eternal privilege of power and strength by the mass of numbers and their dead weight." Hm. That sounds rather elitist and, dare I say, anti-Marxist!

The rest of the statement is an argument for nationalism, social-darwinism and racial "value."

Hitler says in his manifesto, Mein Kampf, that "As a foundation of the universe, this [Marxist] doctrine would bring about the end of any order intellectually conceivable to man."

I think its pretty clear from these statements that are in Hitler's manifesto, that he is NOT leftist. He is against socialism and Marxist ideals in their totality, and feels that the result of implementing Marxism "could only be chaos," and "on earth, it could only be destruction for the inhabitants of this planet."

So, this statement weighted against what is clearly a stratagem of propaganda (as shown above), actively demonstrates that Hitler, who is considered a fascist by all counts, was NOT a leftist or socialist in any actual sense, other than the fantasy he promoted himself with to the working class, and to rile up the real leftists so he could root them out and crush them.

We should not allow ourselves to fall victim to Hitlers lies of propaganda, but should seek out the meaning of his manifesto to see where his real and true thoughts for his governing philosophy are written.



The bottom line here for me is that ANYONE calling general conservatives or general liberals in the US "fascist" is simply WRONG. rovision of a certain level of survival-based safety net while the Corporations and Wall Street gamble our lives away, is NOT the "Highway to Hell" nor is it fascist in any way.

General Liberals seek egalitarianism - equality for everyone in terms of how they are treated by the government, by police and in the workplace/marketplace. They are against prejudice and are at the forefront of change they feel is "progress."

General, moderate Conservatives have the idea that strong businesses make a strong economy which in turn makes everyone happy. They usually believe in a strong military, and in "traditional" values of hard work and earning what you have.

Are either of these groups FASCIST? Absolutely NOT!! They balance each other well, actually.

Can FASCISM creep into our democracy? Absolutely YES! It can. And it has off and on throughout our history. It is important to be able to recognize it for what it is:

fascism
noun fas·cism ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-
Simple Definition of fascism

: a way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government
: very harsh control or authority

Full Definition of fascism
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

What I don't understand is the OP's obsession with "left" and "right" is. Broadly speaking, they denote the tendency of an individual or a group to favor change in the status quo or to be conservative and defend it. In some societies the terms flip. In the USSR, for example, the hard line Marxists were the Right and the liberalizing dissidents (ie; pro democracy, pro capitalism) were the Left.

This is why Nazism was clearly right wing: it opposed the liberalizing democratic reforms of the Weimar Republic in favor of the rigid social order and militarism of Prussianism, which organized the State to serve the military under the command of a Commander-in-Chief and his General Staff.

originally posted by: neo96

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Hmmmm is right... Lovely man, that Winston. Great to have in your corner when faced with terror. He's had plenty of experience dealing with it.

Churchill was born in 1874 into a Britain that was washing the map pink, at the cost of washing distant nations blood red. Victoria had just been crowned Empress of India, and the scramble for Africa was only a few years away. At Harrow School and then Sandhurst, he was told a simple story: the superior white man was conquering the primitive, dark-skinned natives, and bringing them the benefits of civilisation. As soon as he could, Churchill charged off to take his part in "a lot of jolly little wars against barbarous peoples". In the Swat valley, now part of Pakistan, he experienced, fleetingly, a crack of doubt. He realised that the local population was fighting back because of "the presence of British troops in lands the local people considered their own," just as Britain would if she were invaded. But Churchill soon suppressed this thought, deciding instead they were merely deranged jihadists whose violence was explained by a "strong aboriginal propensity to kill".

He gladly took part in raids that laid waste to whole valleys, destroying houses and burning crops. He then sped off to help reconquer the Sudan, where he bragged that he personally shot at least three "savages".

The young Churchill charged through imperial atrocities, defending each in turn. When concentration camps were built in South Africa, for white Boers, he said they produced "the minimum of suffering". The death toll was almost 28,000, and when at least 115,000 black Africans were likewise swept into British camps, where 14,000 died, he wrote only of his "irritation that Kaffirs should be allowed to fire on white men". Later, he boasted of his experiences there: "That was before war degenerated. It was great fun galloping about.”

www.independent.co.uk...

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: neo96

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Sooo... are you pro-fascist then?

Ya DIDNT read it DID YOU.

Miss the whole 'Churchhill on the LEFT WING' at the top ?

Sounds like it.

a reply to: masqua

Hmmmm is right... Lovely man, that Winston. Great to have in your corner when faced with terror. He's had plenty of experience dealing with it.

Roosevelt too for a accurate comparison. That one can argue was just as FASCIST as hitler.

The only real difference between the two is FDR didn't have gas chambers.

Hell between rounding up the Japanese, and putting them in 'fema' camps of their day.

The creation of that 'socialist' dream SS, and the 'New Deal'.

Completely robbing Fort Knox to 'pay' for the War Effort.

Confiscating American Citizens gold, and silver.

After all the collective needs outweigh the individual needs.

And FDR wasn't 'right wing'.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: DJW001

originally posted by: neo96

Things that make you go hmmmm.

Sooo... are you pro-fascist then?

Ya DIDNT read it DID YOU.

Miss the whole 'Churchhill on the LEFT WING' at the top ?

Sounds like it.

Of course I read it, did you? If the socialists call themselves anti-fascists, what should the anti-socialists call themselves? On top of everything else, you need to develop a sense of humor. Have you ever wondered why humor flourished in Communist countries, but not in the Third Reich?

a reply to: DJW001

Yeah well the fascists didn't call themselves fascists.

They called themselves SOCIALIST.

a reply to: neo96

That does n't answer the question. As a Russian once told me: "Under Capitalism, man exploits his fellow man. Under Scientific Marxism, it's the other way around."

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: DJW001

Yeah well the fascists didn't call themselves fascists.

They called themselves SOCIALIST.

Don't people mention that whenever someone pulls the "Nazi's were socialist" card?

a reply to: daskakik

Yes. Apparently the Right believe the Nazis were honest. The Party did have a Left Wing, but it disappeared completely one night. Literally.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Because they are two different rights. Do I have to explain that again??

Look at a political compass. (the current and accepted way to determine where a countries politics lay) The north/south line is the second right left line when not used on a compass. Authoritarian/fascism are far right. That line is separate and distinct from the communist/libertarian line. That's why the political compass was invented. Having two right an lefts was too confusing, as you have demonstrated.

Now you have an east/west (right/left) line and a North/south (second right/left) line.

So Far-right in the sense you are confused about means authoritarianism.

a reply to: DJW001

The party was left of center according to all historians. Left of center is socialism without becoming communist. They were also far-right in that they were almost totally authoritarian. Two different lines.

a reply to: daskakik

They were socialist. Jesus how ignorant is everyone here? This is a thread full of [snip] being confused about politics.

They were both socialist AND authoritarian. Those two often go hand in hand.

TWO.DIFFERENT.LINES.

Edit: for reference view this compass.

www.politicalcompass.org...

Both the top and the right are considered "right".

a reply to: raymundoko

The OP has an agenda that makes actual discussion impossible. Any attempt to distinguish between socialism as an economic system and totalitarianism as a political system is wasted here, as is any attempt to explain the differences between progressivism and reaction