Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

Scr*w it. Ain't worth it.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Yawn.

The basis of all socialistic theory is an economic one ... the matter of "who owns the means of production."

Yes, there are laws made about economics and economic structure. Notice how we keep having to repeat "economic" there?

You got called on your absurd cherry-picking of "definitions" aka "the dictionary fallacy."

The very simple facts have been pointed out to you multiple times: witness your writhing back and forth trying to make reality fit your absurd claims!

The NATIONAL SOCIALISTS were NATIONALISTS. Rabid NATIONALISM was the absolute focus of their ideology ... well, that and absolute state-control ... which is, like it or not, a long-accepted quality of RIGHT WING political systems.

The fact that you desperately continue to attempt to twist terms to your own use is utterly telling.

/shrug

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Listen, I get what you are trying to say. You are trying to say Nazi Germany can't possibly be right because they incorporated A LOT of socialistic policies, therefore they were left.

But you are confusing a sociopolitcial line

of, relating to, or involving a combination of social and political factors

with a ecopoltical line

the study of politics as influenced by economic power.

Again: TWO. DIFFERENT.LINES.

One can be far left on one line and far right on another, as is the case with Stalin and Stalin's Russia.

Since some people seem to be having a hard time I will draw the two lines:

Far-Left (Communism)------------Center--------------Far-Right (Libetarianism)

Far-Left (Anarchism)------------Center-----------Far-Right (Authoritarianism)

You can technicality add a third line:

Far-Left (Atheist)----------Center-----------Far-Right (Religious Extremist), but those typically don't play into Socio/Ecopolitical maps. For example some religious extremists are far left on both political lines and others are far right on both.

Any time a government has gotten too far center at the same time on both lines (like Rome) for some reason they begin to fall apart. There are two many on either side of the line who begin to push and pull for their line of thought and it causes splintering. You literally have to "pick a side".

Hitler chose centerish on the economic line and far right on the social line.

So you are continuously confusing how the term far-right is used in context. It is only referring to the extreme authoritarian nature of the German government under the rule of Hitler.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Since some people seem to be having a hard time I will draw the two lines

They are not having a hard time, they just flat out refuse to accept what you are saying. The x-y political compass has been posted a bunch of times, in many threads, with many of the same participants, like the OP, and yet they decided to start this thread.

I remember an old thread where someone who had lived in Yugoslavia under the communist regime of Tito said things where better under the communists than the capitalism that came after. IIRC, the OP pretty much called him a liar. You can't reason with someone who feels like they are on a mission.

originally posted by: Unity_99
...

It means medical, dental, something everyone on earth should have, land and controlled prices for necessities. It doesnt mean slavery or Sharia!

Really?... Tell me...Venezeula... another state that socialists and communists claimed "Chavez is going to bring the BEST for the people"... Did it turn "the best"?... You get the same collectivistic BS where the state proclaims to represent "the workers" (same as the NAZI claimed), but in truth the workers can't own the means of production at all, it is the state, and those in control that always have control over all... Chavez introduced the "nationalization" of industries without giving compensation to the owners (which Hitler also did). Chavez implemented the rationing of all products, including food, etc. Meanwhile Venezuelans were going hungry, which I warned because the same happened/s in Cuba, meanwhile ton and tons of food were rotting in GOVERNMENT WEREHOUSES, meanwhile Chavez, the Chavistas and socialists/communists the world over claimed that it was caused by the "imperialists"...

Chavez banned/closed several tv and radio stations, and only allowed tv stations that would spread the state propaganda. In fact he implemented a law that it is illegal to say anything against Chavez, or the Chavistas, and if you do it will land you incarcerated.

Now the opposition won, but Maduro doesn't want to give up the power and is claiming that "the elections were rigged"... What a wonderful "socialist/communist" state isn't it?... At least only if you are a die hard socialist who doesn't care about individual rights, and only cares for "the revolution" just for the sake of "the revolution"...

a reply to: raymundoko

Far right doesn't lead to state control over all resources, nationalization of all stores without giving compensation to the owners....agrarian reform with the state controlling it all... That is far left...not far right... The common good before individual good it's also not far right... It is far left, where an authoritarian socialist government is implemented "for the good of all"...

a reply to: daskakik

Lol, a made up graph and trying to claim Hitler was far right, when his policies were far left?... The ones not wanting to accept the fact are those in the far left who simply don't want to accept it. but again...collectivism, nationalization of stores without compensation to owners, the common good before individual good, etc, it's all far left wing...

There are people who are moderate left wing and they don't believe in the collectivist propaganda. But unfortunately, there has been a lot of propaganda from socialists/communists trying to once again lure people into their camps with the same old claims that were used to "nationalize" and "collectivize" nations like Cuba, the U.S.S.R., China, North Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Venezuela, etc, etc...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

One of the fundamental issues here (and there are several) is that you conceive of the terms "left" and "right" absolutely opposite to their real meaning.

Leftist politics is set in opposition to authoritarian state control and prefers to have political control in the hands of the people, and values the individual over the group.

Rightist politics glorifies the establishment, "the nation, the Homeland or the Fatherland," state authority, and traditional structures of government.

Leftist politics is revolutionary, and the paradox is, when leftists win, they slowly become politically "right."

Rightist politics is conservative (in the actual sense of the word) and wants things to remain "as they are."

That is the fundamental difference between "right" and "left" wing in the meaning of the terms, thus, you find that liberals, libertarians, the Bolsheviks, etc., are "leftist" as they begin their journey and become "rightist" after they "win" (and have to set up their own governments.) The Nazis were "rightist" from the beginning, as they glorified the power of the State ... as long as it was their own party in charge.

The United States is one of the best historical examples of a leftist group that created a balanced government sustaining the rights of the people while allowing for the power of the State to be exercised.

France, after the Revolution, is a perfect example of what can happen when "the left" gets too much power too quickly, as is the Soviet Union and other modern states, when the new State is unbridled by balancing forces.

Look at Thomas Jefferson for example ... a rabid liberal/libertarian ... until he became President of the US ... and and realized that to actually govern requires structure, top-down power, etc.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
Isn't Fascism hierarchial? That's in opposition to socialism and left wing.

Socialism and communism doesn't have a hierarchy?... "The state and the revolution above all"... Even above individual rights, and human rights... Even socialists and communists have a hierarchy despite them claiming there isn't... There are the leader/s of the revolution/state which control it all, then there are committee/union leaders, neighborhood communist party leaders, so on and so forth... But above all, the leader/leaders of the revolution control every stage of their socialist/fascist/communist hierarchy...

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
...
And....are you sitting down....?????
he wants to make things better FOR YOU, too!!!!!

Breathe. Just - breathe. It'll be okay.

What in the hell are you talking about?... Did i mention Sanders at all?... it must have hit a cord for you to become so defensive of "Sanders" when I was talking about Hitler's Germany...

BTW, do you not know that the SAME claims were made about "the changes Chavez would bring to Venezuela would be for the good of all"?... Look at Venezuela... You think it is better now?... After all, the Chavistas/socialists/communists proclaimed "it would be for the good of all" yet the opposite occurred... BTW, I am breathing and I am relaxed... It's just amazing how when socialists tend to lose an argument, and they really have nothing to present to counter that argument, they tell you that "you must chill, nothing is going to happen, it will be for the good of all"... I guess Venezuelans going hungry, and living under a very repressive left wing authoritarian regime "is for the good of all"...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You're talking about the Soviet Union.

The Soviet Union was not truly Marxist (and not truly socialist or Communist even). Stalin seized power and became a despot (ala "the king" that the true Left opposes).

We saw the same things in France about 120 years prior to the Russian Revolution on a smaller scale ... little local officials became Despots.

The United States was one of the few "leftist revolutions" that actually maintained a balance of power.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Leftist politics is set in opposition to authoritarian state control and prefers to have political control in the hands of the people, and values the individual over the group.
...

LOL...leftist politics is set in opposition to authoritarian state control?... In what world or dimension is that true?... Leftist politics IS ABOUT STATE CONTROL/AUTHORITARIANISM...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Leftist politics is set in opposition to authoritarian state control and prefers to have political control in the hands of the people, and values the individual over the group.
...

LOL...leftist politics is set in opposition to authoritarian state control?... In what world or dimension is that true?... Leftist politics IS ABOUT STATE CONTROL/AUTHORITARIANISM...

I know you believe this.

That is where you are utterly wrong, from a historical standpoint.

That is my point.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

The Soviet Union was not truly Marxist (and not truly socialist or Communist even).

We saw the same things in France about 120 years prior to the Russian Revolution.

The United States was one of the few "leftist revolutions" that actually maintained a balance of power.

wow... *facepalm* I can't believe the crappy lies some people have to repeat to themselves to believe them true...

The founding fathers were leftists huh?... the right to private property...individual rights, a balance of control in government, instead of the executive branch controlling it all... INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS instead of collectivism... yet you claim they were leftists...
And of course when socialist/communist dictatorships ALWAYS turn despotic, socialists/communists after a while try to claim they were not truly socialist/communist... Same old lies, same old deception...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Stop being childish and have a conversation. Stop calling anyone who disagrees with you stupid or a liar.

The American Founders were against State control without representation.

They were indeed believers in individual rights (as opposed to the right of kings and classes, against the moneyed and landed aristocracy having control and greater rights than commoners) and, as it turned out, they did this by establishing a balanced government.

This is what MAKES them politically left.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I know you believe this.

That is where you are utterly wrong, from a historical standpoint.

That is my point.

It is not what I believe, they are the facts... You must have come from another dimension where up is down, and left is right...

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: Gryphon66

I know you believe this.

That is where you are utterly wrong, from a historical standpoint.

That is my point.

It is not what I believe, they are the facts... You must have come from another dimension where up is down, and left is right...

Nope. I'm a standard earthling. As are you.

Let's dig into the matter. Where do you take your definitions of "right and left" from?

What are your sources? How did you come to believe the things you believe?

a reply to: Gryphon66

Yawn... you still want to completely claim what no dictionary, and no socialist website would say...

Left wing = a bigger government, state control over means of production, in general higher taxes, state control/heavy regulations on businesses, state control on healthcare, state control on everything for the common good and more government spending, mostly in favor of state control of firearms...

Right wing = smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations/less state control on businesses, reduced government spending, oppose state control on healthcare, oppose state control on firearms, oppose state control for the good of all"...

But to you it is the right that wants more state control... riiight...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Stop telling me what I think.

Socialism is not "state control over the means of production." That is actually a better definition of Fascism (which is right-wing.)

Socialist ideology calls for the means of production to be controlled by (or owned by) the workers, the people who are actually PRODUCING.

Your understanding is completely corrupted by modern Republican propaganda ala Fox News, Beck, etc. You're quoting their nonsense rather than the facts.

Quick course in historical reality:

The terms left and right generally derive from the French Estates General of the late 18th Century. At first, it was merely descriptive of where the proponents of certain ideas regularly sat in the assembly hall.

Those "on the left" were those (usually of "the Third Estate" or commoners) opposed to the unbridled power of the monarchy and aristocracy (The First Estate) and the Church (The Second Estate).

The left, therefore, was in favor of REVOLUTION (which really only means "to turn things over")... or the forceful overthrow of governments and power structures that favored the old guard, the king and rich landed nobility, and of course, the Church.

The left is closely related to the idea of republicanism, which favors the power of government to be the expression of the power of the people themselves (or as you keep calling it, the collective) through elected representatives (as true democracy is as idealistic as any other ideology).

The success of the American Revolution was really a wide-spread wave of political change beginning in the mid-18th century in which the common people were demanding a greater voice and more control over their lives (as seen in England from the mid-16th century onward, in France a hundred or so years later, and in Russia about a hundred years after that).

The French, and believe or not, the Russian Revolutions were actually the expression of this wave of political change.

Applied Socialism (as a political force) was usually originally leftist in nature because it favored the rights of workers (or in extreme cases elevated the rights of workers to the supreme position) over the establishment (the factory and business owners and the governments that supported them).

Thus, for example, in Germany you see that what would become the Nazi Party was originally the German Worker's Party.

The Nazi's became nationalists and authoritarians, and when they did so, they abandoned the political left and became the "new normal."

The Bolsheviks in Russia (Lenin's group) became the most powerful of the several socialist/communist political factions, and was brought into full power by Stalin and his followers (who actually established the Soviet Union you equate with socialism/communism/Marxism et. al.)

Totalitarian groups (with the State in the control of a single person or a single group) can at best only be called "leftist" in their origin ... when the Revolution is over, and they take power ... well, "the new Boss same as the old Boss."

They become the new "right wing."

That's about as simple as I can relate historical fact to you, Electric.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yawn... you still want to completely claim what no dictionary, and no socialist website would say...

The world is not contained in a dictionary, for more info, Google "the dictionary fallacy."

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

Left wing = a bigger government, state control over means of production, in general higher taxes, state control/heavy regulations on businesses, state control on healthcare, state control on everything for the common good and more government spending, mostly in favor of state control of firearms...

Pure Fox News BS. Republicans have always been in favor of "bigger government" so long as their friends in the war industry (and other expressions of large-scale corporations and "business owners") are in control of that government. They only whine about "smaller government" when the money and power isn't flowing to their patrons, i.e. the rich.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

Right wing = smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations/less state control on businesses, reduced government spending, oppose state control on healthcare, oppose state control on firearms, oppose state control for the good of all"...

Nonsense. Right wing politicians in the US in the 21st century want the government to be in control to protect large-scale corporate business (which is the source of their political donations), and the only government spending that they favor getting rid of or "reducing" is that which impedes the interests of corporations or benefits the common folk ... education, workers unions, the social safety net, environmental safety etc.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: Gryphon66

But to you it is the right that wants more state control... riiight...

You're merely whispering through your (ass) hat here ...

The only State Control I want is that which enforces the equality (legal equity, not "sameness") of all people, and that which is enshrined in the US Constitution, which speaks to national infrastructure and security. I am essentially an old-school left libertarian in favor of American Republicanism (which is the direct opposite of the modern American Republican Party)