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: 28
52
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

OK, I am going to try to say this as politely as possible.

Stop being dense and intentionally ignorant.

FAR RIGHT means AUTHORITARIAN. IT DOES NOT MEAN COMMUNISM in the context you are using it.

THEY ARE TWO.DIFFERENT.LINES. If a country is communist and authoritarian then they are both FAR LEFT and FAR RIGHT, but on TWO.DIFFERENT.LINES. An example of this would be Stalinist Russia. It was both Far Far Left and Far Far right on their respective lines. This is an example of one of the four " False Utopias".

Communism is far left and libertarianism is far right. I drew you the lines. How are you so bad at figuring this out? It isn't that difficult. Stop trying to convolute the terminology to fit your narrative.

Let's say it together. TWO.DIFFERENT.LINES.

I clearly laid out the definitions for you in this post.

If you continue to act like you don't get it, then you are intentionally being a troll. Political definitions are very clear for you to know how this works.

Yes, Nazi Germany was both Authoritarian and Socialist.

a reply to: Greven

What delusional world do you live in? He was only a fan of private property for GERMAN CITIZENS, and the definition of what qualified as a German citizen was extreme under NAZI rule. They confiscated businesses, land, equipment etc so they could give it to what they considered "true Germans". Those Germans then were regulated on how they could perform their business so that they could ensure the war machine grew quickly and efficiently. They thought they were doing what was for the common good of Germany. It was socialist to it's core and where crony capitalism (state run capitalism) on a governmental level really started in full swing. Even in your quote Hitler clearly says "True Socialism requires..." Hitler just understood that your forced labor is so much more efficient if they think they are doing it freely and of their own accord.

Edit: Just saw this:

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

A made up graph? That's it, you are not qualified to discuss this issue. It's painfully obvious. It is ridiculous how ignorant you are (and so many in this thread) with no intent on righting your ship. This post is proof:

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

See the post I linked above that I made. You are attempting to put Social and Economic Politics on the same line. YOU CAN'T DO THAT. The Right DOES want more state control because the RIGHT is AUTHORITARIAN.

The Right also wants LESS CONTROL because it is LIBERTARIAN.

WAIT!! HOW CAN THAT BE???? BECAUSE THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT F* LINES!!

Communism is a economic trait, not a social trait. Just like Authoritarianism is a social trait, not a economic one.
edit on 23-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You just proved my point.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 09:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Stop being dense and intentionally ignorant.


I truly believe that's part of the problem here; the OP believes what they're saying.

I'm waiting for any information on the sources of that belief; we'll see how that turns out ... but in the meantime ...

Here's an even stronger truth ... the universe at large (and human cultures more specifically) cannot actually be quantified on any number of simple contrasting scales.

We can use those scales to have a sense of relative nature given some sort of standard reference points ... but that's not descriptive ... merely quantitative ... at best.

For example, are these terms the same or different?

Marxist Communism
Leninist Communism
Stalinist Communism

and further ... are these the same as those ...

Actual Marxist Communism in Practice (non-existent)
Actual Leninist Communism ... (virtually non-existent)
Actual Stalinist Communism (really not much "communism" at all) ...

Political rhetoric (which we're merely seeing a watered-down version of here in the OP) is successful by ignoring reality and making things seem "easy to understand" ... "black and white" ... which, unless you're talking about a specific measure of a specific quantity at a specific time ... is mostly meaningless.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
A made up graph? That's it, you are not qualified to discuss this issue. It's painfully obvious.

EU is cuban and has family that bitches about being in cuba. To him that trumps all.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Unfortunately he isn't the only one who is being intentionally ignorant. A lot of people are using the following argument:


~Nazi Germany was Far-Right, so it wasn't socialist


Which is a fallacy. They were both far-right (authoritarian) and socialist. They were just centrist socialists and not Far-Left like communism. Socialism is still a LONG ways from Communism just like Socialism is a LONG ways from Neo-Liberalism.


A proper less confusing terminology these days is Authoritarian Right/Left and Libertarian Right/Left. It lets you know where the person falls on both the antiquated Right-Left lines. Authoritarian Left would be Nazi Germany. Authoritarian Right would be the USA (you think I am joking? I am not).

For example, based on his votes

Bernie falls as an Authoritarian Left. He is actually Centrish on the grand scheme of things, falling slightly north towards authoritarian and slightly left towards communism.

On the American political spectrum, which typically falls Authoritarian right, he is considered Far left.

Politics is a complicated area, which is why there is a science degree for it
, and if I didn't spend so much time in school I wouldn't understand it myself.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I am not a economist nor a political scientist, but I do know history.

The socialism of the Nazis (a la the title of their party) was mostly a convenient ruse to lure in the German Workers.

They were authoritarian in practice, pere et fils, and that would make them politically right ... but of course, as you say, and as I said, all dichotomies are false.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Authoritarian Left would be Nazi Germany.


Okay, demonstrate why if you will.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Yes, authoritarian would make them far-right Sociopolitically. Ecopoloitically they were slightly left of center (Hitler was slightly right of center), or socialism running off a hybrid economic policy. Socialism is economic politics. Authoritarianism is social politics. That's why so many people get confused. Both lines contain the word "social".

Socialism (and farther left down the line communism) is "I trust the government to manage the economy more than the people", just like Authoritarianism is "I trust the government to manage people better than themselves".

Neo-Liberalism (Economic Libertarianism) is the equivalent of economic anarchy just like Libertarianism (anarchy) is the opposite of Authoritarianism.

I fall nearly perfectly with Milton Friedman.

Source

Almost all US Politicians fall in line with Thatcher.


A Word about Neo-cons and Neo-libs

U.S. neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:30 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Socialism is economic politics. Authoritarianism is social politics.



Okay ... says who or what and when? Is this your summation? What I mean is, what resources, publications, studies, authorities, philosophers, political scientists, etc. are you basing this on? Or is this your personal definition?


originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Socialism (and farther left down the line communism) is "I trust the government to manage the economy more than the people", just like Authoritarianism is "I trust the government to manage people better than themselves".



What socialism are you referring to? Which system, which implementation, which philosophical basing?

"Socialism" is hopelessly generic as you seem to be using it, and does not always reflect any sort of State (government) control (i.e. you could have a socialist cooperative neighborhood garden, for example).




originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Neo-Liberalism (Economic Libertarianism) is the equivalent of economic anarchy just like Libertarianism (anarchy) is the opposite of Authoritarianism.



There's too much there in both fact and assumption to take apart easily or in a timely manner.

EDIT:
Good heavens, I just realized you were answering my question about the Nazis there ... LOL

Perhaps according to your own spectra, the Nazis could be classified as Authoritarian Left ... in most senses and understandings of the words applied to political systems, however, that's just paradoxical.
edit on 23-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:31 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

First, so we are clear, Authoritarian is Far-Right. So when I say Authoritarian Left I mean Far-Right/Left of center.

They are still a Far-Right government, but in this case and in most cases referring to Far-Right, it is either referencing an Authoritarian state or a religious politician. Usually it is an authoritarian regime.

The reason they were left of center ON AN ECONOMIC SCALE was because they engaged in crony capitalism under a socialist structure. They DID redistribute wealth by taking from those they didn't feel deserved it and gave it to those they did. They took property and business from those they didn't feel were relevant to advancing the common good of the German people. From an economic standpoint this is socialism. They also implemented HEAVY regulation on how a person could and could not run their business. Hitler only cared about private property and personal liberty as pertaining to what he and his regime deemed "True German Citizens". You should research the Nuremberg Laws.

A lot of people don't realize that socialism is mostly a centrist trait. Finding the balance between communism and neo-liberalism lands you in socialism. The problem is the slippery slope it's on often tends to go farther and farther left.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
Summary of this thread up to this point:

OP: Any politico-economic system other than Tea Party Libertarianism is Left Wing Fascism. Therefore, the Nazis were Socialists.

Everybody else: Aargh! Read a book already!
edit on 23-12-2015 by DJW001 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: DJW001

/thread



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 10:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko

The reason they were left of center ON AN ECONOMIC SCALE was because they engaged in crony capitalism under a socialist structure. They DID redistribute wealth by taking from those they didn't feel deserved it and gave it to those they did. They took property and business from those they didn't feel were relevant to advancing the common good of the German people. From an economic standpoint this is socialism.


This is the core of our disagreement. Nothing about these comments reflects the realities of what socialism is theoretically or in practice.

That said, it's fine to disagree. At least we have reasons for it, rather than merely squalling "you're dumb" at each other, LOL.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

You see confused about what socialism is.


Socialism - a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.


Either they had socialist policies or they didn't.

Source

They did according to Wikipedia. That doesn't mean they weren't Far_Right authoritarian. Their whole goal was for the German community to be an Autarky.


During the Hitler era (1933–45), the economy developed a hothouse prosperity, supported with high government subsidies to those sectors that tended to give Germany military power and economic autarky, that is, economic independence from the global economy.[43]


The way for them to do that was to have the German people happy. They did this by dictating who would be considered a true German (authoritarian) and then redistributing wealth to that community (Socialism). That community then felt like it was what they were due and they ran their businesses in such a way that the German government allowed them to. If they did not, it would be taken away and given to another Citizen who did. This gave the "True German's" a since of property ownership and self worth in the German machine. Ultimately, government policies only let them feel that way as long as everything was going well. Towards the end of the war this crumpled as the socialist policies took full effect. Farms were commandeered, money was taken etc from the community to fund the war machine as Germany lost ground to the alliance. Anyone who did not comply was deemed not good for the community and often killed or sent to camps. He squeezed as much as he could out of non German countries first, then turned on his own people, for the good of Germany. This is a mix of authoritarian (far right) and socialist (centerish) policies.

Heck, even before they war they nationalized industries they needed to build the machine. Steel, Utilities, Ship building etc were all confiscated from anyone who did not agree with the new Regime. (See Fritz Thyssen) That is socialism, no ifs ands or buts.

Hitler himself said (In the same book others have quoted from):


From the camp of bourgeois tradition, it takes national resolve, and from the materialism of the Marxist dogma, living, creative Socialism


Socialism has nothing to do with Authoritarianism. They often go hand in hand, but they don't have to.

Authoritarian socialism would be the state allowing the community to do the above, but dictating who can do it and how it can be done all the while under the auspice of personal ownership. Nobody in Germany truly owned their means of production as the Nuremberg laws allowed the government to take over a business at any time.

There isn't just one form of socialism. You can have Libertarian Socialism (Ghandi) and you can have Authoritarian Socialism (Nazi Germany) Socialism ONLY refers to economic policy, not to social policy.

The party opposed to Nazism in the early 30's attempted to win that election by bringing to the table the socialist economic policies of the NAZI party.

So yes, while you have your view of what socialism is, that doesn't change the FACT that NAZI Germany used socialist policies to run their economy. You just happen to disagree with THEIR VIEW of socialism.
edit on 23-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:16 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

wow...the only ones dense are those of you who fail to understand that to implement COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD which ALL SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST systems want to implement. They all have to turn authoritarian...

Many of you continue not to understand that both "nationalism" and "authoritarianism" are also found in socialist and communist systems... I have presented proof of this, showing how Gandhi was a socialist who brought together the Indian NATIONALIST movement...
teacher.scholastic.com...

And in the name of the common good ALL socialist and communist systems turn authoritarian. ALL OF THEM.

Stop making claims these SOCIALIST systems were right wing, when right wing is about less government control, and not more... Not to mention that right-wing is not about common good before individual good...


edit on 23-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
EU is cuban and has family that bitches about being in cuba. To him that trumps all.


Excuse me?... so when people actually complaint about socialist and communist systems being repressive, the "brainwashed useful idiots" want to resort to attacking the messenger... What else is new...



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:23 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

No, I'm not at all confused about socialism. I just don't agree with what you're claiming about the topic nor with your overly simplistic take on the subject in regard to the Nazis.

"Socialism is either socialism or it's not" eh? What kind of socialism? In what historical period? In what political implementation?

Here, since Wikipedia seems to "speak to you" ... perhaps you'll hear what it has to say on the matter ...



The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. Different self-described socialists have used the term socialism to refer to different things, such as an economic system, a type of society, a philosophical outlook, a collection of moral values and ideals, or even a certain kind of human character.


Types of Socialism - Wikipedia

Now, as noted, I don't suggest taking material directly from Wiki as anything but a source aggregator, but it seems meaningful to you, so there you go.

Again as to either "having socialism" or not ... you're going to have to be a lot more specific than you seem to be willing to be.

Your comments are, by and large, hopelessly vague and therefore quite meaningless ... you might as well make claims about "truth, justice and the American way." You take one quote from one questionable source, provide your own, sometimes correct, sometimes errant exposition on it, and apparently expect that to be taken as holy writ.

Then you turn back on your earlier pronouncement ("it's either socialist or not") by seemingly realizing that there are different types and different implementations of socialism. In short, you're all over the place logically.

You're telling me things I've said as if you are correcting me ... if anyone is confused here, it's you, no offense intended.

Finally, you seem to be saying that any view but yours of the vast, wide topic (socialism) is wrong.

That's merely "your opinion" as well; you're just not infallible.

However ... Individual ideas about Socialism, yours, mine, Wikipedia's ... are not really the topic here.

The topic is whether Socialism is Fascist (it isn't, automatically) as well as whether either are "left or right" politically.

If Nazi Germany had been truly socialist (in the most general sense) it would have provided the ownership (or control) of the industrial complex to the workers and producers in the economy. That isn't what happened.

Your claims as such are about one step above the "well, of course they were socialists, it's in their name, duh ..." argument.


edit on 23-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
That is socialism, no ifs ands or buts.

I think that would make most countries in the world socialist (don't quote me on that).

Way to debase the term. Honestly, much of what you describe in that post applies to just about any government. In this context, "socialist policy" seems to describe much more than just wealth redistribution and ownership of the means of production.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Excuse me?... so when people actually complaint about socialist and communist systems being repressive, the "brainwashed useful idiots" want to resort to attacking the messenger... What else is new...

Ad hom huh?

There is always someone to complain about everything under the sun.

Pointing out why you are biased is just telling the truth.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 12:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

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


The Soviet Union, in fact, couldn't have been farther from embodying Marxist ideals. Marx would not have approved of the manner in which the country forced industrialization upon the people, and in fact, dedicated a fair portion of his research to certain economic and political changes that had absolutely nothing to do with the sort of changes the Bolsheviks would eventually effect.


Same old lies, same old deception...


I happily present your own words back to you, with no comment.
edit on 23-12-2015 by TramperoJuan because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in

join