Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Okay, we get it, you think left wing is evil, etc. etc. we've done this dance before. What exactly do you consider "right wing", then? Is it everything good? That looks like it's where you're going with, "all those other guys are evil, we're the good ones" when the situation is far more complicated than that. Communism is left. Supposedly Fascism and Socialism are left as well. We're looking at a circle. Everything is to the left. It's also to the right, as well.

Erm, yes, it does. Sounds very right wing to me. At least, it sounds very much like their elected representative's favored rhetoric. What if I replace "for the good of the animals" with "for the good of America"? Still sounding leftist?

Regardless, it's pointless speaking to you. Eyes Wide Shut.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

Bravo for continuing to advocate for the truth.

I myself tired of pounding my head against the walls.

Your last post sums it up: for some "right wing" means "everything that is right with the world" ... I mean, hey, the word RIGHT is RIGHT THERE in the title ...

... isn't it?

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Good lord. Really???

So, as a rebuke you offer the claims from a left wing "Hollywood writer"?... (I know he is British, but he is still a left wing writer) Humm, i wonder why he would claim Hitler wasn't socialist?...

Historian. He happens to write some about the history of Hollywood.

Your scorn, however, does not change the deaths that occurred on the Night of the Long Knives. Nice try.

Stop believing Hitler's lies and deal with the fact that he KILLED the LEFTISTS in his own party. Killed them. He called Marxism a "JEWISH doctrine." What did he do with the Jews again?

Stalin was of the same ilk, just USED different folks to get where he wanted to be. On top and in power.

Sigh. The Master of Lies lives on.

- AB

The fundamental disconnect in this (and all other threads like this) is that the traditional and original meanings of "right wing" and "left wing" have been altered by modern media efforts.

As anyone can see above.

For the OP specifically, it is a matter of Democratic versus Republican, even though they elide their true message into "right" and "left" ... because the narrative promoted by Fox News, Beck, Hannity, Colter and the rest of the Right Wing Media has blurred the definitions of what is what.

Notice how often socialism is confused with the various aspects of our social safety net; that's not accidental.

(Hint: concern for the general welfare is NOT socialism.)

The American left (fairly equitable in modern times with the Democratic party but not absolutely so) with its emphasis on the individual over the state coupled with concerns about the general welfare of our population (as stated repeatedly in the Constitution), has traditionally focused on programs to help PEOPLE rather than THINGS (corporations) and does focus on using government to keep those corporations from harming individual people by polluting/destroying the environment, for example, or practicing unfair wage and employment practices or (horror of horrors for the right-wing) if the workers actually organize to collectively bargain against their corporate masters ...

What's going on here is really not hard to see. The facts of historical and current reality are vastly oversimplified, taken out of context, twisted, etc.

The matter of determining the differences, politically, is really simple. When considering any act of any government, ask yourself ... is this intended to help people, to protect the weak from the strong, to assist individuals to create a better life ... or does this action benefit the establishment, the corporations, the banks, the war-machine, abuse of police power, etc.

If it helps people, it's probably "left" ... if it helps the state or the state's patrons, its probably "right."

a reply to: Greven

I am saying they had socialist economic policies. They were not socialists because they weren't far enough left. They had a crony capitalist economic structure. This means that economically they leaned slightly left, as I have stated in every post. SLIGHTLY LEFT on an economic scale. They were there because of many of their economic policies were stolen from socialism and implemented into their fake hybrid structure.

Your argument that since they rooted out socialists means they can't possibly have had socialist policies is a logical fallacy. One can disagree about what socialism is while still wielding their own brand of socialism. If they disagree enough it could get ugly. Just as Democracies today go to war with each other claiming the other is "actually a tyranny" or "capitalist" etc.

That doesn't change the fact that germany was far-right authoritarian.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You just agreed with me and almost seemed like you were going to get it.

Yes, Bill Ayers was far left, a true communist. But the majority of people don't want to go down that path. They like personal property and personal liberty. To attempt to violently force people into communism (ala Cuba, Russia etc) takes you down the Authoritarian path.

So yes, Bill was far left on an economic scale, but he leaned right on a social scale, which is force the people (either violently or through deception) to commit to X form of governing.

So when you say LEFT WING DICTATORSHIP you should actually be saying AUTHORITARIAN LEFT. It means the same thing you dolt.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

That does sound right-wing, because it sounds authoritarian. Authoritarian Left actually.

You need to learn to use the proper terminology instead of your antiquated knowledge which you discovered on Breitbart.

C'mon people, I said it way back on page 16:

I think you mean "genuine american right wing", which really means libertarian, which had nothing to do with fascism, which lands us in this mess time after time.

To people who suscribe to this ideal the only thing on the right is laissez faire and the constitution. Everything else is, as our good friend ElectricUniverse calls it "extremist left wing policies"".

I propose that others stop interrupting when they come together to form their circle jerks. They are not going to convince you and they are so busy pounding away that they are not paying attention to what you say anyway.

Every government (and therefore every political party) is authoritarian.

There are really two right-wings in the American political theater. One is the powerful economic elites that really run the show, and the second is a vast group that has been duped into believing in philosophies and policies that do not benefit the average person (i.e. themselves and their families), but instead, benefits and protects the elite's power, influence and money.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties have morphed and changed over time, and to claim that one is "right" and the other "left" is more politicized nonsense.

If this country were truly "free" there would be no political parties. President Washington warned us of this.

The real authoritarian right-wing uses both "parties."

The real right-wing is the same as in every historic era ... those few at the "top" who are politically powerful, excessively rich, and work to remain in control of the true means of production of wealth(at whatever level).

If the matter could be stated as simply as a single scale, the true "left wing" would be constantly revolutionary.

Anything else is "new boss same as the old boss."

The only "true" left wing is anarchic libertarianism which is workable but would not sustain the international cultures we have evolved, i.e. at this point ... pure ideology.

compelling and exposing.

Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History

“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn

It's "Academia" vs "Academia"

Nobody know which "Scholar" has the most vested interests.

Hard to argue with opinions.

PROGRESSIVE SUPPORT FOR ITALIAN AND GERMAN FASCISM

American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, who began to label all of the most blatantly evil traits shared by communism and fascism alike, as simply “fascist.”

originally posted by: xuenchen
compelling and exposing.

Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History

“The line between fascism and Fabian socialism is very thin. Fabian socialism is the dream. Fascism is Fabian socialism plus the inevitable dictator.” John T. Flynn

It's "Academia" vs "Academia"

Nobody know which "Scholar" has the most vested interests.

Hm. This was originally printed in Forbes, of all places. Well here is a comment on the article from a member of the Forbes staff, who was less than enamored:

Bruce Upbin , Forbes Staff 4 years ago
This is meandering, pedantic, illogical, lacking a clear point and reads like a reaction to a personal insult. And can we please stop associating Obama and Hitler? It is asinine. I’m with the others who say it’s a tactic unworthy of anyone writing under the Forbes brand.

Regarding John T. Flynn:

Flynn became an early and avid supporter of Senator Joseph McCarthy. This was ironic because Flynn "had long ridiculed the idea that communism was a threat to America.",[11] dismissing American Communists as a tiny handful of fractious, isolated radicals who were too busy attacking each other to attack capitalism. In March, 1943, he wrote that fighting communism in America was "a waste of time," when the real issue was fascism, his argument in his next book, As We Go Marching (1946) which failed dismally with critics and readers alike. Four years later, Flynn published another and rather similar book, The Roosevelt Myth. By 1950 he was describing himself as a liberal in the classical liberal tradition of small government and free markets, but only the far right now embraced his work.

(emphasis mine)


Yes, and there was nothing fascist about McCarthy...oh the irony. *Insert eye-roll icon here*

Try again.

a reply to: xuenchen

I wasn't aware that american progressives wrote the doctrine of fascism where it states:

We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the "right", a Fascist century.

It's these little tidbits that show that the push to change facts is not exclusive to one side.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Hard to argue with opinions.

PROGRESSIVE SUPPORT FOR ITALIAN AND GERMAN FASCISM

American progressives, for the most part, did not disavow fascism until the horrors of the Nazi Holocaust became manifest during World War II. After the war, those progressives who had praised Mussolini and Hitler in the 1920s and 1930s had no choice but to dissociate themselves from fascism. “Accordingly,” writes Jonah Goldberg, “leftist intellectuals redefined fascism as 'right-wing' and projected their own sins onto conservatives, even as they continued to borrow heavily from fascist and pre-fascist thought.” This progressive campaign to recast fascism as the "right-wing" antithesis of communism was aided by Joseph Stalin, who began to label all of the most blatantly evil traits shared by communism and fascism alike, as simply “fascist.”

Ah yes. Opinions. Who is spouting opinions here?

Lemme see here...Jonah Goldberg? This guy??

Jonah Goldberg is a syndicated columnist, author of books and National Review Online editor because his mother nearly took down Bill Clinton. He is, it’s fair to say, aware of that fact, or at least aware that everyone else thinks it, and his insecurity has made him a uniquely pathetic figure in contemporary conservative thought: He aspires to be taken seriously as a public intellectual, but he is the world’s laziest thinker. It is a grand and wonderful joke that Jonah Goldberg, of all people, would write an entire book about how liberals rely on clichés instead of original thought and intellectual argument.

On the back of my review copy of “The Tyranny of Clichés,” Goldberg’s latest, it still claims that the author “has twice been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize.” That, of course, was revealed yesterday to be utter bull#. He is a two-time entrant for Pulitzer consideration — to enter requires solely an application and a $50 fee — and while Goldberg claims not to have added that line to his bio, it appears everywhere he writes, and it’s hard to believe he hadn’t noticed it until this week. That said, I can’t imagine a person dumb enough to actually believe that Jonah Goldberg had been seriously considered for a Pulitzer.

Regarding his book on fascism...

The thesis of his years-in-the-making (it was delayed repeatedly for mysterious reasons — presumably he just had a lot of deadlines) book “Liberal Fascism” was that the Nazis had “Socialism” in their name so Democrats are the real Nazis because Hitler was a vegetarian. (“Hitler claimed to be a dedicated vegetarian” is an actual piece of supporting evidence used in the book.) Actual historians and experts in 20th century fascism were less than impressed. (Another line: “The white male is the Jew of liberal fascism.”)

The problem is Goldberg is not smart or hardworking enough to pen a genuine piece of scholarship, or even popular history, and he is too pretentious to admit to having written an Ann Coulter-style, red meat-for-morons polemic. Having penned a book arguing a premise that every learned person in the world knows is completely false, Goldberg became incensed when it was reviewed poorly or not at all in various outlets of the “liberal media” (and the less liberal media). No one took his lengthy exercise in name-calling seriously! No one understood that even though the premise of his book is that modern Democrats are the same as Nazis, he wasn’t really actually calling Democrats Nazis!

Source



*Sigh*

... but, but ... those are links on the internet!

... and, and ... dictionary definitions!

YOU'RE ALL WORTHLESS GUTLESS LEFTIST PIGS!!!

(ps, Merry Christmas and Jesus Loves You)

originally posted by: AboveBoard

Historian. He happens to write some about the history of Hollywood.

Your scorn, however, does not change the deaths that occurred on the Night of the Long Knives. Nice try.
...

Extreme left wingers in general only side with others who lean to the left as long as they have a common enemy. Once that enemy is gone they turn on each other to wrestle the power they all want to possess.

Lenin suppressed both left wing and right wing opponents, and murdered millions, and it wasn't just caused by the war.

Even any members of the former Russian Social Democratic Labour Party who did not become a boshevik was persecuted by Lenin and his thugs.

BTW, under Lenin the Russian "Social Democratic Labour party" was renamed as the "Russian Communist Party".

As for the claim that socialist nations are "anti-war" this is false... Extremist socialists tend to endorse "peace" to lure those who are more moderate in the left, just as they claim to bring "equality for all" just to lure most people to their side.

...
The 'Red Army' is established 28 January 1918. Trotsky, as commissar of war, is placed in charge. In order to protect the government from any invasion from the west, the capital is moved from the vulnerably located Petrograd to Moscow on 10 March 1918.

1918 - The Russian Social Democratic Labour Party is renamed the Russian Communist Party. Henceforth the Bolsheviks are known as Communists.
...
Other potential opponents are harassed. Members of the former establishment are stripped of their civil rights. Non-Bolshevik members of the former Russian Social Democratic Labour Party are persecuted.
...

www.moreorless.net.au...

In Cuba the castro brothers ordered the arrest and trial by the "revolutionary court", which lead to an order of execution, of any socialist who questioned castro about the infiltration of communists in the "socialist revolution". One of those socialists who were ordered to be arrested to be put on trial was Huber Matos.

Those socialists who decided to "quit the revolution" were branded as enemies of the revolution and to be working for "the imperialists in the United States"...

Matos was only saved by his own speech in which more or less he said if he had to die for the revolution he was willing to do it and had no regrets. And by "saved" I mean he was imprisoned for 20 years and endured torture, daily beatings under the communist regime.

One of my own uncles was a captain under castro who fought in the Sierra Maestra who turned against the castro brothers and was imprisoned for 20+ years in Cuba. He also received daily beatings and was tortured. He died in exile in the United States still a socialist.

...
But as Mr. Castro moved covertly toward Marxism in his first year in power, Mr. Matos expressed displeasure with the shift and, as he recounted in his autobiography, “How the Night Arrived,” appealed to Mr. Castro to stay true to the goals of the revolution, including re-establishing democratic government.

Increasingly disillusioned, Mr. Matos sent a letter of resignation to Mr. Castro alleging Communist infiltration in the government. In response, in October 1959, Mr. Castro ordered his arrest, a directive carried out by Camilo Cienfuegos, a central figure in the revolutionary movement. (Days later, Mr. Cienfuegos was presumed dead when a plane carrying him to Havana from Camagüey disappeared over the ocean.)

In December, Mr. Matos and other prisoners were tried for treason in an army movie theater before a crowd of about 1,500 soldiers and members of the world press. Mr. Castro was the principal witness.

Removing his army jacket and placing a microphone on a cord around his neck, Mr. Castro turned to the audience and gave a seven-hour speech, which was broadcast on Cuban radio, accusing Mr. Matos and other officers of trying to set off a crisis with their resignations and of indirectly promoting the agenda of United States vested interests, large Cuban landowners and remnants of the Batista government.

Mr. Matos, 40, wearing a long, dark beard, spoke briefly, declaring that the charges were false.

The military court sentenced him to 20 years in prison, rejecting the prosecutors’ call for death by firing squad.

It was not until 1961 that Mr. Castro publicly declared Cuba a socialist nation.

“He was one of the first to really break with Fidel Castro openly because he felt that this revolution was actually becoming a Communist movement,” said Andy S. Gomez, a former senior fellow on Cuba issues at the University of Miami and now a senior policy adviser at Poblete Tamargo, a law firm.
...

www.nytimes.com...

I know some of you will say, but you see, there were socialists who were against the infiltration. The problem is that communists always infiltrate socialist states. ALWAYS. Not to mention that even Lenin himself, as well as Marx, Trotsky, etc, all stated that to stop the "bourgeois" any state that was to become socialist would have to establish a dictatorship of the proletariat... Such dictatorships not only turn against the rich elite, they turn against anyone who is an opponent of such dictatorship.

Too many people keep claiming in this thread, and others that once a left-wing state becomes authoritarian it immediately turns right wing. These people are either lying, or want to remain blind as to what a "proletariat dictatorship" means. When you have to enforce common good before individual good, and when such governments have all power and control such governments become authoritarian.

ALL socialist governments turned communist and authoritarian... That fact did not make them "right-wing"...

How do you enforce "the good of all" and the "dictatorship of the proletariat" if it's not under an authoritarian/despotic regime?

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Too many people keep claiming in this thread, and others that once a left-wing state becomes authoritarian it immediately turns right wing.

I don't see them saying this at all. What I see some are saying is that states calling themselves left-wing were right-wing all along.

originally posted by: daskakik
I don't see them saying this at all. What I see some are saying is that states calling themselves left-wing were right-wing all along.

No?...

Greven...

originally posted by: Greven

Authoritarian is right-wing. Full-stop. Far Right = Authoritarian. The end. Cut off the 'left wing policies' part because that is meaningless when implemented by an authoritarian government.
...

Raymundo...

originally posted by: raymundoko

BECAUSE RIGHT WING MEANS AUTHORITARIAN!!! AUTHORITARIAN IS A SOCIAL STRUCTURE, SOCIALISM IS AN ECONOMIC STRUCTURE.

YES THEY WERE FAR-RIGHT, YES THEY ALSO LEANED LEFT. TWO.DIFFERENT.LINES.

Sorry for the all caps. I was intending to yell.

Common good before individual good is Left Wing ON AN ECONOMIC SCALE.

Authoritarianism is Right Wing ON A SOCIAL SCALE.

How are you not getting this? Serious, how are you not getting it?

Raymundo, among some others, even claimed...

originally posted by: raymundoko

That does sound right-wing, because it sounds authoritarian. Authoritarian Left actually.

You need to learn to use the proper terminology instead of your antiquated knowledge which you discovered on Breitbart.

Of course, when you can't argue your point in a logical, intelligent manner some people tend to use ad hominem attacks...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Think about what I posted and what those quotes are actually saying.

They are all saying that right-wing is authoritarian from the start. None of them are saying that left-wing states became right-wing.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
DP