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: 36
52
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Deaf Alien

I've stated fascism is not socialism several times. EU and XUE seem to be the pushers of that.




posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: raymundoko
And they did NOT end up acting like capitalists. What aren't you getting? You have a massive misunderstanding of capitalist economics if you think they did.

I didn't use it in the "capitalist economical system" of your economic text books, that you are trying so hard to impose.

I'm using it in the layman way of saying, those guys where in it for themselves and acted that way.

ETA: The real funny part, looking back at my original post, is that it wasn't even referring to Germany. It was a response to the OP about Pinochet.



You mean that "Capitalist" doesn't only mean that business and industry leaders completely control the economy???

What about that. (LOL) The world is more complex than simplistic absolutes and definitions. Well, dayum.

Nite all. Have a Happy 2016!
edit on 31-12-2015 by Gryphon66 because: Peace out.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nows who's trying to simplify it?

When a government takes a business on political grounds, that is not in any way capitalist. You are just as bad as the OP if you try to say it is.

It's socialism under the auspices of capitalism.

Why do you think the US government wanted to offload GM so bad? Even as only part owners, and having paid for it, that was a form of socialism. A capitalist would have let GM to fail.
edit on 31-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 06:56 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

No, you're using it in a sense of state capitalism, like China for example, without understanding where state capitalism falls on the economic scale. It's authoritarian center, right around socialism (which is also centrist and not far left like some here think, and I'm not saying socialism is authoritarian, I'm saying state capitalism is). As I stated several times it uses socialist policies to shape their market.

Just as we agree that National Socialists weren't actually socialists we should agree that state capitalism is not capitalism but on the border of authoritarian socialism. It only uses the term capitalism as a ruse.

When Obama gave the speech about the government buying GM he was very clear that they would not be keeping GM because the USA is not socialist. Obama isn't a socialist no matter who here wants to paint him as one. He understands that when government gets involved with private for profit business that is the path to socialism.
edit on 31-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
No, you're using it in a sense of state capitalism

Don't try to tell me how I'm using it.

Just read that post again. It is used in the most general sense.

Sorry if you can't get that.
edit on 31-12-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

You mean in a general sense like the general definition?


Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services for profit.


Because even that disagrees with you. NAZI Germany nationalized production for the good of Germany. Corporations who kowtowed to the government were allowed to retain ownership in a figurehead position. Private property was a facade in Germany. Just ask the Jews and those seems as second class citizens.

You said they acted like capitalists. They didn't.

I get that you are back tracking hard though.
edit on 31-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
You said they acted like capitalists. They didn't.

I'm not back tracking. Who "they" were wasn't even defined.

The post was a "what if". You want to make it into something it wasn't.



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Yes, in that post specifically they weren't defined, but in my response to DW you took it upon yourself to reply to me and made it clear you thought they were capitalists.

a reply to: daskakik



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Nows who's trying to simplify it?


Me. Poking fun at you and your simplistic understanding of economics.

You (apparently) STILL don't understand what the issue is with your repeated statements, and every time you reiterate your Magic Scale of Economic Realities (that you seem to think you discovered somehow) ... you just get funnier.

You cannot quantify any complex national economy or even small economies in such simplistic terms.

Every economy is not a single point on a scale between capitalism and socialism.

It's laughable. And you keep doing it. And you think YOU are the "smart one. "



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 08:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I absolutely understand what the issue is and my posts earlier in the thread completely disagree with your statement. But hey, your debate skills aren't the best so you are hoping we are far enough along in the thread that people won't click "all posts in thread".

I've argued repeatedly that there are many forms of socialism, communism, libertarianism etc, and that different governments fall in different places on the political compass. I've stated several times that a country can be far right yet still considered communist as they are different scales that make up the political compass.

Not once have I said "these types of governments are all here and these are all here. You're being dishonest now.
edit on 31-12-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

No, I did not. That is on you.

The reply to the tangent that DW brought up was about businesses in germany being privetly owned and not dependent on the other.
edit on 31-12-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:42 PM
link   
Perhaps you should read what you replied to then...


Nazi Germany in no way shape or form acted like capitalists.


a reply to: daskakik



posted on Dec, 31 2015 @ 09:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
Perhaps you should read what you replied to then...

Maybe you should try to understand that I never said Nazi Germany.

I also never said capitalism.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The label's stupid, might as well just call it "Bernieism." You say "Democratic Socialist" and the first word just blurs into memory and fades from reality.


It's refreshing to hear this rhetorical sophistry directly challenged.

Democracy is majority rule and has no inherent ideological or moral values associated with it. Therefore, appending it to any ideology isn’t really a useful qualification.

In any strict democracy, if people voted for a theocratic regime, it would instantly transform into a democratic theocracy.

Socialism is an alternative economic system to a market economy (aka capitalism).

What most people (including me at times) fail to recognize is that when people speak of mixed economies, socialism/capitalism, they really mean socio-economic interventionism which is neither capitalism nor socialism but progressive steps toward socialism by hampering the operation of the market economy.

Interventionism is what all western countries have, neither capitalism nor socialism.

What has been repeatedly asserted by advocates of socialism is that there has never been a truly free market yet, those same folks tend to say that capitalism is responsible for the dysfunctional operation of the economy.

"The monopoly problem mankind has to face today is not an outgrowth of the operation of the market economy. It is a product of purposive action on the part of governments. It is not one of the evils inherent in capitalism as the demagogues trumpet. It is, on the contrary, the fruit of policies hostile to capitalism and intent upon sabotaging and destroying its operation."

-Ludwig von Mises




posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 03:18 AM
link   
If Fascism is also defined by dictating salary caps and defining wages/living wages/minimum wages, then the left really should own it.



posted on Jan, 1 2016 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
If Fascism is also defined by dictating salary caps and defining wages/living wages/minimum wages, then the left really should own it.

But it isn't defined by dictating any of those.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

And you, and others like you, keep ignoring the fact that they were a different branch of socialism. You, among others, also ignore the fact that I pointed out several examples of socialists, and communists persecuting each other, imprisoning, and even executing other socialists. This happens because they all want to be in total control of the state and the nation. The fact that you, among some others, keep ignoring this is very telling.

Communists have imprisoned and/or executed socialists, socialists have imprisoned and/or executed communists. Communists have imprisoned, and/or executed other communists with different ideals. Socialists have imprisoned and/or executed other socialists for disagreeing... This fact doesn't make any of them any less socialist.

In fact, as can be seen in this same thread left-wing members are even disagreeing with each other as to what socialism is.

When different branches of socialism don't have a common enemy they turn on each other for control of the state, and the nation.


edit on 3-1-2016 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

No. Once again, as historians like Bullock (by no means a left-winger) have pointed out Hitler was not a socialist. Here's another quite informative link.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
In fact, as can be seen in this same thread left-wing members are even disagreeing with each other as to what socialism is.

Labeled that by you, of course.


When different branches of socialism don't have a common enemy they turn on each other for control of the state, and the nation.

Even the right wing branches.



posted on Jan, 3 2016 @ 04:46 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dude, "socialists" and "communists" trying to kill each other for control is AUTHORITARIANISM. That is Far-Right on the social scale.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 33  34  35    37 >>

log in

join