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: 7
52
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
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.




posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:03 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert

Ah...riight, riight, so it doesn't matter that every other socialist says/writes it... you claim it is different and we should just take your word for it... Gotcha.
edit on 17-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Dude. Seriously. Get a grip.
Do some research. Give up the rhetoric. Sanders is not a communist - he's not a fascist. He wants to make things better for all of us - and that includes holding rich corporations and individuals accountable for the taxes they owe (but evade).
And....are you sitting down....?????
he wants to make things better FOR YOU, too!!!!!

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

edit on 12/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

You mean like the "democratic socialism" espoused by the German people and the "social democratic party" right before Hitler got into power? That kind of "democratic socialism"? Because it ended so well for them.
edit on 17-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: correct comment.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: introvert

Ah...riight, riight, so it doesn't matter that every other socialists says it... you claim it is different and we should just take your word for it... Gotcha.


Absolutely not!

The point is to research and learn from those that know what the hell they are talking about. There are many people out there that have done the research and debated that which we are going through now.

The Nazis are not socialist and it is well established that the word socialist was incorporated in to their propaganda for many reasons. One was to subvert the socialist movement and envelope them in to the fascist state.
edit on 17-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: GamleGamle
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I would say socialism is about sharing wealth..... do you know what would happen if everyone that could afford to tithe ( donate 10 ^% of their income ) actually did that?

Of course that is just theory because of Lust & Greed, so was the theory of Nazi Germany.

Kind Regards.


Socialism isn't about sharing wealth. Sharing implies a voluntary act. Socialism is actually taking wealth and redistributing it.

imho



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
Absolutely not!

The point is to research and learn from those that know what the hell they are talking about. There are many people out there that have done the research and debate that we are going through now.

The Nazis are not socialist and it is well established that the word socialist was incorporated in to their propaganda for many reasons. One was to subvert the socialist movement and envelope them in to the fascist state.


Exactly the same claims made by communists... "There has never been a communist state, they just claimed to be"...

Sorry, but I didn't just post claims. i posted evidence showing that NAZI Germany was socialist, and the Nazis had socialist policies...

i even posted exchanges between Bismarck and left liberals, "social democrats" etc, etc. Even Bismarkc himself conceded to the left and implemented what today you call socialist policies. Those policies, such as national healthcare, was used against minorities in the holocaust. Remember that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.



National Health Care: Medicine in Germany, 1918-1945
Does the modern bureaucratization of medicine risk a return to the horrors of national socialist medicine?

Marc S. Micozzi M.D.

Monday, November 01, 1993

Marc S. Micozzi, M.D., Ph.D., a physician and anthropologist, directs the National Museum of Health and Medicine in Washington, D.C., which recently brought from Berlin the exhibition, “The Value of the Human Being: Medicine in Germany 1918-1945,” curated by Christian Pross and Götz Aly.

Today we are concerned about issues such as doctor-assisted suicide, abortion, the use of fetal tissue, genetic screening, birth control and sterilization, health-care rationing and the ethics of medical research on animals and humans. These subjects are major challenges in both ethics and economics at the end of the twentieth century. But at the beginning of the twentieth century the desire to create a more scientific medical practice and research had already raised the issues of euthanasia, eugenics, and medical experimentation on human subjects. In addition, the increasing involvement of the German government in medical care and funding medical research established the government-medical complex that the National Socialists later used to execute their extermination policies.

The German social insurance and health care system began in the 1880s under Bismarck. Ironically, it was part of Bismarcksanti-socialist legislation, adopted under the theory that a little socialism would prevent the rise of a more virulent socialism.
...
Medical concerns which had largely been in the private domain in the nineteenth century increasingly became a concern of the state. The physician began to be transformed into a functionary of state-initiated laws and policies. Doctors slowly began to see themselves as more responsible for the public health of the nation than for the individual health of the patient. It is one thing to see oneself as responsible for thenations healthand quite another to be responsible for an individual patients health. It is one thing to be employed by an individual, another to be employed by the government.

Under the Weimar Republic these reforms resulted in clearly improved public health. However, the creativity, energy, and fundamental reforms found in social medicine during the Weimar Republic seem in retrospect a short and deceptive illusion. Medical reformers had wanted to counter the misery inherited from the first World War and the Second Empire on the basis of comprehensive disease prevention programs. In the few years available to the social reformers, they had remarkable success. But in connection with these reforms the doctor’s role changed from that of advocate, adviser, and partner of the patient to a partner of the state.

With the world economic crisis of 1929, welfare state expenditures had to be reduced for housing, nutrition, support payments, recreation and rehabilitation, and maternal and child health. What remained of the humanistic goals of reform were state mechanisms for inspection and regulation of public health and medical practice. Economic efficiency became the major concern, and health care became primarily a question of cost-benefit analysis. Under the socialist policies of the period, this analysis was necessarily applied to the selection of strong persons, deemed worthy of support, and the elimination of weak andunproductivepeople. The scientific underpinning of cost-benefit analyses to political medical care was provided by the new fields of genetics and eugenics.
...

fee.org...



edit on 17-12-2015 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse



You mean like the "democratic socialism" espoused by the German people and the "social democratic party" right before Hitler got into power?


Before.

Key word: BEFORE.


edit on 17-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You mean like the "democratic socialism" espoused by the German people and the "social democratic party" right before Hitler got into power? That kind of "democratic socialism"?


NO. That's what you keep "trying to mean." Wrong as it is, you just keep on with it.....

No. I MEAN IT LIKE IT IS espoused and ENACTED in the Scandinavian countries of this very day, of Canada, and many other countries.....

Stop with the Hitler crap, dude. Get with the 21st century.


I'm very sad that you are so stuck.......
I'm sad that you had such a rough life in Cuba that you can't see straight anymore. Really.
Just relax.

It will all be okay. No one is going to hang you out to dry.


edit on 12/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
There is only one thing that is clear to me here. We've moved beyond all the other -isms into irrationalism.

This is my favorite take on the subject, written before...well, you figure it out....


But in spite of this fuzziness, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it. [Source]



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Lol I just can not help myself. I promised myself not to respond anymore after i saw where this was going, but are you now actually comparing the rise to power of Hitler with Bernie Sanders, because it surely looks like it. Are you really saying that with a straight face?

Kind Regards and peace be with you.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:14 PM
link   
a reply to: introvert




The Nazis are not socialist and it is well established that the word socialist was incorporated in to their propaganda for many reasons. One was to subvert the socialist movement and envelope them in to the fascist state. edit on 17-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)


Hmmm.



Hitler's views on economics, beyond his early belief that the economy was of secondary importance, are a matter of debate. On the one hand, he proclaimed in one of his speeches that "we are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system",[13] but he was clear to point out that his interpretation of socialism "has nothing to do with Marxian Socialism," saying that "Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."[14] At a later time, Hitler said: "Socialism! That is an unfortunate word altogether... What does socialism really mean? If people have something to eat and their pleasures, then they have their socialism."[12] In private, Hitler also said that "I absolutely insist on protecting private property... we must encourage private initiative".[15] On yet another occasion he qualified that statement by saying that the government should have the power to regulate the use of private property for the good of the nation.[16] Shortly after coming to power, Hitler told a confidant: "There is no license any more, no private sphere where the individual belongs to himself.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 17-12-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

originally posted by: introvert
Absolutely not!

The point is to research and learn from those that know what the hell they are talking about. There are many people out there that have done the research and debate that we are going through now.

The Nazis are not socialist and it is well established that the word socialist was incorporated in to their propaganda for many reasons. One was to subvert the socialist movement and envelope them in to the fascist state.


Exactly the same claims made by communists... "There has never been a communist state, they just claimed to be"...

Sorry, but I didn't just post claims. i posted evidence showing that NAZI Germany was socialist, and the Nazis had socialist policies...



Very well.

I believe I articulated my responses effectively and have been able to break the argument down to the point where you are now using deflection and emotional fallacies.

My work shall stand on it's own, regardless.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Sanders is not a communist


Yeah well the commies didn't go around calling themselves communist.



However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism. They refer to themselves as Socialist states or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism.[2][


en.wikipedia.org...

They went around calling themselves socialist.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Terms evolve, just like language does. Parties swap places.....
definitions change.

Get over it. For God's sake - TRY READING.


They went around calling themselves


Yeah. During the US civil war, the confederacy (South) went around calling themselves "Democrats". It's all different now.
But, I'm too tired of your obstinance to give you any more sources right now....

it's all been provided for you to read, over and over and over again.

If you still don't 'believe' it - just do a search for "parties swapped places."

Good luck.


edit on 12/17/2015 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: GamleGamle
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Lol I just can not help myself. I promised myself not to respond anymore after i saw where this was going, but are you now actually comparing the rise to power of Hitler with Bernie Sanders, because it surely looks like it. Are you really saying that with a straight face?

Kind Regards and peace be with you.


I see little difference between THIS:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

And Sanders comments here:

berniesanders.com...

berniesanders.com...

berniesanders.com...

He sure has got the repetition down.

Billionaire.Oligarch.

Rich folks.



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Well, 7 years ago or so the lefties got all fired up about barrack Obama changing the world, it was allmost cult like in it's fevorishness. America then slid further and further into being a fascist state. Accelerating on bushes policies.

Now we have the left going crazy for Bernie, he's gonna fix it! He really means it!

This time we got it right the left claims, this time were not being fooled!

How can you be so sure now? You were pretty damn sure last time. And you fell for a fascist, leftist then. What are you falling for now? Slick words? Again? Really?



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: BuzzyWigs




Sanders is not a communist


Yeah well the commies didn't go around calling themselves communist.



However, contrary to Western usage, these states do not describe themselves as "communist" nor do they claim to have achieved communism. They refer to themselves as Socialist states or Workers' states that are in the process of constructing socialism.[2][


en.wikipedia.org...

They went around calling themselves socialist.


Communism requires socialism, but socialism does not require communism.

But if we follow your train of thought, could we say that calling ourselves patriots is equal to Right Wing extremism because Timothy McVeigh called himself a patriot?
edit on 17-12-2015 by introvert because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Hence the word Democratic before the socialism. A majority vote needs to be necessary for something to be put into Law. Will a minority have to sacrifice for the good of the whole. Yes. No denying that. The wealthy should be happy to do their part, How tax money is actually spent for the welfare of the whole.... yeah that is a whole different conversation.

It can also not be denied that its all a pretty jaded conversation as these isms are just on the paper they are written on, altruism, generosity, honesty they tend to break down fast when people try to make them concrete.

As things are standing now in my own country, the lower and middle class are quite heavily taxed. The rich as well, but at the same time we are a tax haven for big Multi National Corps.... so not much love their. Wealth redistribution is necessary, because people tend to be selfish otherwise. Needing to have a golden spoon while the rest do not even have soup. Just look at the world to know what I am saying.

I will make this concession though, upper middle class often seem to be hard hit to the point that taxation has a real negative effect on their ability to conduct business. So small business tax relief is something I take into consideration.

Kind Regards



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Oh well now if parties 'switched sides'.

That would make the LEFT in America Fascist to the Right in Germany.

After all Roosevelt was just as fascist as Hitler.

Sans gas chambers which is the only real difference between the two.



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join