It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
I'm not going by google I'm going by the "The Doctrine of Fascism". The horses mouth, if you will.
There was a word that I always liked; the classical economists used it: liberal. The word liberal really meant, in the classical sense, the liberalization of the individuals from the tyranny of the State. That word was expropriated by our opponents and it has now come to mean liberality with other people’s money. The word was taken over. And so I, more than anybody else, was responsible for introducing and publicizing and perhaps making world-wide the word libertarian. I am sorry I ever did it. Why? Because the word libertarian has now been just as much expropriated as the word liberal.
~ Leonard E. Reed
originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I also note that you are using the term liberal in the original way it was intended.
I would in many regards consider myself a classical liberal but it's clear to me the term liberal means something very different now than what it used to, which is why I refer to myself as a libertarian.
Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century.
For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be a century of collectivism, and hence the century of the State. —Benito Mussolini, "The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism,” Jane Soames authorized translation, Hogarth Press, London, 1933, p. 20.
Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State . . . . It is opposed to classical Liberalism . . . . Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. (p. 13) 1935 version
The Doctrine of Fascism - Wikipedia
I don't think I have used the word liberal.
In the case of fascism, the dictionary definitions are not the classical definitions.
I would be willing to say that they reflect the use of the term in US/Allied propaganda which used the term as a catchall.
originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: infolurker
The Nazis have always been considered 'far right.' It's only the last year or so when an American movement has started to push them across to the 'left.' I've been watching it happen with interest.
I see it as elements on the right seeking to shrug off all negative associations. No more neo-Nazis, right? They'd be reinvented as 'far left.' Taken to its extremes, the ideal would be to have every negative, unwanted political group tied to the Left and none at all left for the Right. It's a process that's seen many on the right reject any allegations of racism on their side whilst consistently rebranding it as a Leftist habit. Neat as f*** and clever too!
Are conservatives the political right?
Collectivism to Mussolini does not mean the same what you think it does with communism.
Conservative don't lean to extremes, EVER! They're adverse to change, and extremes call for extreme change!
originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder
Huh? I never said that socialism is oppose to collectivism.
Anyway Mussolini HIMSELF said that people are the State. There are no individuals.