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.

 

Why does the left believe that Fascism is on the right?

page: 11
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: filthyphilanthropist

Fascism is an ideal. Hitting someone over the head with a stick is not an ideal. It isn't fascism or any other -ism.
Because the Brown Shirts never existed. But you are correct, it isn't their violence that makes them fascist. It IS their ideals that make them fascists.




posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 03:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
Because the Brown Shirts never existed. But you are correct, it isn't their violence that makes them fascist. It IS their ideals that make them fascists.

And fascist ideals are defined in the fascist manifesto and one thing pointed out there is that it is a right leaning centrist movement.

They stood against the communists and the socialists and were also not naive enough to buy into the libertarian ideals.

But at least we agree that although the allied soldiers used violence to win WWII that didn't make them fascist either. They sure wouldn't have done it by tossing flowers and rainbows at the enemy.


edit on 2-1-2018 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 2 2018 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs




So that means that the left is anti nationalism, they believe in World Banking Government


The world bank? World Banking Government? My goodness, do we on the left support "economic hit men" too?

You are speaking of neoliberals and libertarians, not we on the left. I support the UN though.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 12:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
Because the Brown Shirts never existed. But you are correct, it isn't their violence that makes them fascist. It IS their ideals that make them fascists.

And fascist ideals are defined in the fascist manifesto and one thing pointed out there is that it is a right leaning centrist movement.

They stood against the communists and the socialists and were also not naive enough to buy into the libertarian ideals.

But at least we agree that although the allied soldiers used violence to win WWII that didn't make them fascist either. They sure wouldn't have done it by tossing flowers and rainbows at the enemy.

We definitely agree on that last point.

I think it's interesting that you point out that fascism is a right leaning centrist movement because by world standards the American left is exactly that.

And going against commies and aocialists doesn't really disqualify Antifa from the fascist running. Our use of terminology is so muddled up that so'called communists in America aren't, socialists are fascists, and anarchists are anything but.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 12:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Spider879
a reply to: amfirst1

Why does the left believe that Fascism is on the right?

Ah donno?? Maybe because it is??..commies are generally leftist in the extreme.


Fascism is about state control of a nominally private economy that we typically see with socialism but on a more extreme scale. So I don't see much right in any of that...
edit on 3-1-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 12:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: PDP11
a reply to: Barcs




So that means that the left is anti nationalism, they believe in World Banking Government


The world bank? World Banking Government? My goodness, do we on the left support "economic hit men" too?

You are speaking of neoliberals and libertarians, not we on the left. I support the UN though.
Support a centralized world bank? Not libertarians. They can't stand the central bank here let alone one for the world over.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 09:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: filthyphilanthropist
We definitely agree on that last point.

The last point refutes the idea that any group being violent is automatically fascist, including Antifa.


I think it's interesting that you point out that fascism is a right leaning centrist movement because by world standards the American left is exactly that.

I think their progressiveness would place them dead center or maybe even a little to the left.What made fascist lean right was nationalism and conservatism and that is not something the american left is touted as being.


And going against commies and aocialists doesn't really disqualify Antifa from the fascist running.

It does if you consider them leftists.


Our use of terminology is so muddled up that so'called communists in America aren't, socialists are fascists, and anarchists are anything but.

Seems like that is what some people keep trying to point out.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Here is the problem. You are redefining left wing to mean authoritarian or totalitarian. That's simply not accurate historically as far it being a left thing only. Plenty of right wing governments across history were tyrannical or controlling.

When you redefine terms from common global understanding, it inhibits conversation and debate, rather than improving it.

On a historical plane, there simply is no support for the idea that "right wing" or "conservative" has always meant freedom, individual rights, etc, and that "liberalism" or leftism means control. In fact, many historians would argue that those are classical liberal or progressive values, that it was radical progressives in the form of the enlightenment, secularism, anti-traditionalism, anti-church, that opened up that space for individuals. It wasn't royalists. It wasn't really the fundamentalist catholics nor reformation. Those were all conservatives for their time.

What I'm saying and repeating is that your and others understandings are distinctly recent, distinctly american, and ahistorical.



posted on Jan, 3 2018 @ 06:15 PM
link   
At the same time, the Republicans have largely been on board with endless wars and empire throughout the 20th century. Just look at Nixon or both Bush presidents.

Also, i hate to break it to you, but global empire and colonialism are not left wing ideals, they are classically and historically right wing. I am confident that most historians would agree on this point. Now, the "left" fought ostensibly against exactly these right wing, oppressive systems. There ARE globalists too who seem to be more socialistic, including the former cominterm and international socialist/communist movement. This is an issue of while fighting ostensibly unjust imperialism and colonialism, they justified their own international system, i.e using the end to justify the means. I disagree with many actions self-proclaimed leftists took over the 20th century, especially things like the Maoist Cultural Revolution, or the situation in Cambodia, or Stalin's atrocities.

But, I also reject the right wing war mongering and neo-imperialism of the US and leaders of both parties since WWII. I'm sorry, we were overthrowing liberal or left wing governments, and whole heartedly supporting right wing dictators all over the world. This is historical fact. Bush Jr. illegally invaded Iraq, killed several hundred thousand people, and engaged in torture. He is a "conservative" war criminal.

Not all internationalism or empire is left wing, is my point. To say so is as I've noted elsewhere a completely new redefinition of left versus right wing, which basically undermines having a legitimate discussion.
edit on 3-1-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


Here is the problem. You are redefining left wing to mean authoritarian or totalitarian. That's simply not accurate historically as far it being a left thing only. Plenty of right wing governments across history were tyrannical or controlling.

When you redefine terms from common global understanding, it inhibits conversation and debate, rather than improving it.

On a historical plane, there simply is no support for the idea that "right wing" or "conservative" has always meant freedom, individual rights, etc, and that "liberalism" or leftism means control. In fact, many historians would argue that those are classical liberal or progressive values, that it was radical progressives in the form of the enlightenment, secularism, anti-traditionalism, anti-church, that opened up that space for individuals. It wasn't royalists. It wasn't really the fundamentalist catholics nor reformation. Those were all conservatives for their time.

What I'm saying and repeating is that your and others understandings are distinctly recent, distinctly american, and ahistorical.
Except in America where Classical Liberals fought the Revolutionary War to gain freedom from a despotic King. Today people often mix up classical liberal with the liberal left, because although the liberal left often tout ideals like freedom for gay marriage and man boy love, those are not traditional values and the American Left really prefers an authoritarian central government which forces people to comply with their wishes abd their ideals of a socialist one world government which forcibly redistributes income for its agendas and whims. The fact that you have mixed up
Classical liberal with Peogressive demonstrates exactly what I just said. Progressives embraced fascist ideals of eugenics and that does not i any way make them liberal or right leaning. Eugenics was always a left leaning agenda. The people who embraced it and embraced birth control in its early days such as Margaret Sanger were anything but right leaning. Today Planned Parenthood represents the same left leaning ideals of abortion as always and it's always been left. You will rarely find conservatives supporting it. Even the ones who support so called choice you will not find supporting such left leaning agendas as gun control, which is a very authoritarian thing designed to give government and the State more control.
edit on 6-1-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2018 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


Here is the problem. You are redefining left wing to mean authoritarian or totalitarian. That's simply not accurate historically as far it being a left thing only. Plenty of right wing governments across history were tyrannical or controlling.

When you redefine terms from common global understanding, it inhibits conversation and debate, rather than improving it.

On a historical plane, there simply is no support for the idea that "right wing" or "conservative" has always meant freedom, individual rights, etc, and that "liberalism" or leftism means control. In fact, many historians would argue that those are classical liberal or progressive values, that it was radical progressives in the form of the enlightenment, secularism, anti-traditionalism, anti-church, that opened up that space for individuals. It wasn't royalists. It wasn't really the fundamentalist catholics nor reformation. Those were all conservatives for their time.

What I'm saying and repeating is that your and others understandings are distinctly recent, distinctly american, and ahistorical.
Except in America where Classical Liberals fought the Revolutionary War to gain freedom from a despotic King. Today people often mix up classical liberal with the liberal left, because although the liberal left often tout ideals like freedom for gay marriage and man boy love, those are not traditional values and the American Left really prefers an authoritarian central government which forces people to comply with their wishes abd their ideals of a socialist one works government which forcibly redistributes income for its agendas and whims.
But even here you guys are trying to appropriate "classical liberal" and redefine conservative retroactively. The founding fathers were relatively radical liberals for their time. Their opponents, the royalists, were one of the conservative groups of their time.

My main point here is stop redefining terms and history to match recent American ideological battles. It's poor scholarship and argumentation.

The left does not generally "tout man boy love," but thanks for the straw man argument.

The American right wing generally claims it wants freedom and small government, but in reality wants the strong big gov of their tastes: mass surveillance, strong police, "law and order," and big military. Not only that, but for 60 odd years it was the right wanted to legislate substance use, marriage, sexuality, etc. You guys celebrate "freedom," as long as people use their freedom to be straight, Christian, drink swilling military bros.
edit on 6-1-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-1-2018 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 01:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14


Here is the problem. You are redefining left wing to mean authoritarian or totalitarian. That's simply not accurate historically as far it being a left thing only. Plenty of right wing governments across history were tyrannical or controlling.

When you redefine terms from common global understanding, it inhibits conversation and debate, rather than improving it.

On a historical plane, there simply is no support for the idea that "right wing" or "conservative" has always meant freedom, individual rights, etc, and that "liberalism" or leftism means control. In fact, many historians would argue that those are classical liberal or progressive values, that it was radical progressives in the form of the enlightenment, secularism, anti-traditionalism, anti-church, that opened up that space for individuals. It wasn't royalists. It wasn't really the fundamentalist catholics nor reformation. Those were all conservatives for their time.

What I'm saying and repeating is that your and others understandings are distinctly recent, distinctly american, and ahistorical.
Except in America where Classical Liberals fought the Revolutionary War to gain freedom from a despotic King. Today people often mix up classical liberal with the liberal left, because although the liberal left often tout ideals like freedom for gay marriage and man boy love, those are not traditional values and the American Left really prefers an authoritarian central government which forces people to comply with their wishes abd their ideals of a socialist one works government which forcibly redistributes income for its agendas and whims.
But even here you guys are trying to appropriate "classical liberal" and redefine conservative retroactively. The founding fathers were relatively radical liberals for their time. Their opponents, the royalists, were one of the conservative groups of their time.

My main point here is stop redefining terms and history to match recent American ideological battles. It's poor scholarship and argumentation.

The left does not generally "tout man boy love," but thanks for the straw man argument.

The American right wing generally claims it wants freedom and small government, but in reality wants the strong big gov of their tastes: mass surveillance, strong police, "law and order," and big military. Not only that, but for 60 odd years it was the right wanted to legislate substance use, marriage, sexuality, etc. You guys celebrate "freedom," as long as people use their freedom to be straight, Christian, drink swilling military bros.
I am
Against mass surveillance. You have it all wrong brother. It is not conservatives who demand totalitarian authoritarian control. Perhaps this is really where the Hegelian thing comes into play. The surveillance society is from the Luciferians. Everything else is semantics and word play.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 02:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It is not conservatives who demand totalitarian authoritarian control.

You might want to check out this thread where a pretty conservative member seems to be demanding just that.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It is not conservatives who demand totalitarian authoritarian control.

You might want to check out this thread where a pretty conservative member seems to be demanding just that.
Well I'm not going to go through the entire thread to find the particular thing. Don't confuse authoritarianism with making sure illegals aren't taking advantage of welfare benefits and hiding out. I saw a movie called Scarlet and Black last night about an Irish priest at the Vatican helping escaped prisoners hide from the Nazi OCCUPTION. There's a difference. It's based on a true story and the Pope at the time was Pius the 12th. We looked it up. Interesting story. On the other hand, we have a Deep State surveillance system in place which rivals Nazism because it is pervasive and yet as my husband said gives the illusion of freedom. And frankly it would be ridiculous to call it conservative. Why do leftists keep asserting that it is? Progressives in America embraced fascism at the time of Hitler. That is historical. Today Progressives approve the stealing of people's paycheck to fund Deep State projects and redistribute to whomever they deem needs it. If only you could see the reality of that for what it is. Look at it this way... you go to
The bank and cash your paycheck... some govt guy comes up abd says give me 10% to give to the Clown School in Brazil. They need it more than you... well that's what Congress did... oh wait do you live in another country? Please note that Republicans in the US are bought by special interests just as Democrats are, and they no longer represent true values. I don't necessarily agree with what wveryone on this forum claiming to be conservative think.
edit on 7-1-2018 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 11:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

At the same time, the Republicans have largely been on board with endless wars and empire throughout the 20th century. Just look at Nixon or both Bush presidents.

Also, i hate to break it to you, but global empire and colonialism are not left wing ideals, they are classically and historically right wing. I am confident that most historians would agree on this point. Now, the "left" fought ostensibly against exactly these right wing, oppressive systems. There ARE globalists too who seem to be more socialistic, including the former cominterm and international socialist/communist movement. This is an issue of while fighting ostensibly unjust imperialism and colonialism, they justified their own international system, i.e using the end to justify the means. I disagree with many actions self-proclaimed leftists took over the 20th century, especially things like the Maoist Cultural Revolution, or the situation in Cambodia, or Stalin's atrocities.

But, I also reject the right wing war mongering and neo-imperialism of the US and leaders of both parties since WWII. I'm sorry, we were overthrowing liberal or left wing governments, and whole heartedly supporting right wing dictators all over the world. This is historical fact. Bush Jr. illegally invaded Iraq, killed several hundred thousand people, and engaged in torture. He is a "conservative" war criminal.

Not all internationalism or empire is left wing, is my point. To say so is as I've noted elsewhere a completely new redefinition of left versus right wing, which basically undermines having a legitimate discussion.
Hate to break it to you but the One World govt and globalism is neither right nor left as Antony Sutton explains, the conflict of left and right in Hegelianism produces the synthesis which he says is the NWO. Look st the last Democrat Potus... how he enabled gun running and drug producing ... ya know .... fast and furious.... he's not a right winger by any stretch of the imagination, he's further left than even corrupt Hillary.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
I learned in Political Science and History that Fascism is a phenomenon of the left. Their roots and ideas all came from leftists. But for some weird reason the leftists and their institutions have convinced people that Fasicism is right wing.

Conservatism and right wing in America are ideas from the American Revolution: free markets, decentralization, individual over the collective, limited government, and the rule of law. All of these qualities are opposite from Fascism.

Keep in mind Europe has nothing similar to the right in America, from what I can tell, they are mostly leftist type governments throughout history, so something that is slightly off from their tradition rocker, they might call it right, but it's not even close to anything right in America.

The history of Fascism and the founders were all socialist. Mussolini was the chief editor of the most popular socialist newspaper in Italy. Hitler's Nazi 25 planks sounded like something like the Democrat platform. In fact, he got his Eugenics ideas from the Democrat party in America from the Trail of Tears and genocide of Indians through policies from Andrew Jackson a known Democrat, and the KKK and Slavery from the Democrat Party, eugenics progressive movement in the 1900s that the ford foundation, Rockefeller, and Carnigie funded Berkeley, yale, and harvard to push were all leftists. heck even the Japanese internment camp came from Democrats, but magically everything gets blamed on the party that freed the slaves and sent the US Military to protect blacks from the Democrat KKK military, not to mention passed the first civil rights act of 1875 only to be ruled unconstitutional by the Democrat supreme court judges, and Christians united with blacks to marched with Martin Luther King and helped push his movement over the top.

The left says Fascism is corporatism, militaristic, and nationalistic. However, nationalism is not exclusive to right or left, it's either you believe in country and borders or you believe in globalism and world government. They say the right is militaristic, yes they tend to favor a strong military, but most wars were all started by Democrats: WWI, WWII, N Korea, Vietnam, Syria, modern wars, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan which was oddly started by Bush. As far as corporatism, fascist had strict requirements that business was to adhere and worked for the state if they want to do business. This is nothing similar to a free markets that the right advocates.

My History and Political Science class all point to Fascism can only occur in a leftwing government and tends to proceed right after the failures of the economy and international socialism, which leads to the early 1900s when Fascism was introduced. It can not proceed after a Republic type government. It moves like this throughout history Republic >> Democracy >> Communism >> Fascism >> then back to Republic when people realized the last two are failures. Republic is an idea embraced by the right as well. I'm just trying to inject some logic into the left because I can't stand it when people don't understand history.

You learned history wrong, then:
-Fascism is about the interests of the state over the people.
-Liberalism is about the interests of the people over the state.

This ties in with the common left vs. right fairly easily, which came about by pitting Monarchists (the right) versus Liberals (the left) in France; the state is embodied by the monarch. Liberals opposed the existing monarchy and sought greater freedom for themselves and others... eventually, this sort of led to the guillotines.

Conservatives try to maintain the status quo; it's basically the definition of the term. They would have been Monarchists opposed to Liberals in favor of keeping things the same and traditional.

The founders of the United States of America were Liberals, who rose up in revolt against the British - people who sought the interests of the people over that of the state.

That's the logic of it - in the traditional left-right political spectrum:
-Right was the State
-Left was the People

This is the simple historical truth. Now, you can say that 'left' and 'right' in the U.S. are not analogues to historical European politics (including Fascism, which arose in Europe), but then... you probably shouldn't use Left and Right (terms that originated in Europe) as descriptors for U.S. politics to begin with.
edit on 11Sun, 07 Jan 2018 11:37:54 -0600America/ChicagovAmerica/Chicago1 by Greven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 12:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

originally posted by: amfirst1
I learned in Political Science and History that Fascism is a phenomenon of the left. Their roots and ideas all came from leftists. But for some weird reason the leftists and their institutions have convinced people that Fasicism is right wing.

Conservatism and right wing in America are ideas from the American Revolution: free markets, decentralization, individual over the collective, limited government, and the rule of law. All of these qualities are opposite from Fascism.

Keep in mind Europe has nothing similar to the right in America, from what I can tell, they are mostly leftist type governments throughout history, so something that is slightly off from their tradition rocker, they might call it right, but it's not even close to anything right in America.

The history of Fascism and the founders were all socialist. Mussolini was the chief editor of the most popular socialist newspaper in Italy. Hitler's Nazi 25 planks sounded like something like the Democrat platform. In fact, he got his Eugenics ideas from the Democrat party in America from the Trail of Tears and genocide of Indians through policies from Andrew Jackson a known Democrat, and the KKK and Slavery from the Democrat Party, eugenics progressive movement in the 1900s that the ford foundation, Rockefeller, and Carnigie funded Berkeley, yale, and harvard to push were all leftists. heck even the Japanese internment camp came from Democrats, but magically everything gets blamed on the party that freed the slaves and sent the US Military to protect blacks from the Democrat KKK military, not to mention passed the first civil rights act of 1875 only to be ruled unconstitutional by the Democrat supreme court judges, and Christians united with blacks to marched with Martin Luther King and helped push his movement over the top.

The left says Fascism is corporatism, militaristic, and nationalistic. However, nationalism is not exclusive to right or left, it's either you believe in country and borders or you believe in globalism and world government. They say the right is militaristic, yes they tend to favor a strong military, but most wars were all started by Democrats: WWI, WWII, N Korea, Vietnam, Syria, modern wars, outside of Iraq and Afghanistan which was oddly started by Bush. As far as corporatism, fascist had strict requirements that business was to adhere and worked for the state if they want to do business. This is nothing similar to a free markets that the right advocates.

My History and Political Science class all point to Fascism can only occur in a leftwing government and tends to proceed right after the failures of the economy and international socialism, which leads to the early 1900s when Fascism was introduced. It can not proceed after a Republic type government. It moves like this throughout history Republic >> Democracy >> Communism >> Fascism >> then back to Republic when people realized the last two are failures. Republic is an idea embraced by the right as well. I'm just trying to inject some logic into the left because I can't stand it when people don't understand history.

You learned history wrong, then:
-Fascism is about the interests of the state over the people.
-Liberalism is about the interests of the people over the state.

This ties in with the common left vs. right fairly easily, which came about by pitting Monarchists (the right) versus Liberals (the left) in France; the state is embodied by the monarch. Liberals opposed the existing monarchy and sought greater freedom for themselves and others... eventually, this sort of led to the guillotines.

Conservatives try to maintain the status quo; it's basically the definition of the term. They would have been Monarchists opposed to Liberals in favor of keeping things the same and traditional.

The founders of the United States of America were Liberals, who rose up in revolt against the British - people who sought the interests of the people over that of the state.

That's the logic of it - in the traditional left-right political spectrum:
-Right was the State
-Left was the People

This is the simple historical truth. Now, you can say that 'left' and 'right' in the U.S. are not analogues to historical European politics (including Fascism, which arose in Europe), but then... you probably shouldn't use Left and Right (terms that originated in Europe) as descriptors for U.S. politics to begin with.
Except that in the States the political Lwft support the Supremecy of the State ... as in John Dewey and his belief that the people exist for the State and that children are to be taught and trained to be cogs in the wheel of the State. Please just goifkw it if you don't believe me, but John Dewey ideas rule the educational system.



posted on Jan, 7 2018 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

That thread is about drugs not illegals.

The point wasn't about what you believe but en example of authoritarianism from the right side of the spectrum.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I agree with everything you say. Leftists think they liberalism is ruled by the mob. But that is not freedom. If the mob votes to kill an innocent man because they don't like him that is authoritarian. The people choice idea is extremely flawed. Freedom is based on man's god given rights and freedom from government tyranny. Today leftists think that liberalism or freedom is by using government to force people at gunpoint against their will.



posted on Jan, 8 2018 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: amfirst1
Today leftists think that liberalism or freedom is by using government to force people at gunpoint against their will.

Don't the people on the right call for law and order? Isn't that government forcing people at gunpoint against their will?

There is the reason why anarchists don't like being associated with american left or right.







 
27
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join