Extreme Left is COMPLETE TOTALITARIAN/ Extreme Right is COMPLETE ANARCHY

Originally posted by Chevalerous
I really hope that was joke?

Good god really?

A number of you have really been fighting over the labeling of Axis on a damn chart.

Political charts are nothing more than a grid, whether social issues are the X axis or the Y axis people will always be in the same area.

The beginning of the thread (and apparently the continuation) was a war over which axis is which when in reality it really doesn't matter. I'll even give you an example so you can see that the world doesn't come to a horrible end.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/files/2c1c35374602ab88.jpg[/atsimg]

Oh gods! What have I done? I'm surely invoking apocalypse upon us!

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fef762933110.jpg[/atsimg]

Both axis can be expressed as left/right and nothing gets broken either way. Anyone who stick so rigidly to any model that they get confused/flustered/angered and begin attacking others because of their paradigm and inability to replace the words left and right with ones with more syllables (collectivist, libertarian, anarchist) is the only person in need of a higher education.




[edit on 8/31/2010 by eNumbra]

reply to post by eNumbra


That's only delusional imaginations!

Both axis can be expressed as left/right and nothing gets broken either way

No you can't because it is the combined result we're searching for!

In your "one line" example you give the wrong impression to people and mislead those who are NOT enough educated to actually BELIEVE that Thatcher COULD BE on the left in politics - and both those lines you have in the same example gives the impression that Anarchism and Libertarianism are ALWAYS to the right to those people who don't know any better!

This is a very evil way to brainwash the less educated people in a very dishonest way through propaganda made by the far-right in America my friend!

People who construct these kind of things for their own agenda just to confuse & mislead their fellow brothers and sisters in their society, and endorse history revision - should in my opinion be very ashamed of themselves.

Because by doing so you never give the less educated ones in our societies a fair chance to form their own political opinion from unbiased tools & information.

By using your deceptive tools you maliciously hijack, influence & manipulate and deprave that person's right to an honest education process.

Only in America!

(Sorry for my bad English since I'm not a native English speaking person)


[edit on 31-8-2010 by Chevalerous]

Originally posted by Chevalerous
In your "one line" example you give the wrong impression to people who are NOT enough educated to BELIEVE that Thatcher COULD BE on the left in politics - and both those lines you have in the same example gives the impression that Anarchism and Libertarianism are ALWAYS to the right to people who don't know any better!

So the problem is with people who don't know any better and not in fact, the model. aside from the fact that anarchism is a rightist social stance while authoritarianism is a leftist social stance. It always is on the SOCIAL spectrum. It's only when you measure it on 2 axis at once that you have to differentiate between axis, but anarchism will always be on the right sideof any SOCIAL measure.

This is an very evil way to brainwash the less uneducated people in a very dishonest way through propaganda made by the right-wing in America my friend!

It's not a method of brainwashing, it's a simplification of taking one issue at a time and measuring it left to right. Could ignorant people think that Anarchists are always on the right? Yes, if they don't do any further research into the matter. It's nobody's fault but that person's if they fail to understand that one axis can only measure one thing at a time, (My graph is clearly labeled and though there may be some entities out there that may obfuscate graphs in order to confuse people I have done nothing of the sort.)

Economic, and social both have their own separate axis of measure. One side is always right and the other is always left; and only one item can be measured on an axis at a time.

People who constructs these kind of things for their own agenda just to villify their fellow brothers and sisters in their society, and endorse history revision - should in my opinion be very ashamed of themselves.

Am I really being lectured by someone who fails to understand that the two Axis of social and economic measure can be viewed separately, and when done so are rigidly left/right?

Because you never get the less uneducated ones in our societies a fair chance to form their own opinions - by using your deceptive tools you maliciously hijack & manipulate and deprave that person's right to an honest education process.

WOW.

Everybody has a chance to form their own opinions, always. The problem only comes when a person relies on a single source for information. Multiple source, independent research will always provide enough information to prevent someone from being brainwashed.

Only in America!

Fnar, fnar. Quit with the self-satisfied crap.

Separate the two axis and you can measure each issue on the left/right paradigm if you really wish and the labels will be correct.

[edit on 8/31/2010 by eNumbra]

[edit on 8/31/2010 by eNumbra]

[edit on 8/31/2010 by eNumbra]

reply to post by eNumbra

Am I really being lectured by someone who fails to understand that the two Axis of social and economic measure can be viewed separately, and when done so are rigidly left/right?

Apparently! since you stubbornly insists so in BOTH those two flawed "lines"/axes, thus suggest that: Libertarianism and Anarchist is ALWAYS to the right in both the lines/axes of your example:

The Economic axis.

AND

The Social axis

Whereas they're not written in to the left in either of those two lines/axes -

not in the Social - nor in the - Economic line axes.

This gives the impression to many that NO Anarchy exists to the left.

AND

This gives the impression to many that NO Libertarianism exists to the left.


And that is not an honest presentation to us Europeans at least IMO!

(and God forbid, to some young less educated soul in America who is looking for answers and want to broaden his political views to form his political opinion)


And I found the evidence why you and I are having this crazy conversation right now:

aside from the fact that anarchism is a rightist social stance while authoritarianism is a leftist

Which is simply not TRUE regardless of which analysis tool is used.

Bakunin would laugh at that false statement which is nothing less than history revision of European political history!


Authoritarianism can be both Leftist AND Rightist

AND

Anarchism can be both Leftist AND Rightist


[Sigh!] well! some people are just beyond repair it seems!


[edit on 31-8-2010 by Chevalerous]

Heavy regulation being on the left.

No regulation being on the right.



Anarchy is therefore a rightist ideology. You can be a Social Anarchist while advocating Economic Regulation and you can be an Economic Anarchist while advocating Social Regulation.

Separate axis. A single axis measures a single item and CANNOT have anarchism on both sides. On one issue (in this case economic or social) you have a big government standpoint and a no government standpoint.


There is no such thing as a big government(heavy regulation) anarchist.


[edit on 8/31/2010 by eNumbra]

reply to post by eNumbra


I'm going to give you a friendly advice before you make a complete moron of yourself:


Go back one page to see the name: Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin

He is one of the most important persons regarding Anarchism of the nineteenth century in Europe, whose philosophy & ideas were quite important for some in the European workers movement.

Bakunin is also important to have an understanding of the political landscape in Europe the early 1900's to more modern days.

If you simply don't know who Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin is - then I urge you to study and do your homework for a broader understanding of European politics and the different forms of Anarchism - and how the ideology 'Social libertarianism' started and came about with the European workers communities and the nineteenth century working class movement.

Social libertarianism is the belief in independence from government or state control that is advocated for by libertarians without the individualistic orientation associated with traditional libertarianism.

Many social libertarians believe that small, non-hierarchical community councils are better than large-scale representative governance.

Social libertarians advocate freedom while denying the legitimacy of private ownership of the means of production, since private ownership of the means of production, in the form of capital, leads to the exploitation of others with less economic power and thus infringes on the exploited class's individual freedoms.

Social libertarians believe that productive property should be held communally and controlled democratically. For them, the only moral private properties are personal possessions.

Social libertarians essentially denies the legitimacy of private ownership of the means of production and is thus a left-libertarian philosophy.

In rejecting the private ownership of the means of production and the state, Social libertarians put themselves in opposition to both capitalist democracy and to Marxism.

Please my friend, Google 'Mikhail Alexandrovich Bakunin' and 'Social libertarianism' preferably from European sources for fair description and correctness.

You can also Google: Peter Kropotkin for more information.


[edit on 31-8-2010 by Chevalerous]

reply to post by eNumbra


Did you read ANY of the rest of this thread before you replied?

It just seems like you're not getting it at all.

Your limited (and like Chevalerous said, revisionist) view on politics is really getting in the way of an ACCURATE perspective on it.

Those graphs you made up are INACCURATE. It's as simple as that. You could put ANYTHING up there and say it's gospel, but it just ain't so. When you limit the scope to a simple left or right spectrum then you're not giving the correct/full story. This is why the Political Compass (like I've posted) or the Nolan Graph makes far more sense than breaking everything down into black and white, right and left terms. One very useful thing you could do is to simply REMOVE the words "left" and "right" from those graphs and ONLY delineate between two ACTUAL terms like "anarchism/libertarianism" and "authoritarianism" OR "collectivism" and "individualism". If you label your graphs with more specific words and THEN add on the word "left" or "right" then you're simply turning it into a false political spectrum in order to brainwash people (whether you know it or not) with revisionism.

Libertarianism/Anarchism can be BOTH right-wing and left-wing.

Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism can be BOTH right-wing and left-wing.

The MAJORITY of Anarchist/Libertarian thought/history/support is left-wing.

There is no way around these facts.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by NoHierarchy]

Not much more I can add that hasn't been said, if they don't get it now they don't want to.

But I thought I'd add a little more about Libertarianism...

The word "libertarian" used to be the preserve of the anarchist movement and labour movements influenced by it. Thus the "libertarian movement" in Spain meant, and still means today, the anarchist movement proper (FAI), the youth wing (FIJL - "Iberian Federation of Libertarian Youth"), the anarcho-syndicalist union confederation (CNT), the Mujeres Libres ("Free Women") movement, cultural centres, publishing houses, free schools etc.

The weekly paper of the French Anarchist Federation is called 'Le-Monde Libertaire' ("Libertarian World"). Similarly the longstanding anarchist radio station in Paris is called... Radio Libertaire. The Italian Syndicalist Union (USI) terms itself a "libertarian union". Looking up the word "libertario" in an Italian-English dictionary it simply gives: "anarchic(al), anarchist".

anarchism.www7.50megs.com...

It is recognized that there are authoritarian systems and behavior, distinct from libertarian, or non-authoritarian ones. Since capitalism's early beginnings in Europe, and it's authoritarian trend of wage-slavery for the majority of people (working class) by a smaller, elite group (a ruling, or, capitalist class) who own the "means of production": machines, land, factories, there was a liberatory movement in response to capitalism known as "Socialism". In almost every case, the socialist movement has been divided along authoritarian, and libertarian lines. The anarchists on the libertarian side, and the Jacobins, Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, and reformist state-socialists on the authoritarian side. (And liberals more or less split down the middle.)

There was also a movement called "Propaganda by deed", around the late 1800's to early 1900's, in which some anarchists (Such as the Italian Anarchist Luigi Galleani (1861-1931)), believed that violence was the best strategy for opposing the state. This proved a disaster, alienating anarchists from the general population and exposing them to negative characterizations by the press... the "bomb-toting anarchist" is for the most part a creation of the corporate media- before this stigma anarchism was recognized as an anti-authoritarian socialist movement.

Many anarchist groups and publications used the word "libertarian" instead of "anarchist" to avoid state repression and the negative association of the former term. Libertarian Socialism differentiates itself from "Anarchy" as a movement only in that it specifically focuses on working class organisation and education in order to achieve human emancipation from the fetters of capitalism.

flag.blackened.net...

This is why we have 'Libertarian Socialism', which is another term for Anarchism. Socialism without government or state. You see we can't just have Anarchism with no order, that would be chaos by itself, you have to have some kind of organization in society as we can't survive without cooperating.

"Sebastien Faure, who founded Le Libertaire in 1895, is often credited with having invented the word 'libertarian' as a convenient synonym for 'anarchist.' However, Joseph Dejacque's use of the word as early as 1858 suggests that it may have had a long currency before Faure adopted it."
[George Woodcock, Anarchism, p. 281 (footnote)]

While a number of pro-capitalist "Libertarian" organisations and publications tend to have recently appeared in the United States and a few other countries, these entities serve the interests of small business owners, landlords, investors and some upwardly-mobile professionals. Essentially secular neo-conservative organisations, with strong inspiration from the writings of the ultra-capitalist Ayn Rand, economist Murray Rothbard, and science-fiction writer Robert Heinlein. Typical of these advocates of the sacredcy of private property is a distortion of the theories of the moral individualist philosophers of the 19th century (Benjamin Tucker, Lysander Spooner, Josiah Warren, Henry David Thoreau, etc.) who respected the rights of the individual but were highly critical of the concentrations of wealth and power which led to capitalism and economic oppression since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. Due to the elite privilege for the few over the many inherent in a 'pure' capitalist system, "libertarian" capitalism is un-democratic and anti-libertarian. For more information see the essay "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy", by Peter Sabatini, and a TV interview with Noam Chomsky.

flag.blackened.net...

Edit; speleng mystake...

[edit on 8/31/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Sorry, no such thing as a Socialist Anarchist. THAT is a 5th column movement.

There's a LOT of misrepresentations and confusion in this thread but I'll start with this because it's my interest.

Most people use the term 'Socialism' incorrectly to mean social programs provided by the state. This is not what socialism is, and is not the definition used by Socialists or Anarchists.

Let's start with what the Anarchists have to say, I'll start with Bakunin who is known as the Father of Anarchism...

We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.

uncyclopedia.wikia.com...

Anarchism and socialism have always traditionally gone together.
Anarcho-Syndicalism for example is a way to achieve socialism through worker organization using unions.

The problem is most people do not know what Socialism is. So from an Anarchist website here is how Anarchists define Socialism...

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...

So Socialism is simply the 'workers ownership of the means of production'.

It has nothing to do with PROPERTY RIGHTS. It has nothing to do with taking anyone's property. All it does is take the power from the few capitalists and put it in the hands of the majority, the workers.

The capitalists can keep their property, but given a choice between working at a collective, where the profits made go to you the worker, or for the capitalist, who pays you an hourly wage and takes the profit for themselves, then where would you work?

Private property in this context does not mean your personal property, or any rights you have to do what you want with it. No one is going to stop you trying to use your property to exploit workers, but if the workers new they had a choice and were educated about it then why would they work for you when they can work for themselves?

It needs neither government or state, it only needs worker organization and cooperation for the good of the community as a whole instead of personal financial gain.

A good, and the only, example of Anarchist Socialism in practice was Spain during the revolution when the workers collectivized farms and factories and increased production by 20%.

wiki.infoshop.org...

'Libertarian Socialism' is a well known, and used term, and means the same thing as Anarcho-Socialism. Chomsky is a Lib Soc, go read some of his work if you doubt me.

Chomsky is one of the most well-known figures of the American left. He defines himself in the tradition of anarchism, a political philosophy he summarizes as seeking out all forms of hierarchy and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified. He especially identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism.

www.fact-index.com...

www.chomsky.info...

As far as left and right Anarchism has always traditionally been of the left. Right had always represented authority and it's extreme is fascism. America seem to be the only country confused about this and in your arrogance you can't fathom the rest of the world not seeing it the same way. You've been taught that right wing stands for conservatism and other BS that it really is not.

But that said the left/right thing is meaningless and I personally don't associate with either term as they are not black and white terms. Not all rightists associate with fascism or Hitler, just as not all lefties associate themselves with Stalin or Marx. In my experience left/right is a label someone else sticks on you to stereotype you.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by saabacura]

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Sorry, no such thing as a Socialist Anarchist. THAT is a 5th column movement.

There's a LOT of misrepresentations and confusion in this thread but I'll start with this because it's my interest.

Most people use the term 'Socialism' incorrectly to mean social programs provided by the state. This is not what socialism is, and is not the definition used by Socialists or Anarchists.

Let's start with what the Anarchists have to say, I'll start with Bakunin who is known as the Father of Anarchism...

We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.

uncyclopedia.wikia.com...

Anarchism and socialism have always traditionally gone together.
Anarcho-Syndicalism for example is a way to achieve socialism through worker organization using unions.

The problem is most people do not know what Socialism is. So from an Anarchist website here is how Anarchists define Socialism...

Socialism, in it's traditional and true definition, means "the workers democratic ownership and/or control of the means of production". Such a definition implies that rather than a government bureaucracy for managing such means, there is a focus on highly democratic organisation, education and awareness, and every individual is encouraged to become an active, rather than passive participant in that which effect their lives. Only the workers themselves bear the knowledge of what their own freedom and liberty means, and only they know what is best for themselves, ultimately. Advocates of the state, be they on the left, or the right, have repeatedly defined the meaning of "socialism" to mean arbitrary rule by a set of "leaders", or a political con-game in which socialism is no more than capitalism with a few token adjustments for bearability.

flag.blackened.net...

So Socialism is simply the 'workers ownership of the means of production'.

It has nothing to do with PROPERTY RIGHTS. It has nothing to do with taking anyone's property. All it does is take the power from the few capitalists and put it in the hands of the majority, the workers.

The capitalists can keep their property, but given a choice between working at a collective, where the profits made go to you the worker, or for the capitalist, who pays you an hourly wage and takes the profit for themselves, then where would you work?

Private property in this context does not mean your personal property, or any rights you have to do what you want with it. No one is going to stop you trying to use your property to exploit workers, but if the workers new they had a choice and were educated about it then why would they work for you when they can work for themselves?

It needs neither government or state, it only needs worker organization and cooperation for the good of the community as a whole instead of personal financial gain.

A good, and the only, example of Anarchist Socialism in practice was Spain during the revolution when the workers collectivized farms and factories and increased production by 20%.

wiki.infoshop.org...

'Libertarian Socialism' is a well known, and used term, and means the same thing as Anarcho-Socialism. Chomsky is a Lib Soc, go read some of his work if you doubt me.

Chomsky is one of the most well-known figures of the American left. He defines himself in the tradition of anarchism, a political philosophy he summarizes as seeking out all forms of hierarchy and attempting to eliminate them if they are unjustified. He especially identifies with the labor-oriented anarcho-syndicalist current of anarchism.

www.fact-index.com...

www.chomsky.info...

As far as left and right Anarchism has always traditionally been of the left. Right had always represented authority and it's extreme is fascism. America seem to be the only country confused about this and in your arrogance you can't fathom the rest of the world not seeing it the same way. You've been taught that right wing stands for conservatism and other BS that it really is not.

But that said the left/right thing is meaningless and I personally don't associate with either term as they are not black and white terms. Not all rightists associate with fascism or Hitler, just as not all lefties associate themselves with Stalin or Marx. In my experience left/right is a label someone else sticks on you to stereotype you.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by saabacura]

Originally posted by NichirasuKenshin
The idea that Hitler himself was a Socialist or that he even promoted one true socialist policy that was not a secondary measure to further authoritarian goals is just ludicrous and stands against the whole of the historic record.

I am aware of the fact that Mises, Rothbard and co - together with lesser "thinkers"/schock jocks like Jonah Goldberg have spent their life promoting the Hitler-was-a-socialist meme and that it had some effect in America. In the rest of the world as well as within the professional historic community in the US the idea is not even laughed at because it's so far away from the truth.

Hitler was neither a Socialist nor a Corporatist. History is seldom as black and white. What is true though, and can not be refuted is the fact that Hitler got to power by the backing of the traditional conservative elite, an elite that was very fond of free-market rhetoric prior to the great depression. What is also true is that, except for the nutty public consumption of arms, which is not socialist but rather a conservative perversion of public spending the Nazis did not implement one policy that can be construed as Socialist in the Continental sense.

This is true for the time before they took power as well as the times well after. If you would delve into the subject you would come to understand that using the "Socialist" title was a ploy taken from the German minority in Moravia where Germanic supremacists called themselves National Socialists in order to co-opt the Unions with nationalistic concepts rather than those of class warfare.
It was a simple ploy to gain traction among the working class, a pretty smart one to since the First World War proved that the national community's cohesive appeal was stronger than that of the class communities. Usually you judge a party by the policy it implements, not by the name it choses to give itself - again, in America things tend to be opposite... But not in the rest of the world where there were no Fascist millionaires hell-bent on redefining the political terminologies.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

Like I said before, the definition of fascism is completley wrong. Fascism can be left or right, depending on the dictator. The dictator has the full control to choose how he wants the country to be like.

I see where the arguments come in. If you have an ANARCHY, then there is obviously going to be a complete dictatorship. Think about it, in an anarchy, there is eventually going to be someone who take control of everything and rule like a king, with no respect for other humans. ANARCHY IS A COLD SOCIETY TO BE LIVING IN AS IT TURNS OUT TO BE RULE WITH FORCE. Anarchy is the wild wild west. The strong lives and the weak dies.... THAT IS AN ANARCHY... AND IT IS BAD!

If the extreme right fails due to being monkeys and purely animalistic...Then I would also say that extreme left fails due to HUMANISM and IDEALISM. Extreme "left" world is also no good. A world where everyone is equal..many many laws and regulations...distribution of wealth..an ideal world where "all humans are inherently equal".....But what really happens at the end where politicians forces rules and regulations??? The same thing as an extreme right. A dictatorship.....Which also miserably miserably fails as we know that some humans are inherently better than others, which is a FACT!

!!!!Both extremes of left/right ends up with a dictator/ruler/king!!!!!!


SO WHAT I AM SAYING IS THAT WE LIVE IN A WORLD WHERE BOTH SIDES ARE # AND BEING IN THE MIDDLE IS THE SAFEST PLACE TO BE. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA HAS THE CORRECT BALANCE BETWEEN THESE TO #TY WORLDS.

Get it??

[edit on 3-9-2010 by saabacura]

[edit on 3-9-2010 by saabacura]

SO, what I think all you guys are arguing about... Is the inherently flaws in Humanity.

WHAT IS FASCISM?????

Are the Chinese totalistic or democratic? Are the liberal or conservative? Are they capitalists or communist??????? WHAT ARE THEY????

I DECLARE THAT THE CHINESE ARE FASCISTS!!!!!!

You must realize, Don't read dictionary or the encylopdia on fascism.

I believe that fascism is a LOOSE TERM and can be anything.

Wow, unbelievable what a concentration of misconceptions and lack of knowledge this thread contains. The title itself is a fallacy to start with. Most posters apparently don't have a clue about social and political concepts and history.

I read through the entire thread hoping for some statements that actually make sense. So I thank NoHierarchy, ANOK, NichirasuKenshin and Chevalerous for being almost the only ones who know what they're talking about.


[edit on 3/9/10 by Movhisattva]

Originally posted by saabacura
You must realize, Don't read dictionary or the encylopdia on fascism.

I believe that fascism is a LOOSE TERM and can be anything.

See this is the problem, people thinking that can use terms to mean anything.

We have to have set definitions for terms in order to discuss those terms.

No, fascism is not a loose term that can mean anything, all political and economic terms have set definitions. And a lot of garbage attached to them.

Fascism is a system that is highly authoritative, and uses government state and corporations to control it's people and economy. It is a Darwinist system that believes might is right, and survival of the fittest, and in it's extreme you get the 'weak' put in concentration camps. Mussolini did this but not to the extent of Hitler, for example he didn't care about Jews until Hitler convinced him to hate them.
Hitlers Germany was an extreme version of it. The system of fascism was created by Mussolini in Italy and was soon adopted by Germany, Spain, and a few other European nations in the 1930's.

The 'left' was fighting fascism in Spain right before WWII started. The PTB in Europe wanted fascism, and hated socialism, and allowed Hitler to come to power knowing what he was like. They could have stopped him, but Britain did nothing until he invaded Poland. Britain had to help Poland due to prior agreements. The people were sent to war in the guise of fighting fascism, when in reality the PTB were trying to end the socialist up-rise of the workers across Europe. After WWII fascism was adopted world wide, without the jack-boots and funny mustachios.

Originally posted by saabacura
WHAT IS FASCISM?????

Are the Chinese totalistic or democratic? Are the liberal or conservative? Are they capitalists or communist??????? WHAT ARE THEY????

No they don't vote it is a dictatorship.

Liberal or conservative, I'm sure they are both, as you and everyone else is.

They are capitalist, as in the means of production is privately owned. If they were communist they wouldn't have a dictatorship.

I DECLARE THAT THE CHINESE ARE FASCISTS!!!!!!

They are, and so is most of the rest of the world including the USA.

Politics is a circle, with a line through it, and to the right side, is fascist dictatorships, that is what you have been enduring for years with enormous payments for medical services goign through a rip off artist third party, the social democracy sides have the highest standareds of living in the world such as Norway, awarded that year after year, not for what taxes it pays, but for what their dollars buys after taxes, and their costs of living, food and housing is kept low.

On the left side of the circle under the line, which is a totalitarian line, is communism. All along, when the various governments were graded, the conservative right winged ones were always closer to the line, fascism by world standards, than any of the social democracy parties in the US or Canada, including our NDP party, which is the only one I vote for. But I took political science and this thread is a misconception.

US current leaders is said to be socialistic but he's more right winged and fascist than genghis khan. By the way, Norway does not call itself a social democracy, they equalize men and womens conditions substantially. Norway and Obama are not the same cup of tea, and Norway is the role model for the world.

[edit on 3-9-2010 by Unity_99]

Originally posted by saabacura
Like I said before, the definition of fascism is completley wrong. Fascism can be left or right, depending on the dictator. The dictator has the full control to choose how he wants the country to be like.

Not true.

Political ideology that denies all rights to individuals in their relations with the state; specifically, the totalitarian nationalist movement founded in Italy in 1919 by Mussolini and followed by Hitler's Germany in 1933.

Fascism came about essentially as a result of the economic and political crisis of the years after World War I. Units called fasci di combattimento (combat groups), from the Latin fasces, were originally established to oppose communism. The fascist party, the Partitio Nazionale Fascista, controlled Italy 1922–43. Fascism protected the existing social order by suppressing the working-class movement by force and by providing scapegoats for popular anger such as minority groups: Jews, foreigners, or blacks; it also prepared the citizenry for the economic and psychological mobilization of war.

The term ‘fascism’ is also applied to similar organizations in other countries, such as the Spanish Falange and the British Union of Fascists under Oswald Mosley.

Neo-fascist groups still exist in many Western European countries, in the USA (the Ku Klux Klan and several small armed vigilante groups), France (National Front), Germany (German People's Union), Russia (Pamyat), and elsewhere. Germany experienced an upsurge in neo-fascist activity in 1992 and again in 1998, with rioting in several major cities. The winning of a London local-government seat by the British National Party in 1993 raised fears of the growth of right-wing racism in Britain. In Italy the discrediting of the Christian right-of-centre parties resulted in a triumph for right-wing groups, including the neo-fascist National Alliance, in the 1994 elections. However, by 1998 the National Alliance had adopted a less extremist programme and claimed to be a mainstream conservative party.

encyclopedia.farlex.com...