Socialist or Fascist?

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

Actually the OP is correct in his/her assertion that fascism is a totalitarian left wing movement. The problem with facism and nazism though is that they take nationalism too far and become belligerant to the rest. As a social democrat I have sympathy for fascism but not for nazism.

Er...
Fascism, Nazism, Nationalism are all on the Right. Democratic Socialism, Statist Communism, Neo-Liberalism, Progressive Socialism are all on the Left. All are Authoritarian, I think that is what confuses people.

reply to post by neo96


I've been calling him Fascist for months now, you mistake my argument. My argument is that fascism is on the right not the left.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by EarthCitizen07

 

Actually the OP is correct in his/her assertion that fascism is a totalitarian left wing movement. The problem with facism and nazism though is that they take nationalism too far and become belligerant to the rest. As a social democrat I have sympathy for fascism but not for nazism.

Er...
Fascism, Nazism, Nationalism are all on the Right. Democratic Socialism, Statist Communism, Neo-Liberalism, Progressive Socialism are all on the Left. All are Authoritarian, I think that is what confuses people.

I don't put much stock in that table posted earlier. From my experience both liberals and conservatives are capitalists, progressives are for mixed economy socialism and revolutionaries are for full socialism aka communism.

Fascists and nazis are right wing socialists, which means they take the benefits of socialism and combine it with nationalism. You can certainly be right wing in some aspects and left wing in other aspects and that is what nazism and fascism show. Similarly libertarians are fiscal conservatives and social liberals.........

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by neo96

 

I've been calling him Fascist for months now, you mistake my argument. My argument is that fascism is on the right not the left.

BS!! If obama was either a nazi or fascist he would have 1)raised tariffs on imports a great deal and 2)stopped the influx of illegal hispanics crossing into america. He did neither! He is a global capitalist puppet of the bilderbergers.

Also, in August 2010 former Cuban president Fidel Castro wrote an article for the Cuban Communist Party newspaper Granma in which he cited Daniel Estulin’s 2006 book The Secrets of the Bilderberg Club,[40] which, as quoted by Castro, describes "sinister cliques and the Bilderberg lobbyists" manipulating the public "to install a world government that knows no borders and is not accountable to anyone but its own self."[35]

Castro is no stupid person. Link= en.wikipedia.org...

The whole argument is pointless.
A system that is centered on the state and suppresses the individual. That is based around privileged elites and uses violence to enforce their will.
Who cares if the elites claim to represent "the People" or if they are aligned with corporate interests and are a bit more honest about it?
Text book definitions are for school children.
Most fascist regimes have used socialist programs as part of their means of control and most "socialist" countries (esp the ones in Europe) are dominated by corporations and elites, thereby making them much more fascist in nature.
The argument presented is one for scholars who know absolutely nothing of practical reality.

The real conflict is between the free individual and the society that wants to control him, usually by claiming that it is "protecting" him when it is, in fact, abusing him.

Obama uses socialist programs and rhetoric to woo mindless sheep into buying his totalitarian crap as he is clearly supported by fascist forces. Why else would a media completely owned and operated by megacorporations have ensured his election?

Pure Socialism, if it were possible, is far more disgusting than fascism. I'd rather be a suppressed individual than a homogeneous worker bee, "equal" and the same as everyone else. Thankfully, human biological nature precludes it from happening. Like all primates, hierarchy is genetically inherent to our insignificant and short lived species.
It doesnt mean that we can't organize small, decentralized communities where natural leaders emerge and freedom could be maximized.

These definitions are always so confusing to people.

I say stop thinking of these thing in terms of socialism, communism, fascism, so on and so forth since there are too many to enumerate.

I strongly urge all of you to look at it in terms of Totalitarianism and Anarchy. Left would be Anarchy and right would be Totalitarianism. None of this will make sense til you do.

Freedom which is the absence of control moves in the direction of Anarchy (dont go too far!). Your controlling systems which organize people based on a commonality of purpose (fascism, socialism, communism) move in the direction of Totalitarianism.

Given this model what direction is Obama traveling? Well....to the right of course and to what is waiting there. So I say he can be Fascist and/or Socialist

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Well here this is my own definition of fascism:

Government knows best and the people don't have a say in the matter.

Still fits Obama and the left to a T.

Until you actually bother to look up who's the biggest government spender, democrats or the GOP. If you do that, you realize that the GOP actually spends more while pretending they are for "smaller government".

They aren't for smaller government because that would prevent them from paying off the defence lobby and oil lobby