Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

WASHINGTON – President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) into law today. The statute contains a sweeping worldwide indefinite detention provision.

www.aclu.org...

Anyone interested in TRUTH ?

ANYONE ?

After some sleep, a shower and good food.

Here I am again.

MysticMushroom. You sir are friended. Thank you for keeping civility high.

BuzzyWiggs I do enjoy your energy and enthusiasm, but honestly just recognize when energy is better spent elsewhere.
Introvert. Jumping of seems to have been the right call.

Neo96: Maybe the sobering truth is that it just is not possible to blame one group under one name for everything wrong.
I sense that you have peoples best interest at heart, I respect that. Maybe we should shift the narrative from what has happened in the past and who is the good guy towards.... what is legislation that could actually be considered beneficial to us.... be it right or left. socialism or conservative.

To the OP. I get the sense that you have been hurt by left socialism. Real or perceived. There was this socialist left group here in my country who wanted to gentrify a neighborhood with stuff that was not really helping anybody. It was just a prestige project. They were terrible in their practices and even though one of my friends fought them tooth and nail.... they eventually succeeded by some heavy handed cut throat practices....... Socialists.....

Moral of the story. Although we would all like to blame a whole movement of political thought and economics by the actions of a few. It are these few people that actually break the proverbial fine china. So in the end we will have to examine everything case by case no matter the name they might give themselves.

Xuechen. I get a sense that you are like Mr Smith in the matrix. Here to unbalance things. The intellectual superiority that is oozing from your posts is also unmistakable. I do not like calling people names and such, but in comparison to those who seem to be passionate about their beliefs you seem to be a lot more calculating in your approach. Short bursts, not really showing yourself, just pushing an agenda. I hope I am mistaken, and if I am my apologies. I just tell you what I am seeing.

All sources can be biased. Only fact can be trusted, and only if all the facts are on the table. Please tel me what you think is a good political doctrine to follow, and if you dislike socialism, what you exactly disprove of. Neither Socialism nor Capitalism has at its core violence. Sadly mistakes are made on all sides and violence ensues.... As has been said Fascism is something beyond classical interpretations of the political spectrum.

General

Democratic Socialism reigns in my country the Netherlands. We have strict gun laws, universal health care, mandatory car insurance.... social security, labor unions...... you name it..... Ofcourse capitalism is also well represented if not more so. We are a hybrid. A welfare state built on the back of a trade empire. We would not call ourselves fascists. We differ from Hitler in that the system is in place to actually help the people, and no group is specifically targeted to be marginalized in that system. Does not mean it does not happen, but its not build to support that kind of action. Things are good.

Kind Regards

I think Fascism can rise from any form of government, right, centre or left. It's a mindset that likes getting rid of problems the 'old fashioned way'. For instance, the Ottoman's didn't like Armenians, so they created the means to get them to die or move away. It was the same with Ukrainians and, in a lot of ways, how the English got rid of the Irish farmers to use the land for sheep. Then there's the manner in which Native American's were herded and harassed ever since the Spanish and Puritans landed. Lot's of different governments acting out fantasies.

Fascism, in my mind, is related to destroying competing cultures. It just got a proper name in the 1930's because it threatened the entire world.

a reply to: neo96

Both of you.

What does talking about laws and acts passed here or talking about what Obama did prove?

They don't alter the definition of fascism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I know. I keep clicking on the thread to read the new responses. It's been very entertaining.


ETA: I predict my words here will be twisted by a certain conservative or two to make it look like I'm agreeing with them.

As entertaining and shocking as watching you agree to an ATS member claiming that "white Christians have murdered hundreds of thousands of people, and Islamic extremists only murdered 45 in the last decade?... At least i posted evidence meanwhile those who keep claiming Hitler wasn't left wing just make claims.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The argument was the right can only be fascist.

I countered the LEFT is just as fascist.

What the right is accused of doing the LEFT has done in spades, MORE SO.

Only they never call it 'fascist'.

They call it 'democracy'.

a reply to: masqua

Simple, elegant, many references... thank you.

PS. Nice paintings like some more than others, but overall. Nice
PPS. you must get this a lot, but your stats are akin to being a Super Sayan God....... incredible.

Kind Regards

a reply to: neo96

You're talking about people on the left that act in contraction to the progressive ideals.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I have tried to explain this to you before: Fascism is a distinct form of government with a clearly articulated philosophy. It is similar to Communism only in so far as it relies on authoritarianism. In most other respects it is quite different. Fascism is nationalistic (a characteristic of the Right) Communism is internationalist (a characteristic of the Left). Fascism respects capital and devalues labor (a characteristic of the Right) Communism does not respect capital and fetishizes labor (a characteristic of the Left). Socialism is too varied to be characterized in a few strokes, but it does not necessarily rely on authoritarianism. Some of the most democratic countries in Europe can be described as socialist.

You might want to review this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: ~Lucidity

LOL... You actually think that trade union under socialist and communist dictatorships fare any better?...

Notice how your link only mentions "and the trace that became loyal to him"... Of course they do not tell you the fact that the trade unions that existed as Hitler was gaining power were being controlled by communists, and socialists who had other ideas. What you, and your link fail to point out is that Hitler created The German Labour Front. HItler created that trade union to take the power away from his adversaries...

If you were to actually look at the history of trade unions in socialist and communist dictatorships, either those in power were already in total control of the trade unions, or they took control one way or another... That's what Hitler did.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Of course authoritarian governments subvert labor unions. Labor unions can organize opposition to the State. The Communists also deliberately corrupted unions in the United States and Europe because they were afraid that gains for workers won by the unions would forestall the revolution! By the way, did you have a point?

a reply to: DJW001

Communism is internationalist?... Is that why Stalin favored "socialism in one country"?...

...
It was during this International that Joseph Stalin broke away from the idea of worldwide proletariat revolt that had dominated Marxist thought and introduced the concept of ‘socialism in one country.’
‘Socialism in one country’ was the Stalinist idea that communism could be achieved, not with worldwide rebellion, but with the revolution and the construction of a socialist state within one nation.
Leon Trotsky, a loyal revolutionary Marxist, was vehemently against this idea and argued in The Third International after Lenin:

Marxism has always taught the workers that even their struggle for higher wages and shorter hours cannot be successful unless waged as an international struggle... The theory of the possibility of realizing socialism in one country destroys the inner connection between the patriotism of the victorious proletariat and the defeatism ofthe proletariat of the bourgeois countries... It is not yet too late to return to the path of Marx and Lenin. It is this return that opens up the only conceivable road to progress.
...

www.fau.edu...

I guess Stalin must have been a right winger as well...

originally posted by: DJW001

Of course authoritarian governments subvert labor unions. Labor unions can organize opposition to the State. The Communists also deliberately corrupted unions in the United States and Europe because they were afraid that gains for workers won by the unions would forestall the revolution! By the way, did you have a point?

When the state is a socialist or communist dictatorship, it is the state that controls the union, not the worker...

For example, in nations like Cuba, it is illegal for any workers to form a protest, unless it is a state sponsored protest, controlled by the state. You actually think it was any different in the Soviet Union? or Under Mao or other socialist/communist dictatorships?...

There are always many different factions of socialists trying to wrestle control of trade unions as a nation is still changing from capitalist to fully socialist, or communist. Once a nation has become a socialist or communist dictatorship, the state is in total control, or takes steps to take total control of trade unions.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

I guess Stalin must have been a right winger as well...

Now you're catching on. Stalin was a right winger, that's why Trotsky opposed him. Eventually Stalin was denounced (after his death) and the Cult of Personality (characteristic of Fascism) was banished from the Soviet Union by Krushchev.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

When the state is a socialist or communist dictatorship, it is the state that controls the union, not the worker.

That is what I said; they subvert them.

originally posted by: amazing
So there's this... "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of State and corporate power." Benito Mussolini, Fascist dictator of Italy.

What does this mean for our topic? We know that when corporations have too much power, like in the USA right now, we have rampant government corruption, less rights and freedom for the common man, laws that favor big corporations over poor people and a political system where money is king.

The question is, who is more likely to cater to big corporations...democrats or republicans? It would seem that, recently...with big oil money and Haliburton and big pharma companies that don't want ObamaCare (not because they think it hurts our freedoms but because they might lose money) and big industrial/military corporations and a few other things...it just appears that republicans want more power with corporations and are more in favor of Fascism or Corporatism.

Who can stop it? Paul maybe...Trump? He's the poster child of rich corporate overlord...Sanders...at least his socialism would swing us back to normal maybe.

I could be wrong...thoughts?

It makes me feel ill that people feel that that is acceptable.

a reply to: dukeofjive696969

ElectricUniverse has put his case forward, I would interested to understand a substantiated reason as to why you oppose his views?

a reply to: xuenchen

I like how if you do the maths for both the anarchies they come out at zero.

My new house guest is an actual anarchist, and most of the things he says is about communal cooperation and everyone working together so we all can contribute and partake of all our efforts together.

It is a poetic ideal, and one I think most humans would ind hard to cope with,