Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

Things that make you go hmmmm.

a reply to: neo96

One more for the road:



Ok two.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: neo96

One more for the road:

LOL sounds like Far Right Conservatives in their cheap suits.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

Sounded like Hope and Change to me.

And Yes We Can.

originally posted by: raymundoko
How many people did Castro kill for the common good of cuba? Just because something wasn't actually for the common good doesn't mean they didn't think it was at the time.

But if it wasn't actually for the common good then why post that definition and say "see it fits".

a reply to: DJW001

Socialism and communism does profess to be for the common good. That's what it's all about, the people have to sacrifice for the good of the collective. It doesn't mean what they are doing is right or even really good. They put people in gulags for the common good too. Socialism, fascism, and communism are all left wing ideologies cut from the same cloth as Antony Sutton told us. www.prisonplanet.com...

a reply to: daskakik

Surely you can't be missing the point? The running theme all these authoritarian/socialist governments had is that they THOUGHT what they were doing was for the common good of the people. That's why those forms of government never work. They devolve into tyranny.

You can look backwards in time and realize their folly, but that doesn't change the reason they used to justify their actions.

a reply to: raymundoko

What are you talking about.... communism is as authoritarian as it gets. You know all that throwing people in the gulags if they don't agree with the State's ideas of the common good. Its just that the Hitler brand of socialism included some cronyism with corporations. Why? Probably because everyone knows socialism works until you run out of other people's money.
I wish people here would read Jonah Goldberg's book "Liberal Fascism". It would help in understanding the background of the Progressive movement.

a reply to: raymundoko

Surely you can't be missing the point? The running theme all these authoritarian/socialist governments had is that they THOUGHT what they were doing was for the common good of the people. That's why those forms of government never work.

I think it is you that who are missing the point. How can their action be considered a left wing action?

originally posted by: raymundoko
Surely you can't be missing the point? The running theme all these authoritarian/socialist governments had is that they THOUGHT what they were doing was for the common good of the people. That's why those forms of government never work. They devolve into tyranny.

You can look backwards in time and realize their folly, but that doesn't change the reason they used to justify their actions.

No, they may have sold it like that to the people but, it was never really about that.

Leaders like hitler and stalin, who got rid of the opposition were aware that they never had the common good of the people in mind.

So, pulling out the ideal of the -ism and comparing it to the propaganda of the time and saying that they sound the same so the ensuing government is an example of that type of government might be a bit off the mark.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Communism is predominantly authoritarian yes, but it doesn't have to be. Just ask ghandi. It's predominantly authoritarian because tyrants use the social structure of communism/socialism to control the populace. How are so many people on a conspiracy site ignorant of types of government? I'm shocked by the ignorance in this thread.

a reply to: daskakik

You don't even see your flawed reasoning...

You are using hindsight to determine your view. The government of Russia and Germany both legitimately thought they had the best interest of their citizens in mind. You've obviously not researched either situation. Several people who knew hitler attested to his feverish want of the German people to prosper. He just had a warped idea of how to get their. He was a socialist on the political spectrum as well as an authoritarian.

It's obvious when people are lying to themselves. Don't be upset these people used the guise of socialism/communism to be evil. I'm sure it will turn out better the next time around...

a reply to: intrptr

Please don't confuse a banana republic with a real republic. The USSR was the dictatorship of the proletariat under an authoritarian regime which conveniently left out the bourgeoisie. Lenin and Marx both said the communist revolution would be of course.

a reply to: raymundoko

Are you calling me ignorant? Fascism isn't really right wing...it just isn't. But far left communism has as its goal to eliminate capitalism and the bourgeoisie class of merchants. Socialism is an intermediary, and both lenin and Marx said it. Yes I will agree that communism doesn't "have to be authoritarian" but it is collectivism, and the communist leaders knew that they would have to have a dictatorship to make their classless revolution take place.
But again if you read what I posted about Antony Sutton you would indeed know I am not the ignorant one here.

originally posted by: raymundoko
You are using hindsight to determine your view. The government of Russia and Germany both legitimately thought they had the best interest of their citizens in mind.

Did their leaders have the best interest of the citizens in mind or is that just what they said in public?

It's obvious when people are lying to themselves. Don't be upset these people used the guise of socialism/communism to be evil. I'm sure it will turn out better the next time around...

You must think that I am proponent of either of those. I am not.

a reply to: daskakik

Raymundo is correct. It doesn't matter whether something turns out to be good for the common good, whether the leaders pushing it really believe it or are lying to the public, what matters is the State is Supreme and individual liberty is sacrificed for the collective. Sutton explained that in his writing. Incidentally Sutton said that John Dewey the father of modern education system believed the State was Supreme and that people exist for the State. That is collectivism. But note both D and R are on board with this type of education and both support Common Core.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus
It doesn't matter whether something turns out to be good for the common good, whether the leaders pushing it really believe it or are lying to the public

It matters if you want to hold it up as an example of something.

You just said "Please don't confuse a banana republic with a real republic." so, when there is a difference, you think it deserves to be pointed out.

a reply to: daskakik

They had the best interest of the citizens they think mattered in mind. Hence the issue with allowing the government to decide what's best for you...

originally posted by: raymundoko
And the man in charge thought he was doing the common good of germany. To deny that means you are lying to yourself. That's the problem with the common good rulership. Who decides what qualifies as the common good?

Nobody really knew what Hitler thought he was doing.

He would profess to do something one moment, then do the opposite the next. He called his own autobiography a fantasy written from behind bars.

Also in Mein Kampf (1925/1926), he called the 25 points "the so-called program of the movement." That is, of course, after he publicly announced it in 1920.

Hmm... perhaps you should read a contemporary account of the man:

From this source spring his rabid nationalism, his violent opposition to Socialism and Communism, his undisguised hatred of the Jews; even his distrust of democratic government and parliamentary institutions is based upon his tribal sense of leadership.
-Nicolas Fairweather, April 1932

Of course, you will also see in this article that he speaks of the common good, again. The common Aryan good, rather. Jewish Germans were to be removed, as were blacks, gays, disabled, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Roma. Almost anyone in a leadership position who wasn't a card-carrying Nazi was targeted for removal (the degree to which varied) - not just government officials but also pastors and union leaders.

The invocation of the common good traces back to Utilitarianism; such sentiment is not solely on the left.
"Now let us work toward the goal of using the assets of this continent, its resources, technology and foodstuffs in the most efficient ways possible for the common good of all its people." - Reagan, 1979
"I ask you to seek a common good beyond your comfort; to defend needed reforms against easy attacks; to serve your nation, beginning with your neighbor. " - GWB, 2001

originally posted by: raymundoko
They had the best interest of the citizens they think mattered in mind.

Is that what common good means?

What about the other citizens?

All I'm saying is that if the actions don't fit the definition of the -ism then you can't use it as an example of that same -ism.