Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

a reply to: daskakik

The presumably Nationale, presumably Soziale, presumably Arbeiter ... Partei (pre-effin-sumably)?

The scientific underpinning of cost-benefit analyses to political medical care was provided by the new fields of genetics and eugenics.

fee.org...

Nuff said, somebody just 'kinda underpinned' more BS with Mengeles BS and dared to call his eugenic BS science. Halleluja!

originally posted by: daskakik

The same strawman that you always parade around.

So now it is a strawman to try to get the topic back to what this thread is all about?... Humm, I wonder who using strawman rhetoric, and trying to change subjects?... I guess the truth is too hard to bear for the far left wingers...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
You define right and left with definitions that can only be construed to be from an American perspective. Objecting to that is rather silly.

You might recall I noted to xuenchen that Nazis spearheaded privatization. What wing do you reckon that is?

originally posted by: Greven
a reply to: ElectricUniverse
You define right and left with definitions that can only be construed to be from an American perspective. Objecting to that is rather silly.

You might recall I noted to xuenchen that Nazis spearheaded privatization. What wing do you reckon that is?

Only within and approved by "Zee Partii"

Just like da CCCP

a reply to: xuenchen

You still haven't gotten back to us about how the percentages were formulated regarding the 10 Planks scoring.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Left wing = a bigger government, state control over means of production, in general higher taxes, state control/heavy regulations on businesses, state control on healthcare, state control on everything for the common good and more government spending, mostly in favor of state control of firearms...

Right wing = smaller government, lower taxes, less regulations/less state control on businesses, reduced government spending, oppose state control on healthcare, oppose state control on firearms, oppose state control for the good of all"...

Not interested in more of your straw-men, red herrings or appeals to the dictionary ... state a rational, reasonable, accepted source of information that corroborates these statements.

Why does he need a source for this
He seriously, honestly, factually, and logically just stated the the difference between the two. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that you get to dismiss it.
State your sources for this please.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
So now it is a strawman to try to get the topic back to what this thread is all about?... Humm, I wonder who using strawman rhetoric, and trying to change subjects?... I guess the truth is too hard to bear for the far left wingers...

I'm not a left winger so you can save that.

The difference exists. Pointing out that americans seem to have their own "definitions" of left and right and how that seems to throw a wrench into a conversation when people from other places take part, is not off topic. It is pertinent to the discussion.

originally posted by: Greven
You define right and left with definitions that can only be construed to be from an American perspective. Objecting to that is rather silly.

...
Conservatism (or conservativism) is any political philosophy that favours tradition (in the sense of various religious, cultural, or nationally-defined beliefs and customs) in the face of external forces for change, and is critical of proposals for radical social change. Some Conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time.
...

www.philosophybasics.com...

It seems that the definition should be the same, or very similar all around, and not just in the U.S.

originally posted by: Greven
You might recall I noted to xuenchen that Nazis spearheaded privatization. What wing do you reckon that is?

You might recall that i pointed out, that link you gave clearly stated this "privatization" wasn't ideologically driven, but because of financial restrictions, which you conveniently left out...

...
Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many
recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation.
...

From your link...
www.ub.edu...

You also conveniently left out that Hitler still controlled those "private businesses", and if he saw that they were not doing what he said they should do, those "business people" would soon find themselves without a business, and either dead, or imprisoned.

Not to mention that "private business" could never belong to any Jewish person, or any other minority, or anyone who was not a "National Socialist".

originally posted by: daskakik
I'm not a left winger so you can save that.

The difference exists. Pointing out that americans seem to have their own "definitions" of left and right and how that seems to throw a wrench into a conversation when people from other places take part, is not off topic. It is pertinent to the discussion.

So do tell me, since when nationalization mean right-wing anywhere in the planet?...

Since when does communalization of large stores mean right-wing anywhere in the planet?...

Since when environmental extremism means right-wing anywhere in the planet?...

Since when does the common good before individual good mean right-wing anywhere in the planet?...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You don't want to see where it meant just that then, you are just caught up in some cognitive dissonance.

Everythig else is just lip service from the usual suspects.

Why buy that?

The nationalised Chilean mines were kept under state control after Pinochet's 1973 Chilean coup d'état, despite the junta's pro-U.S. leanings

Business as usual.

a reply to: daskakik

Did you forget that the "nationalization" was finalized by Salvador Allende? a socialist... Not to mention that the Chilean President/dictator, Ibañez, who started it all was a leftist as well even though he ran as "independent". His closest adviser was José Santos Salas, another leftist...

Once the power is given to the state, you actually thought those who control/get control of the state, no-matter the party, were going to give up such power?..

What do you think it means when the state owns the means of production? It is a form of "privatization for the good of all". What about "co-ops"? It can be described as another form of "privatization". Even under socialism "nationalization" means "the state privatizes the means of production to be owned by the state", even when it is claimed to be owned by the people. But the first tenet of socialism is that the individual cannot own the means of production, hence the people (formed of individuals) cannot own the means of production. Hence it rests on the state to own and control, and do with it whatever those in control of the "state" think it's the best use for it...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You keep pointing out that the full name of the Nazis was National Socialist. You keep ignoring anyone who points out the reasons for that, and the fact that the Nazis were not socialists. They imprisoned socialists in fact and sent them to concentration camps. I think that you still fail to understand the basics of Hitler's political philosophy, or what passed for one. the fact that people keep pointing this out to you is... telling.

Fascism isn't Socialism. Fascism is Fascism and Socialism is Socialism. Period.

Fascism can come from either the Right or Left using the same principles found on both sides by corrupting those principles by reversing them with their extreme opposites.

That is because those principles found on both sides are "Social/Cultural" and "Economic". Those are the legs that both Right and Left stand on and it's those principles which are corrupted in order to turn a functioning Right or Functioning Left system of Government in to a Fascist one.

On the Left you have those principles set up as Individualistic on the Social/Cultural and Communal on the Economic.
On the Right you have those principles set up as Individualistic on Economic and Communal on the Social/Cultural.

So to turn either of those Right/Left systems into a Fascist system you push one or the other into the extreme politically using the extreme of the other.

The Left Radicalizes the Social/Cultural Individuals into a collective which supports the use of it's Communal Economic control against the people. Making a Socialized Government for the People into a Government against the People with Economic Power aligned with the Social/Cultural Power.

The Right Radicalizes the Economic Individuals into a collective which supports the use of it's Communal Social/Cultural control against the people. Making an Economic Government for the People into a Government against it's People with Social/Cultural Power aligned with it's Economic Power.

The resulting alignment is always the same. All power goes to a centralized control. The difference is which leg is made to be instep with the other. The end result is always Fascism.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Those are left on an economic scale. You are being intentionally obtuse.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Saying they imprisoned socialists means they aren't socialist is a logical fallacy and has been utterly debunked. They imprisoned EVERYONE who disagreed with them. They still had a a large amount of socialist economic policies governed by a far right authoritarian regime. There are many firms of socialism.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Did you forget that the "nationalization" was finalized by Salvador Allende? a socialist...

Sure but the right wing guy didn't undo it so, what is the point of "being" right-wing?

Once the power is given to the state, you actually thought those who control/get control of the state, no-matter the party, were going to give up such power?..

That's exactly the point. Which means that you pointing out that a group "called" themselves socialist or communist is meaningless when they ended up acting like capitalists.

What do you think it means ...

It's all just rhetoric just like the right-wing=freedom rhetoric.

Nazi Germany in no way shape or form acted like capitalists.

a reply to: daskakik

originally posted by: raymundoko
Nazi Germany in no way shape or form acted like capitalists.

According to who's definition?

Crony capitalism is still capitalism. Actually, I don't think you can get the crony out of capitalism.

Jeez, are people still arguing this? It's incredibly basic.

Right and left wing are opposites on the x axis
authoritarian and libertarian are opposites on the y axis.

If you go far enough down the y axis you have fascism regardless of whether it's right or left wing.

originally posted by: MagnaCarta2015
Jeez, are people still arguing this? It's incredibly basic.

So, you think saying it again is going to make them accept it?