Fascism is Not Right Wing, it is socialist.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

You should read your own link...Tom doesn't differentiate between an economic line and a social one. Your link is just as uninformed as EU is. He doesn't seem to understand that a country can be both socialist and authoritarian. He even says:

In fact, socialism has never been tried at the national level anywhere in the world

Which is an idiotic statement.

But that should be assumed since you linked to a blog by a high school dropout who is angry he hasn't gotten his bitcoin depost...

Granted, Hitler was no socialist, he just used socialist economic policies because it helped him control his country easier.

I actually thought this after watching WWII in color the other day. Researching true fascism and the national socialist party, showed the many very similar goals of both and the current progressive/democrat/socialist party of today.

originally posted by: avgguy
I actually thought this after watching WWII in color the other day. Researching true fascism and the national socialist party, showed the many very similar goals of both and the current progressive/democrat/socialist party of today.

Could you be more specific? This thread has gone on for 37 pages already and it would be nice if someone said something specific.

a reply to: DJW001

If you read between the lines you will see that it is just another example of americentrism.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: DJW001

If you read between the lines you will see that it is just another example of americentrism.

You mean yet another "Obama is worse than Hitler" meme? On ATS? Never.

a reply to: DJW001

Not just Obama but the whole "progressive/democrat/socialist party"

a reply to: avgguy

Are you suggesting the Democratic Government of the USA is even close to what NAZI Germany was? Do you know how far we would have to shift to get there? We are orders of magnitude separated.

originally posted by: GamleGamle

personally believe that what socialism actually is... is still changing in the eyes of the people. Academically it may have been set, but it is still an ongoing sociology /economic / political theory that is still very much in a trial and error phase.
I think we are arriving at a point where a Democratic Socialistic Capitalism is the preferred form of governance for now. It will try to strike a balance by moving away from the pre-planned economics of communism and to an extent socialism, by leaving free market workings in place for the most part. At the same time trying to manage Greed, Exploitation and Corruption of the kind that Capitalism more often than not has in its wake, by outlining and enforcing a stricter code of conduct geared to the needs of the community.
...

Still changing huh? So the millions of people who have been murdered and/or incarcerated by socialism, and socialist doctrine is just what? collateral damage?

A "Democratic Socialistic Capitalism" is an oxymoron. In socialism the individual cannot own the means of production. That leaves out the ability of any person, and in general all people from pursuing a capitalistic endeavor. This clearly makes socialism anti-capitalist.

In the name of "stopping rich people from becoming richer" this ideology also stops normal people from having a better life for themselves and their families.

Socialism and Capitalism cannot be together. Sooner or later one of the systems will rule over the other. Socialism is both, a political and economic model. Capitalism is an economic model which allows for the people to choose a political system as long as it is not socialistic. Socialism seeks to replace capitalism, and slowly but surely more and more "socialist policies" undermine capitalism until it disappears completely.

Granted, capitalism also has problems, but if you look at the history of the major corporations in the world, they reached that status by "government interventionism", or "regulating the markets". When the governments decide to support one business over others it is "regulating capitalism", hence giving a business hegemony and monopoly over a certain industry. This is a "socialist policy" and not a capitalist one.

We have reached the state we are in because governments intervene/d with the markets, and showing favoritism towards a business allowing them to become large corporations.

In a free market it is the people, and not the government, who decide what business to favor.

a reply to: avgguy

Social Democracy was the flavor of the day in Germany, and the German people had a "progressive mind" which allowed Hitler to gain the power he had. Hitler turned Germany's youth against their parents, and German children even reported to the NAZIs if their parents made comments against National Socialism (NAZISM) and/or Hitler and his socialist policies. Still, a large majority of Germans were in favor of all of this, "because it was for the good of the majority and the nation".

Setting aside the Stalinism, NWO agenda of today.

I'm going to say what I've always said in the past.

Social democracy is the only real form of democracy or equality/freedom that exists as it takes into account women's needs for substantive equality. At age 20, 52% are female, so anything that isn't balanced and fair to all people and not just the single young buck that can walk over all the rest, is not only fascist extremism, but its also pure misogyny!

I'll give an example of substantive: a married couple divorce. She is the primary caretaker of their 3 children. He goes to university and uses the 80 000 cap to become a lawyer. His living needs are small and he camps out in a basement somewhere. He wins! Economically. She gets a huge 80 000 cap on only a few years of college, and works for a lower wage though still endebted, with huge expenses.

Substantive equality would rectify that.

And by the way, recitifying that is social democracy.

It has nothing to do with limiting your right of speech, freedom to move where you please, use of land or resources, though we need to have homes for all.

Social democracy doesn't stop common sense or having opinions on different subjects at different times, its basically wedding Father's energy, with Mother's.

And making a decent world.

Misogyny isn't democracy and that is what far right fasicst type things are all about.

Hitler's social democracy was just a trap, it was fake.

The NWO order stuff is all fake.

Its not real.

Real is about people and counsils of citizens and right to fire what you hire and elect.

It is something that empowers the people.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Those millions were not murdered for socialist doctrine. They were murdered for Authoritarian Doctrine. Again, socialism is economics. The authoritarian regimes you are referencing also happened to be socialist and even communist.

a reply to: Unity_99

You really thing a college graduate who is female makes less money than her male counterpart? That is not correct and you have been fooled.

Source

Women who are NOT parents make the same as men in equal jobs.

In a nutshell, the gender pay gap is really the effect upon the overall averages of two effects. Mothers earn less than non-mothers, fathers earn more than non-fathers. And yes, mothers and fathers are a majority and so the effect is large enough to sway that national average. And while the effect is not entirely symmetric it is reasonably so. We talk of the overall gender pay gap as being around 20% or so, and we see that fathers outearn non-fathers by 8%: that’s a significant portion of that gap right there.

Our conclusion thus has to be that the gender pay gap that we’re seeing isn’t a result of societal discrimination against women (nor of such discrimination in favor of fathers, something that no one at all is complaining it is) but instead a result of the choices that people make about how the kids are going to be cared for and who does it.

But hey, that's off topic and for another thread.That article proves exactly what you are complaining about. Discrimination is not why women make less, it is child rearing as women still tend to take on the primary role of caring for children. Form of government has nothing to do with it.

Is Hitler still President? I thought he died.

originally posted by: raymundoko
Those millions were not murdered for socialist doctrine. They were murdered for Authoritarian Doctrine. Again, socialism is economics. The authoritarian regimes you are referencing also happened to be socialist and even communist.

Again wrong...

Socialism is a political ideology and movement which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production.
...

en.wikipedia.org...

That comes from the very left-wing source wikipedia.

It's amazing that to this day so many people still don't know that socialism is a political ideology mainly, not just an economic one.

Any model that seeks to implement social reform is a political model, not just, or mainly an economic one.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
It's amazing that to this day so many people still don't know that socialism is a political ideology mainly, not just an economic one.

Any model that seeks to implement social reform is a political model, not just, or mainly an economic one.

Your comment makes no sense. Of course people realise that socialism is a political ideology.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

A political ideology based on ECONOMICS, just as Authoritarianism is a political ideology based on SOCIAL STRUCTURE. They can and do overlap, but they don't have to.