Fascism IS a leftist ideology!

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

try tracking down and verifying those hundreds of sources 😃

Why?

I did pick a few random links from the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Every single one of them that I followed linked to a relevant article and was from a highly credentialed and undisputed source.

Please post the specific links from that article, that you think are representative of what you talking about.

Sure ya did 😃

I know you just forgot to post them with all the pertinent info😃

I'm sure anyone could pick a few links at random and get the same result. I am fairly confident of the fact.

You, however, have not come up with even a single specific link, as an example. I will, however, wait...

a reply to: daskakik

So comunism and socialism dont count as authoritarian leftist isms either. Are they to be put on the right side of the political spectrum then?

a reply to: chr0naut

"Unreasonableness"?

So because I want lower taxes, to bring the troops home, to enter into treaties where all partners are equals and I'm not the elephant pulling them along or the piggy bank, because I want reasonable immigration policy and restrictions and enforcement (like every other nation including your own, I might add - where you only take exactly whom you need), I like the premise of individuals judged on personal merit (not Critical Race Theory which belongs alongside Social Darwinism), I think there are two biological sexes with verifiable physical differences that medical science cannot erase or "fix" to suit one's mental preference, abortion at best has very narrow medical utility and is not to be used to erase life mistakes (not birth control), people should be held responsible for their own choices in life, etc.

Those are all unreasonable?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

try tracking down and verifying those hundreds of sources 😃

Why?

I did pick a few random links from the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Every single one of them that I followed linked to a relevant article and was from a highly credentialed and undisputed source.

Please post the specific links from that article, that you think are representative of what you talking about.

Sure ya did 😃

I know you just forgot to post them with all the pertinent info😃

I'm sure anyone could pick a few links at random and get the same result. I am fairly confident of the fact.

You, however, have not come up with even a single specific link, as an example. I will, however, wait...

The links from your wiki are all dead ends 🎃

a reply to: daskakik

Not to put too fine a point on it, but, there IS a left and a right, and while some views may be skewed, others may be spot on. No matter how you slice it conservative has always been in favor of less government, less tyrant if you will whether the tyrant be one man or a group acting as one. IMO the only truly skewed view is the left believing things like socialism is good despite dozens of modern current examples of how bad it really is.

When threatened with the loss of outright absolute power the left immediately respond by running the fascist playbook page by page. Label the opposition violent desperate lunatics, silence them anywhere you can, use every government agency at your disposal to hurt or discredit them, all while bleeding the nation dry with policies designed to enrich the elite and impoverish the rest while blaming it all on the desperate violent right.

And no, you cant say the same about Trump. Everyone benefited in the last four years. Some more than others but that has always been the case. But the lower and middle class truly did enjoy growth in opportunity and finance. Until the antifa blm left got to burning everything down that is. Then, thanks to the violent desperate left, the lower and middles classes suffered once again.

But yeah, the right are the tyrants...

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Breakthestreak
To even attempt to say that the left is NOT embracing fascism is a lie. They most definitely are.

“Think how WE think, or we’ll attack you”
“Everyone who isn’t US is the enemy”

Just that, authoritarianism, isn't what makes fascism, fascism. It is authoritarianism with a conservative/traditional slant.

In formulating this reply I realized that there isn't an -ism for authoritarianism with a left/liberal slant, at least not that I can think of. Maybe that is why some people just call any flavor of it fascism?

Stalinism is the left wing version of Fascism. Extreme left and extreme authoritarian political, economical and social model.

I think it's mainly due to lack of education and not knowing words like Fascist, Communist, Capitalist or Socialist are concrete words with real meanings. It's very common to see US posters lump Communism, Socialism or Marxism as one and the same when they're completely different because of US gov propaganda during the Cold War.

There's also the issue that there's no left wing in the US and US politics in based on the Static State where nothing can ever change and no new ideas or approaches are allowed to exist. Just both Parties on the right wing authoritarian side gradually changing places between which one is to the 'left' or 'right' of the other. Regardless of which one is power, the same old lobbyists and bankers hold all the actual power while the middle and lower classes get shafted.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

"Unreasonableness"?

As personal opinions, they are not unreasonable. As Mandates controlled by decree of government, and enforced without any consideration of mitigating circumstances, they are.

History is littered with examples of those who ran afoul of such policies.

So because I want lower taxes

That's easy, to lower taxes under a fair and responsible government, all that needs to be done is to reduce the government's requirement for money - for it's citizens to expect or require fewer services that would be government supplied.

to bring the troops home

That sounds great but with removal of military enforcement overseas, you also loose economic control, too. All that income, trade, and even at-home national security just goes away.

to enter into treaties where all partners are equals and I'm not the elephant pulling them along or the piggy bank

At the time those treaties were formed, America was the sole economic and military superpower. Some things you just pay for. In an alliance, each ally brings something to the table for the advantage of all. The USA has had lots of advantages from its international alliances. To suggest everyone has been ripping America off is incredibly ill informed. Its alliances have kept it the richest and militarily the strongest nation in the world.

because I want reasonable immigration policy and restrictions and enforcement (like every other nation including your own, I might add - where you only take exactly whom you need).

Australia has had awful immigration policies, mostly set by right-wing governments, who even oppressed their own minority native inhabitants, like the USA does with its native inhabitants. If Americans and Australians were honest about where their wealth and culture comes from, then my guess is that they would open up migration and monetize the process to build national wealth faster.

I like the premise of individuals judged on personal merit (not Critical Race Theory which belongs alongside Social Darwinism). I think there are two biological sexes with verifiable physical differences.

There are a small but significant number of humans born with the sexual 'plumbing' of both sexes (about 1 in 1,000).

Intersex
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

that medical science cannot erase or "fix" to suit one's mental preference, abortion at best has very narrow medical utility and is not to be used to erase life mistakes (not birth control), people should be held responsible for their own choices in life, etc.

Medicine has often in the past been called upon to 'fix' those that do not conform to a binary gender image. Perhaps that is wrong?

I also believe that abortions should be only performed to save lives. It should not be for convenience. Nor should it be used to ensure 'a normal life'. Nor should we prosecute doctors who are forced to make such hard 'no-win' decisions.

Those are all unreasonable?

I think that the things which you state here as your opinion are unreasonable in some circumstances.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: chr0naut

try tracking down and verifying those hundreds of sources 😃

Why?

I did pick a few random links from the bottom of the Wikipedia article. Every single one of them that I followed linked to a relevant article and was from a highly credentialed and undisputed source.

Please post the specific links from that article, that you think are representative of what you talking about.

Sure ya did 😃

I know you just forgot to post them with all the pertinent info😃

I'm sure anyone could pick a few links at random and get the same result. I am fairly confident of the fact.

You, however, have not come up with even a single specific link, as an example. I will, however, wait...

The links from your wiki are all dead ends 🎃

Ah, I see. The problem is one of perception.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
You are missing the point.

Your entire post is still based on the skewed version of left/right.

No matter how you slice it conservative has always been in favor of less government

You never answered my question, Where do you think the FF of the US would have sat at that french national assembly?

The answer to that might shed a light on what my point is.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Joneselius

Being a libertarian is almost on the same level as an anarchist. The only difference is that anarchists reject all laws or social norms while libertarians will abide by basic laws and order.

Most certainly not.

Anarchists do not recognize other people as their masters. The name "anarchist" is derived from anarkhia, meaning "without a ruler" (an- (i.e. "without") arkhos (i.e. "leader" or "ruler"). To an anarchist, all people are created equal and have the same rights, no one should rule another person. Sounds a lot like the founding fathers, right? Correct - they were anarchists: opposed to the God given rights of the King, damn them!

That does not mean that anarchists do not recognize leaders: it is simply they don't want to be ruled by them, voluntary or involuntary. And like almost all human beings, anarchists hate disorder - they are fiercely opposed to chaos and violence. Therefore, they DO adhere to rules. No anarchist will drive on the wrong side of the road, as that may damage cars, roads, and hurt people.

If you ever see a person that destroys things or kills people - or tries others to do so - that can not be an anarchist. Anarchists don't destroy anything, as they mostly believe nothing is owned by anybody, so all is owned by all. You must be a fool if you destroy that what is owned by all, it's like shooting in your own foot. Anarchists will also never kill others, as that is a very excessive form of ruling over another person.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I've tried so hard to find a solid definition of 'anarchism' even listening to guys like Chomsky, and David Greaber who call themselves anarchists and it's always a slightly different variation. Hell, even Bakunin couldn't really define it. I think that's sort of the allure to it to be honest. Boundless.

A lot of anarchists believe in revolution tho. Which contradicts what you stated about not destroying things. Do you supposed there is wiggle room for a need to perhaps demolish physical 'stuff'?

a reply to: ForteanOrg

What's the difference between "pre-government Anarchy" and "post-government Anarchy" ? 😸

a reply to: daskakik

I get your point, I disagree with it.

The larger part of your argument is:

The problem we face now, as I see it anyway, is that the 'right' isn't right at all, it slid left when the lefties went balls to wall crazy left!

And that is where I disagree which makes all the rest a moot point.

Liberal means seeking change at any cost. Change just for the sake of change. NO liberal will ever be happy where they are. They must constantly move left. To stop seeking change is, by definition, to stop being liberal. They simply won't do it. That is why the extremist liberals of yesteryear are the centrist liberals of today. Liberalism is a constant one-upping of the previous crop. They must constantly strive to out do their predecessors or risk losing the title liberal. If they ever became satisfied with where they were they would become conservatives no longer seeking change but rather maintaining the current conditions for future generations.

As such, the right have not become the left or even left leaning. The center of the scale has "migrated" to the left as the fringe left moved further left with each passing day. This gives the impression that the entire scale has shifted to the left taking the conservatives with it. However, in reality the right has not moved and the continued excursion of the left has only opened the gulf between the two ideologies further. That is why, with each consecutive revision of liberalism, we are less and less likely to find a common ground on which we can unite. With each succession of liberal ideology the true middle ground becomes less attractive to both sides for exactly the same reason. It is too far right to satisfy the left and too far left to satisfy the right. And the only reason it is that way is because the left will simply not stop moving further and further left.

This is one of the few times when you truly can not blame both sides. The right, by virtue of being conservative, have not moved. We have not widened the gap. The left did that all by themselves. Yet they still blame the right for not meeting in the middle. Even though the left moves the middle further and further away with each passing day.

originally posted by: Hefficide

On the other hand...

Socialism, any form of it, is left-wing, not right-wing...

Even national socialism/fascism is a left-wing ideology.

But the re-writers of history have been expecting that people would believe the false claim that fascism is right-wing.

Nationalization of all infrastructure is socialist, not right-wing...
Nationalizing all land "for the common good" is socialism... Which is point 3 of the 25-point Program of the nsdpa
Nationalization of all businesses is a socialist policy... Which is point 13 of the 25-point Program of the nsdpa
Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of debt (interest)-slavery. Is socialistic, anti-Capitalistic and point 11 of the nsdpa.
Sharing out profits (to all people) from wholesale trade is socialistic... and it's point 14 of the nsdpa.
Land reform for the common good is socialistic, and it's point 17 of the nsdpa.
Nationalization of healthcare is socialistic, and it's point 21 of the nsdpa.
Making the state responsible for all education is socialistic, and it's point 20 of the nsdpa.
Using claims of "fake news" to stop any news source from reporting news "that goes against the so called collective will" is socialistic, and it's point 23 of the nsdpa...

National Socialist Program

You can keep attempting to deny it but the truth is there for anyone honest enough to admit it.

Not to mention the fact that both hitler and mussolini were part of the left. mussolini was even a lifelong socialist whom came up with a new version of socialism now known as fascism.

a reply to: Vroomfondel
What you quoted is not the larger part of my argument. I didn't even say that. So, no, I don't think you understand my point.

You are still avoiding my question because the answer is that the FF of the US would have sat on the left.

They certainly would not have sided with a monarch because that was who their fight was against. They were liberal, in the classic sense, and were seeking change from the conservative view of that time.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Just because you write something in bold doesn't mean that its true.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of political ideologies knows that fascism and by extension Nazism are not 'leftist' and attempts to link them are founded on a complete disregard for accuracy and historic fact and is a revisionist attempt to blame anything and everything on those damn, pinko commie bastards.

Just as some on 'the left' find it uncomfortable to accept the extremes of 'leftist' ideology its becoming increasingly common for those on 'the right' to not only dissociate and disown the reality of 'right wing' extremism but to also try and blame that extremism on 'the other side'.

I'm reluctant to use the term 'disingenuous', but........

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Not to mention the fact that both hitler and mussolini were part of the left. mussolini was even a lifelong socialist whom came up with a new version of socialism now known as fascism.

No they weren't. Learn basic history and political science.

Mussolini was a Socialist in is youth but he was thrown out the Socialist Party for his extreme and anti-socialist views views in 1914. Mussolini created totalitarian revolutionary nationalism as a result of this. He formally denounced all Socialism on 5 Dec 1914 and adopted support of nationalism and vanguarding the elite instead of prolotariat and launched the Fascist Party.

His Fascist Party attacked Socialist Party members and raided Socialist centred communities - holding people hostage and focring them to drink Castor Oil in an attempt to get them to convert from Socialism to Fascism.

Similar goess for Hitler - On the rise to power the Nazis played to having both Socialist and Nationalist arms but once in power they assasinated all left wing members and the first people thrown in concentration camps were communists and socialists.

--

If you want to point out the ills of extrene-leftism; there plently of examples and a higher death toll assosciated with applied Socialism and Communism than Fascism. Re-writing history not only makes you seem dumb but it's incredibly disrespectful to the victims of it and makes it impossible to avoid the same mistakes in future by lying about all the documented events that took place.

a reply to: daskakik

I have tried to explain my position but you insist on referring it back to continental congress.

In short - you are wrong.

Wanting to throw off the yoke of an oppressive tyrant does not make you a liberal. In this new nation there were no liberals or conservatives until after the first government was formed. Then and only then was there a decision to make: stay with the newly formed governance or immediately start to move away from the original concept of self governance. We had just fought one of the bloodiest wars in our nations history and it was for the sole purpose of creating a form of government of the people, by the people, and for the people. I doubt anyone would have welcomed overtures of changing it immediately after so many had sacrificed their lives creating it.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ForteanOrg

I've tried so hard to find a solid definition of 'anarchism' even listening to guys like Chomsky, and David Greaber who call themselves anarchists and it's always a slightly different variation. Hell, even Bakunin couldn't really define it. I think that's sort of the allure to it to be honest. Boundless.

A lot of anarchists believe in revolution tho. Which contradicts what you stated about not destroying things. Do you supposed there is wiggle room for a need to perhaps demolish physical 'stuff'?

It's alas mostly utopian, anarchy, we aren't ready for it yet. It will come.

For now, like with all -isms, it is often misused by people that set up systems that do exactly the opposite of what the term originally meant. If you ask Joe Sixpack what an anarchist is, he will describe an idiotic, revolting, agressive and dangerous person, exactly the opposite of an anarchist. This is caused by effective propagande of the State, especially those States that feel endangered by anarchy and hence try to blame it for everything it does not stand for.

Likewise, fascism is often portrayed as a very rightwing movement. In fact it originates in the old Roman empire. In the Roman Empire the group was seen as more important than the individual. The fasces was a bundle of sticks, bound together with a leather belt. This symbolized the power of the masses: one can easily break one individual stick, but it is impossible to break a bundle of them. BTW, the fasces is also part of the Lincoln monument and American culture. Fascism is actually a continuation of this old Roman idea, and probably older civilisations. The Italian term "fascio" was first used in the sense of "powerful group" in the 1870s by groups of democrats in Sicily. Later Italian workers unions also used this term. Oddly enough - another perversion - such workers unions are typically seen as "left wing". However, in Italy, Mussolini (a former socialist!) adopted the idea of the fasces and converted it into fascism - a leadership cult, that did exactly the opposite: instead of the will of the people, the will of the leader was - uhm - leading. This perversion of original ideas into their opposite can also be seen in so-called "Socialist" states, which are in actually not Socialst at all: it are totalitarian states led by a small elite. Or by so-called "Free" markets, where another small group of filthy rich folks decide for the masses.

Anarchists know what the trouble is: sheep want to be led, at all cost...

a reply to: ForteanOrg

I will always be an anarchist...in my heart.
Unfortunately the cynicism and realism that comes with advancing years has led my head to believe that it's an idealistic and utopian dream that will never work for one simple reason; human beings.
There will always be those who seek to use, exploit, control and manipulate others for their own benefit and glorification.
There will always be those who seek to impose their own moral code and belief system on others.

Unless there is some significant step change in mankind's attitude to each other it simply will not work.