Extreme Left is COMPLETE TOTALITARIAN/ Extreme Right is COMPLETE ANARCHY

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by saabacura
Like I said before, the definition of fascism is completley wrong. Fascism can be left or right, depending on the dictator. The dictator has the full control to choose how he wants the country to be like.

Not true.

Political ideology that denies all rights to individuals in their relations with the state; specifically, the totalitarian nationalist movement founded in Italy in 1919 by Mussolini and followed by Hitler's Germany in 1933.

Fascism came about essentially as a result of the economic and political crisis of the years after World War I. Units called fasci di combattimento (combat groups), from the Latin fasces, were originally established to oppose communism. The fascist party, the Partitio Nazionale Fascista, controlled Italy 1922–43. Fascism protected the existing social order by suppressing the working-class movement by force and by providing scapegoats for popular anger such as minority groups: Jews, foreigners, or blacks; it also prepared the citizenry for the economic and psychological mobilization of war.

The term ‘fascism’ is also applied to similar organizations in other countries, such as the Spanish Falange and the British Union of Fascists under Oswald Mosley.

Neo-fascist groups still exist in many Western European countries, in the USA (the Ku Klux Klan and several small armed vigilante groups), France (National Front), Germany (German People's Union), Russia (Pamyat), and elsewhere. Germany experienced an upsurge in neo-fascist activity in 1992 and again in 1998, with rioting in several major cities. The winning of a London local-government seat by the British National Party in 1993 raised fears of the growth of right-wing racism in Britain. In Italy the discrediting of the Christian right-of-centre parties resulted in a triumph for right-wing groups, including the neo-fascist National Alliance, in the 1994 elections. However, by 1998 the National Alliance had adopted a less extremist programme and claimed to be a mainstream conservative party.

encyclopedia.farlex.com...

If you think harder on your own, you should realize that it is not. Don't rely too much on other people's work.

Originally posted by saabacura
You must realize, Don't read dictionary or the encylopdia on fascism.

I believe that fascism is a LOOSE TERM and can be anything.

You're thinking of 'dictatorship'.

Fascism refers specifically to a certain system which is highly authoritarian, nationalistic (although this can manifest itself in different ways), militaristic and sometimes with strong religious overtones.

It is neither far-right or far-left (although some offshoots, for example Strasserism and the rest of the far left of the Nazi Party do occupy these extremes) but may be either centre-left or centre-right.

The way you're using the term, 'fascism' becomes nothing but a useless catchphrase.

[edit on 6-9-2010 by saabacura]

If we are talking about american politics, then extreme right is anarchy in economic aspect, totalitarian in personal (social) freedoms, the left is exactly the reverse - totalitarian in economic aspect, anarchy in personal (social) aspect. Pretty clear, isnt it?

Originally posted by Maslo
If we are talking about american politics, then extreme right is anarchy in economic aspect, totalitarian in personal (social) freedoms, the left is exactly the reverse - totalitarian in economic aspect, anarchy in personal (social) aspect. Pretty clear, isnt it?

Why is it then that historically the rest of the world is opposite to this?

Extreme social right is totalitarian fascism, such as Mussolini and Franco, Hitler.
Extreme economic right is unrestricted capitalism.
Extreme economic left is communism.
Extreme social left is Anarchism.

Go look it up...

You have been lead to believe the opposite in order to keep you from realizing the truth, and allowing your exploitation by the capitalist state without fear of worker revolution like they had in Europe. America was set up as the ultimate freedom for Capitalists (owners of the means of production) to exploit labour.

Television is today's Nuremberg.
Bowing to its authority, they become it.
I've seen four year old children conforming to media roles.
Main-lining the gross theatre that will become their lives.
The television has so dampened people's anger.
The population is mesmerised by the flickering screen
And the streets, where the politics of reality were once created,
Are deserted at night and the rulers sleep secure.
They are under no threat as long as the people are sedated...Penny Rimbaud

[edit on 9/6/2010 by ANOK]

Originally posted by saabacura


An extreme liberalism can corrupt the holes in the democratic system!

Extreme conservatism allows for corporations and unions to fund our elective process
virtually unfettered -

But that doesn't matter, such a things can't corrupt the holes in our democratic system

www.npr.org...

Go conservation!!!

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by saabacura
You must realize, Don't read dictionary or the encylopdia on fascism.

I believe that fascism is a LOOSE TERM and can be anything.

You're thinking of 'dictatorship'.

Fascism refers specifically to a certain system which is highly authoritarian, nationalistic (although this can manifest itself in different ways), militaristic and sometimes with strong religious overtones.

It is neither far-right or far-left (although some offshoots, for example Strasserism and the rest of the far left of the Nazi Party do occupy these extremes) but may be either centre-left or centre-right.

The way you're using the term, 'fascism' becomes nothing but a useless catchphrase.

He learned by studying Glenn Becks History blackboard of magical phacts

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Janky Red]

reply to post by Janky Red


Extreme liberalism requires violent looting and the elimination of private property rights.

You don't want to be a violent looter do you?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Extreme liberalism requires violent looting and the elimination of private property rights.

You don't want to be a violent looter do you?

I don't loot and I believe you did not defend private property rights as it pertains to music
being stolen online, so???

Look, in the end, as much as you want it, this nation will never be what you want.
I would bet my last buck that at least 80% of conservatives would not stand for eliminating the police, unemployment or public roads for that matter. So unless you
figure out a way to overthrow this government and impose your system on people
I think you will spin your wheels for the duration.

You make some very good points at times and I understand your frustration. On the other hand some of your proposed solutions seem to be destructive and short sighted.
My biggest qualm with you is you do not seem to understand or care that wealth will
dictate the rules as wealth is power here. In a stateless nation BP could have easily
walked away from their mess, their are no free market principles that can attend to such a disaster. There was no reason to clean up the mess and they could have mounted a legal campaign for decades if nature law was the supreme law in our current state.

I believe the only way you will experience what you advocate is if this nation collapses
or if you go to a nation without a viable government. I am serious, maybe at some point you can get yourself to Somalia and see if you actually enjoy being in a stateless
land, for that is the best approximation I can figure. I think you may enjoy the idea of it all, but I am not sure if you would like the reality of a two hundred deep privately funded police force taking interest in you, gun or no gun. I really wish we stayed a small agrarian society as Jefferson envisioned, but I think the metamorphosis that
has taken hold since would make mince meat out of many people. Unions and Regulation were reactionary efforts to abusive things that occurred before such entities existed.
The market created the demand and society supplied the "remedy". I believe the nature of business has not changed that much and at some point regular folks will undoubtedly attempt to combat the mathematical nature of cold calculating capitalism.
Do not forget, the state of the state was born of this eternal struggle -


If you notice the Constitution gave the power of expansion and contraction thru means
of governance, it also defined limitations of government... but to the first point this gave America the ability to meet unforeseen challenges and adapt as the future and life itself is not static, I believe whole heartedly the true enemy of freedom is when there
is no motion or friction. Your idea of freedom sounds tyrannical to me and I am sure you feel the same way...

If you get to set the perimeters of my existence (including my desire for governance around me), are you not tyrannizing me??? It is after all, my world too is it not?

You live in anarchy BTW, NO BODY HAS IT THE WAY THEY LIKE, NOT ONE PERSON IS
COMPLETELY CONTENT, everyone wants some sort of change, and no body can ensure the nature of that change they desire, think about that...

talk latter

[edit on 6-9-2010 by Janky Red]

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Extreme liberalism requires violent looting and the elimination of private property rights.

I assume by liberalism you mean socialism, because liberalism is not an economic system. Liberalism and conservatism are not exclusive to any economic or political system. I consider myself more conservative than liberal. Libs and cons can be of any political persuasion.

Socialism eliminates the use of private property to exploit labour, not your private property rights. I'm sure I've explained this to you before?

No one is going to stop you doing what you want with your private property, but if workers had the choice to work at a worker controlled place of employment, or for a private property owner for a fixed wage, then who would choose the private owner?

You don't have to force socialism, history proves given the choice and a population educated in those choices, generally will choose the socialist model. It's only since WWII that the working class has been passivized by media and consumer goods and been ignorant as to what system is good for them. Learn about the history of the people, as apposed to the normal state history, you will see this is true.

[edit on 9/6/2010 by ANOK]

no excuses

defending violent looting means you are more evil than those who loot through deception.

reply to post by mnemeth1


We DON'T need strict systems of private property/ownership in order to show people/things respect.

We don't need laws or market incentives to behave ourselves. Individual morality is cultural and separate from government/economics.

People tend to loot in times of violence/scarcity. They also tend to loot when a former system of ownership/hierarchy breaks down. If you live in an Anarchist society where all is shared and there are no catastrophic outbreaks of scarcity/violence... then people have no reason to loot each other's stuff because, well, they are already more or less entitled to it (if they need it). An egalitarian Anarchist society works less like a modern society and more like a tight-knit clan or family. It's really just a common sense society- if something needs to be done, people recognize that need and do it. If something doesn't need to be done, resources/energy are not wasted on them.

In Capitalist society, people hoard wealth/resources and then make other people work to gain access to them. When you have a society based around hoarding and wealth accumulation you cannot have equality or freedom.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
no excuses

defending violent looting means you are more evil than those who loot through deception.

That's all I get??? Lets go thru it


And how does this make me evil BTW?

By your definition crime has to have a victim...

looting is looting

violence is violence

you are evil.

reply to post by ANOK

Why is it then that historically the rest of the world is opposite to this?
Extreme social right is totalitarian fascism, such as Mussolini and Franco, Hitler.
Extreme economic right is unrestricted capitalism.
Extreme economic left is communism.
Extreme social left is Anarchism.

Go look it up...

You have been lead to believe the opposite in order to keep you from realizing the truth, and allowing your exploitation by the capitalist state without fear of worker revolution like they had in Europe. America was set up as the ultimate freedom for Capitalists (owners of the means of production) to exploit labour.

How opposite? Thats exactly what I said..

Originally posted by Maslo
If we are talking about american politics, then extreme right is anarchy in economic aspect, totalitarian in personal (social) freedoms, the left is exactly the reverse - totalitarian in economic aspect, anarchy in personal (social) aspect. Pretty clear, isnt it?

So in America, Stalin wouldn't have been classed as 'extreme left'?

Originally posted by LeftWingLarry

Originally posted by Maslo
If we are talking about american politics, then extreme right is anarchy in economic aspect, totalitarian in personal (social) freedoms, the left is exactly the reverse - totalitarian in economic aspect, anarchy in personal (social) aspect. Pretty clear, isnt it?

So in America, Stalin wouldn't have been classed as 'extreme left'?

He would, why not? Stalin was certainly totalitarian in economic aspect, but communism as a system was pretty tolerant of personal freedoms such as abortion rights, gay rights, minority races anti-discrimination.. Of course, it was a dictatorship, so you had your personal liberty only if you didnt threaten the establishment in some way, but compared to right-wing dictatorships, personal freedoms in key issues which we debate now were better (abortions, gays/lesbians, racism, separation of religion and state..).

[edit on 7-9-2010 by Maslo]

People, I don't know if you have read,

I said that in either extremes... You will have some sort of an authoritarian dictator!!!

I clearly said that neither extremes are good for us!

I clearly said that the USA actually the only country that is actually on the center/equalibrium!

We are safe. I think.

We are not extreme one way or the other.

We are moderate. The best.

Originally posted by Maslo
He would, why not?

Because Stalin's Russia was not 'close to anarchy'. He was extremely authoritarian both socially and economically.

Your categorisation of political ideologies seems hugely flawed.

Originally posted by saabacura
People, I don't know if you have read,

I said that in either extremes... You will have some sort of an authoritarian dictator!!!

No you won't.

You have just been convinced by propaganda that anything extreme is dangerous and violent.
This is false.

Instead if thinking like that, change extreme to radical. The press changed radical to extreme in order to get the reaction we see from you. Radical just means you want extreme change to the system, it can go both ways, liberty or authority.

Anarchism is an extreme.