Do You Guy's Know The Difference Between:-

[forkup]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality. In the case of fascism that's extreme nationalism since that leads to a justification for war and in the case of National Socialism coupled with blatant racism. Hitler arrested and locked up both the Communists and Social Democrats when he rose to power. This was a function of totalitarianism.
So, Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism.

And big government was his vehicle. Seems like the Jews ended up with the short end of the stick of group rights.

Jews weren't murdered because of big government, Jews were murdered because Hitler was a racist. If you don't think genocide can be committed without big government you should look at Rwanda where a radio station triggered a genocide that took millions.

I don't think that genocide can be done without the government's consent. Feel free to disagree.

I do disagree. Pogrom - Wikipedia these were riots, meaning no consent was required by the government. The Islamic state which isn't a government committed genocide against the Yazidi people. the only thing you need to commit genocide is the will to carry it out. It does not need a government to be perpetrated.

So... do you still disagree? Because your answer will tell me a lot about you.

Rwandan Genocide - Facts, Response & Trials | HISTORY

The Rwandan genocide, also known as the genocide against the Tutsi, occured in 1994 when members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority. Started by Hutu nationalists in the capital of Kigali, the...

www.history.com

Yes I still disagree, from your link.

Within an hour of the plane crash, the Presidential Guard, together with members of the Rwandan armed forces (FAR) and Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe (“Those Who Attack Together”) and Impuzamugambi (“Those Who Have the Same Goal”), set up roadblocks and barricades and began slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus with impunity.

Among the first victims of the genocide were the moderate Hutu Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana and 10 Belgian peacekeepers, killed on April 7. This violence created a political vacuum

Tell me does your link support your claim of big government being needed for genocide? Before you answer know that this will tell me a lot about you.

Yeah just skip right over the introductory paragraph that stated that ordinary citizens were incited by local officials and the Hutu Power government.

Just like you skipped over what you quoted... Presidential Guard, together with members of the Rwandan armed forces (FAR) and Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe (“Those Who Attack Together”) and Impuzamugambi (“Those Who Have the Same Goal”), set up roadblocks and barricades and began slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus with impunity.

Local officials and Hutu power government equal big government to you? So any government is big to you apparently. Even if this government is local or simply part of a military coup by a paramilitary organization?

 

[forkup]

Tell me does your link support your claim of big government being needed for genocide? Before you answer know that this will tell me a lot about you.

In part, yes. It doesn't refute it that's for sure. Let's look at the facts; a large ruling class who are the dominant officials in the government slaughtered a minority. And they did so with impunity. In other words, the government didn't try to stop it. In fact they condoned it and incited it.

According to Rudolph Rummel,

“The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the less it will aggress on others.”

R. J. Rummel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think that when the first act of a genocide is killing the prime minister of the Nations's government it's safe to say that that genocide isn't condoned by the government.

 

[forkup]

So you are claiming Hitler was a Racist, a belief that's based on the claim that one's race makes him superior because of him wanting big government? I' dd be interested to know how you get there?

As for my view of morality. Hey if you want to make the case for racism and nationalism be my guest.

Name the socialists, authoritarian, government, anywhere in the world, that wasn't racist. That didn't discriminate against anyone not the race of the national majority.

The Soviet Union was multi ethic and not really racist. They hated people on the basis of their political ideology. If that's your idea of racism I have news for you. Every nation is racist.

 

[forkup]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Yet almost every Western nation has succeeded to be liberal, most have succeeded in being not radical and ALL have succeeded in being not Communist. Why do you keep on repeating a line that simply isn't supported in real life?

Because given enough time socialism will degrade into communism or some form of totalitarian government. It's inevitable. Societies rise and fall. When a society that relies on it's government to provide almost everything begins to fail the people will rise up and the government will respond for their own good.

I'm not sure the complete slide is inevitable? How far left would a European Country have to slide to go into Communism? France is probably the most far gone, and they had the riots over gas hikes and other taxes, but I'm not sure it means that the French will turn into China. They have their nanny state, they grumble about it, and they vote for it. That seems to be the way they want to live. Would their government be able to take that last step to take all power away from its people?

There is not a political party anywhere in Europe that runs on a platform that would take the nanny state away. That should tell you how dissatisfied people are with it. As to France and the yellow vests yes they protested ( something you should as a US citizen should probably not use as a sign of decline to Communism atm) against taxes. They did so out of the belief that they felt taxes where taken to much from the middle and working class.

 

[forkup]

Sorry to open up this can of worms, but how is nationalism morally objectionable? Are you talking in the specific historic example of Germany, or are you saying nationalism in general is bad? To me nationalism is simply loving your country. No more, no less. I don't see the leap to loving your country, to doing bad things to your own people in the name of loving your country.

And when your government, even flawed, is still the best in the world, and not by just a little bit but by orders of magnitude, we have a right to be proud of our nation and to want to protect it from destruction by foreign influence intended to destroy our way of life.

Not many American nationalists object to anyone, from anywhere, coming into the United States if they came legally, with respect for our laws and way of life, and with a love for the hope and opportunity they get here. It is those who march here demanding access while carrying signs saying Fuck America, burning our flags, and while doing both of those, posing their children flipping the bird at the United States, that we object to.

Nationalism isn't hate, it is love. Hitler's nationalism was different because it was a government truly built on hate; the nation and government they loved was hate. The leftists and America haters will say ours is based on hate but we all, including them, know it's a lie.

"The best in the world", "by orders of magnitude"? What parameters are you using for those statements? Happiness? Sorry to tell you but that is measured and I'm afraid America scores decidedly mediocre on that index. Ranked: The 20 Happiest Countries In The World Life expectancy? Sorry bottom of the pack among industrialized nations. Life Expectancy by Country and in the World (2020) - Worldometer. Freedom? No, I'm afraid I'd have to disappoint you. Human Freedom Index So what parameters are you using?

 

[forkup]

Yet almost every Western nation has succeeded to be liberal, most have succeeded in being not radical and ALL have succeeded in being not Communist. Why do you keep on repeating a line that simply isn't supported in real life?

You must be a millennial. You weren't taught about the Soviet Union, the German Democratic Republic. Venezuela.

Tell me how in those countries, which weren't by-the-book Communist or by-the-book Socialist, differed in outcome for the people?

I'm not a millennial. What I am is somebody who unlike you I suspect has first-hand knowledge of both your system and the system in European countries. My wife is American and there's a reason we live in Europe. Hint, it's not because we left the best country in the world.

You can yell "oh what about Venezuela, the DDR or USSR" as much as you want, it doesn't change the simple fact that most Western Nations have succeeded in making stable societies with strong social safety nets without going bankrupt, ( in fact most of them are doing better than the US debt wise)

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

And thier they go with stats.....ive been listening to those for decades ...even ln person in the 90s

Its a very caring system of care bears voted in by people who care deeply about others ......and not thier own selfish individual interest to vote for more crumbs doled out by the machine

Now kick grandma out of her subsidised apartment to make room for the new welfare colonist.?..just step over that native European homeless guy..
Grandmas crying she's got no where to go ?sit her right down next to the native homeless european

Have a nice day


Western euros will never change and they'll never figure out that the US and europeans have different parameters on how they get to thier statistical conclusions...look to pre me deaths and crimes for starters

 

[forkup]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Something I've noticed, especially in a country our size, is that socialism leads to fewer choices and higher prices. I don't think we have ever had a government program that has reduced the costs of services. Those services don't turn out too well either. So yes, they are different ways of doing something, neither of them is free stuff, but one is much less effective and gives the government tremendous control over its citizens. We have a corruption and a waste problem over here, so giving the government money is usually not good for personal freedom or efficiency. I've heard that in a lot of the Nordic Countries, the people are really well informed on where their money is going and what their government is doing.

Why is it that my country population 12 million gets comparable or even slightly lower results than Germany population 83 million or Japan population 126 million in regards to healthcare in terms of cost, quality and accessibility but when it comes to the US all of a sudden the population makes the cost go up and quality and accessibility go down?

That is a fair question. Many misjudge how big the US is. Visitors come with huge plans, and then realize they can't just drive from New York to California. It takes all day just to drive through New Mexico from North to South. You have Deserts and places that get feet of snow at a time and everything in between. It seems if you want to give the government a great deal of power, the people need to be able to keep track of what the government is actually doing. I live in Indiana, and I know very little about what is going on in Ohio or Kentucky. It gets messy when a central power dictates to 50 country sized regions. We also have a corruption problem, and that too becomes harder to deal with in a collection of country sized states. A lot of bad stuff can happen without the people knowing it. I think that is why many Americans distrust powerful central governments.

So it's a function of population density? Sorry to tell you but Sweden, Iceland, Finland all have lower densities, so does Australia. Yet they all manage to deliver high-quality healthcare at a MUCH lower price than the US. If I'm not mistaken Australia is quite inhospitable and big, yet they manage it.

The way I see it is this. The US healthcare system is splintered, causing administrative costs to go up. The US has made the cost of becoming a doctor so high that a doctor, once he has his degree, needs to charge a lot in order to make the degree economically viable, this coupled with the necessity to take out sky-high malpractice insurance. And most importantly. In the US, health is a FOR-PROFIT proposition, meaning that not only does the system incentivizes a built-in added cost to the patients but being unhealthy actually is preferred. Those are the reasons of the prize and quality difference NOT the size of the country.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Where is this happening ? Im a social democrat and I live in a social democracy. I see the many benefits that socialism has brought me and my family. I dont see communism in any of it. Caring for your neighbour is not communism, its civilisation.

 

[ding]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Yet almost every Western nation has succeeded to be liberal, most have succeeded in being not radical and ALL have succeeded in being not Communist. Why do you keep on repeating a line that simply isn't supported in real life?

Because given enough time socialism will degrade into communism or some form of totalitarian government. It's inevitable. Societies rise and fall. When a society that relies on it's government to provide almost everything begins to fail the people will rise up and the government will respond for their own good.

I'm not sure the complete slide is inevitable? How far left would a European Country have to slide to go into Communism? France is probably the most far gone, and they had the riots over gas hikes and other taxes, but I'm not sure it means that the French will turn into China. They have their nanny state, they grumble about it, and they vote for it. That seems to be the way they want to live. Would their government be able to take that last step to take all power away from its people?

I believe it will take a complete failure of the system. It's all well and good when there is money available but the lack of incentive tends to breed complacency. It's an inevitable death spiral.

 

[ding]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Yet almost every Western nation has succeeded to be liberal, most have succeeded in being not radical and ALL have succeeded in being not Communist. Why do you keep on repeating a line that simply isn't supported in real life?

Because given enough time socialism will degrade into communism or some form of totalitarian government. It's inevitable. Societies rise and fall. When a society that relies on it's government to provide almost everything begins to fail the people will rise up and the government will respond for their own good.

Again that's an assertion so far not supported. We had this conversation and yet you seem to have problems with it. Just because you feel a specific hypothesis makes sense doesn't all of a sudden make it supported.

You seem to agree that communism is bad, right? Communism does not lead to incentives to innovate and produce or create. Socialism is predicated upon the same principle but to a lesser degree. The more and more a government provides for it's people the less reliant they need to be themselves. The more and more they are taxed for innovating, the less the incentive for innovating becomes. So it is an argument that is based not only upon logic but also upon history.

Only if you could establish Socialism leads to Communism. Until then you are stuck. Again all these Western countries still innovate. Anyways I'm going to bed.

I just did. It's the logical conclusion.

I wish I got paid for every time you have claimed that in order for something to happen YOU just have to claim it's a logical conclusion and it's proven. Don't take this the wrong way but what an ego you must have, to think your sense of logic is so evolved you just have to think something is logical for it to be inevitably true.

Some people don't have to touch a hot stove to know it is a bad idea. And some people do.

 

[Deleted member 73486]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

And hands up if any of you have ever actually read Das Capital?

I wouldn't ask them such a difficult question -- most of them think the Earth is flat and vaccines are filled with chemicals from the government!

 

[ding]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality. In the case of fascism that's extreme nationalism since that leads to a justification for war and in the case of National Socialism coupled with blatant racism. Hitler arrested and locked up both the Communists and Social Democrats when he rose to power. This was a function of totalitarianism.
So, Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism.

And big government was his vehicle. Seems like the Jews ended up with the short end of the stick of group rights.

Jews weren't murdered because of big government, Jews were murdered because Hitler was a racist. If you don't think genocide can be committed without big government you should look at Rwanda where a radio station triggered a genocide that took millions.

I don't think that genocide can be done without the government's consent. Feel free to disagree.

I do disagree. Pogrom - Wikipedia these were riots, meaning no consent was required by the government. The Islamic state which isn't a government committed genocide against the Yazidi people. the only thing you need to commit genocide is the will to carry it out. It does not need a government to be perpetrated.

So... do you still disagree? Because your answer will tell me a lot about you.

Rwandan Genocide - Facts, Response & Trials | HISTORY

The Rwandan genocide, also known as the genocide against the Tutsi, occured in 1994 when members of the Hutu ethnic majority in the east-central African nation of Rwanda murdered as many as 800,000 people, mostly of the Tutsi minority. Started by Hutu nationalists in the capital of Kigali, the...

www.history.com

Yes I still disagree, from your link.

Within an hour of the plane crash, the Presidential Guard, together with members of the Rwandan armed forces (FAR) and Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe (“Those Who Attack Together”) and Impuzamugambi (“Those Who Have the Same Goal”), set up roadblocks and barricades and began slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus with impunity.

Among the first victims of the genocide were the moderate Hutu Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana and 10 Belgian peacekeepers, killed on April 7. This violence created a political vacuum

Tell me does your link support your claim of big government being needed for genocide? Before you answer know that this will tell me a lot about you.

Yeah just skip right over the introductory paragraph that stated that ordinary citizens were incited by local officials and the Hutu Power government.

Just like you skipped over what you quoted... Presidential Guard, together with members of the Rwandan armed forces (FAR) and Hutu militia groups known as the Interahamwe (“Those Who Attack Together”) and Impuzamugambi (“Those Who Have the Same Goal”), set up roadblocks and barricades and began slaughtering Tutsis and moderate Hutus with impunity.

Local officials and Hutu power government equal big government to you? So any government is big to you apparently. Even if this government is local or simply part of a military coup by a paramilitary organization?

You are so hung up on the word big that you can’t see this was a government sponsored genocide.

The Rwandan Genocide: How It Was Prepared : Genocide: Ideology and Organization

www.hrw.org

 

[ding]

Tell me does your link support your claim of big government being needed for genocide? Before you answer know that this will tell me a lot about you.

In part, yes. It doesn't refute it that's for sure. Let's look at the facts; a large ruling class who are the dominant officials in the government slaughtered a minority. And they did so with impunity. In other words, the government didn't try to stop it. In fact they condoned it and incited it.

According to Rudolph Rummel,

“The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, and the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the less it will aggress on others.”

R. J. Rummel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I think that when the first act of a genocide is killing the prime minister of the Nations's government it's safe to say that that genocide isn't condoned by the government.

Despite everything else you have read which contradicts this belief.

 

[ding]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Yet almost every Western nation has succeeded to be liberal, most have succeeded in being not radical and ALL have succeeded in being not Communist. Why do you keep on repeating a line that simply isn't supported in real life?

Because given enough time socialism will degrade into communism or some form of totalitarian government. It's inevitable. Societies rise and fall. When a society that relies on it's government to provide almost everything begins to fail the people will rise up and the government will respond for their own good.

I'm not sure the complete slide is inevitable? How far left would a European Country have to slide to go into Communism? France is probably the most far gone, and they had the riots over gas hikes and other taxes, but I'm not sure it means that the French will turn into China. They have their nanny state, they grumble about it, and they vote for it. That seems to be the way they want to live. Would their government be able to take that last step to take all power away from its people?

There is not a political party anywhere in Europe that runs on a platform that would take the nanny state away. That should tell you how dissatisfied people are with it. As to France and the yellow vests yes they protested ( something you should as a US citizen should probably not use as a sign of decline to Communism atm) against taxes. They did so out of the belief that they felt taxes where taken to much from the middle and working class.

It’s all well and good as long as you don’t run out of other people’s money. It’s when the can can’t be kicked down the road when things get interesting.

 

[ding]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Where is this happening ? Im a social democrat and I live in a social democracy. I see the many benefits that socialism has brought me and my family. I dont see communism in any of it. Caring for your neighbour is not communism, its civilisation.

Not yet you don’t. But it’s just a matter of time.

 

[forkup]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Yet almost every Western nation has succeeded to be liberal, most have succeeded in being not radical and ALL have succeeded in being not Communist. Why do you keep on repeating a line that simply isn't supported in real life?

Because given enough time socialism will degrade into communism or some form of totalitarian government. It's inevitable. Societies rise and fall. When a society that relies on it's government to provide almost everything begins to fail the people will rise up and the government will respond for their own good.

Again that's an assertion so far not supported. We had this conversation and yet you seem to have problems with it. Just because you feel a specific hypothesis makes sense doesn't all of a sudden make it supported.

You seem to agree that communism is bad, right? Communism does not lead to incentives to innovate and produce or create. Socialism is predicated upon the same principle but to a lesser degree. The more and more a government provides for it's people the less reliant they need to be themselves. The more and more they are taxed for innovating, the less the incentive for innovating becomes. So it is an argument that is based not only upon logic but also upon history.

Only if you could establish Socialism leads to Communism. Until then you are stuck. Again all these Western countries still innovate. Anyways I'm going to bed.

I just did. It's the logical conclusion.

I wish I got paid for every time you have claimed that in order for something to happen YOU just have to claim it's a logical conclusion and it's proven. Don't take this the wrong way but what an ego you must have, to think your sense of logic is so evolved you just have to think something is logical for it to be inevitably true.

Some people don't have to touch a hot stove to know it is a bad idea. And some people do.

And some people will keep on claiming a stove is hot despite being able to hold their hand on it.

I'll tell you a story that seems appropriate at this time. Ever read Karl Marx? His political theory is both logical and elegant. It makes perfect sense in the context of the time it was written. Yet his conclusions haven't stood the test of time. Not because they aren't logical but because Marx didn't foresee a consumption society or a world were Socialism was capable to influence the political system to an extent that something resembling true equality is achieved. In this society upward mobility is truly possible. Marx didn't foresee these simple facts.

The point is Marx a very smart man, with very logical ideas completely failed to predict the future. Yet right up until the fall of the Soviet Union, there was a seat in the Polit Bureau for the party ideologue. These people kept on yelling how infallible the theories of Marx were right up until the Soviet Union crumbled. You are no different. You keep on holding on to your theory despite the evidence being unsupportive of it because you can not fathom a situation where your logic is flawed.

 

[sparky]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

And hands up if any of you have ever actually read Das Capital?

no & no

~S~

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Can someone explain why the left thinks fascism is far right? I know everybody tells them that. Communism and National Fascism seem very similar to me. Autocratic central government ruling people with little or no representation. Aren't they both all powerful governments run amok. Isn't anarchy the natural opposite of autocratic dictatorships?

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions, ideologies and parties from social equality on the left to social hierarchy on the right. ... In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order". Understanding the political spectrum : Unifrog Blog

It's simply a way of classifying. Basically between progressive and conservative. It's not that the left thinks it is that way, it's simply the traits by which classification is decided. There are other ways to classify but this particular one puts Fascism on the right side since they were most definitely conservative (they glorified the past).

Thanks. That is a strange way to look at things. Order and Equality on opposite sides doesn't make any sense. Are they assuming order and tryanny are the same thing? When I think left vs right, I think of small government vs government dominance. They created a classification where Tryanny is on both sides. Is their some sort of widely recognized scale based on personal freedom?

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

Fascism is based on big government and group rights. Despite what others will say. These are both attributes of the far left. Lastly, nationalization of assets which fascists did is a far left tactic.

If you want to have different parameters for a political spectrum, make one it's not hard. Then make it more popular than the one we find most common now. Probably a bit harder. Just don't arbitrarily switch positions of certain political movements because you feel it makes you look guilty by association. I'm a social Democrat I don't feel at all guilty because on the far left of my political system there's Communism. I'm not that's what counts.

I identified (actually DustyInfinity should get the credit) what I believed to be the telling attributes of fascism. Of course I left out totalitarian which is where socialism will eventually end up when money runs out.

Has it ever occurred to you that Socialism doesn't mean "free stuff" but rather stuff is paid for in a different manner? I'll illustrate using healthcare. I'm Belgian this means I pay way more taxes than you. On the other hand, a pay a low amount when I need healthcare. We both pay. Only I pay with my taxes and you pay out of pocket or to an insurance company. In the end, I don't care how my healthcare is paid for just that I pay as little as possible for high-quality care. In the case of healthcare, an American pays substantially more than I do.

Our form of Social Democracy as in most Western nations was established in the early 20th century. And was expanded after WW2. It has endured for well over a century now.

Yes, I do understand that. A government big enough to give you everything is big enough to take it away.

What's your point? Because I'm not sure what that has to do with my observation that big government and group rights is an attribute of fascism.

You were making the claim that Socialism leads to totalitarianism because the money runs out. I was illustrating that it's an argument that doesn't hold water. Both in historical terms and in terms of how Social Democracies function now.

Actually I am agreeing with Solzhenitsyn's statement that liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

The money running out is just the impetus for the need to control the unhappy masses when the money runs out.

Sorry to tell you but again no matter what Solzhenitsyn claimed I'm a liberal that's not a radical who believes society has a responsibility to give everybody an equal chance to succeed who still has money and is not a Communist. So were my father and his father before him.

Political theory is one thing but until that theory is supported its just that a theory. I think we had this same conversation not too long ago?

Thanks, for your personal account, but there is a distribution for everything. And as a rule, liberalism was inevitably pushed aside by radicalism, radicalism had to surrender to socialism, and socialism could not stand up to communism.

Where is this happening ? Im a social democrat and I live in a social democracy. I see the many benefits that socialism has brought me and my family. I dont see communism in any of it. Caring for your neighbour is not communism, its civilisation.

Not yet you don’t. But it’s just a matter of time.

Do you think I should sell my shares ?

 

[ChemEngineer]

View attachment 343867

Link?

I have thousands of images, graphs, documents, papers, notes, you name it. It is not my concern to provide links to anyone who asks. Take some initiative if it is important to you. Do a search. It's not hard. If you don't care enough to lift a finger, don't demand that I do so. Most who request a reference or link immediately discount the source, so it's really pointless. The graph itself is persuasive to those who know anything about history and the fascist hand of socialist and communist dictators. It makes Leftists cry and gnash their teeth, which is fabulous.