Fascism and the left wing

[SniperFire]

Wikipedia......

Yeah, a bunch of leftists posted bullshit there so it must be true.

Hitler shared the beliefs of the liberals of his time and today.....Eugenics, Euthanasia, Anti-Christian, Anti-Jew, Universal Healthcare, Govt control of industries/companies, etc.

In effect, OP is playing a game of semantics, attempting to equate 'right wing' in the totalitarian central planning scale to the 'right wing' of American conservatism.

Fail.

Pathetically.

 

[Saigon]

Yes this is CLEARLY a "Rightwing" platform.

Yes, it is very clearly an extreme right wing platform, because it aims to direct capital to the middle and upper classes, to stimulate corporations, to enhance the class system and to destroy minority rights.

If we compare Stalin's platform with that of the average liberal party, we don't see a lot in common.

But that does not mean Communism is not on the extreme left wing of the spectrun.

 

[Political Junky]

Not so fast.

Where does he claim he's not a socialist?

"The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive."
–Adolf Hitler

Hitler killed socialists and communists.

No rational person can deny that ... right?

 

[Amazed]

Yes this is CLEARLY a "Rightwing" platform.

Yes, it is very clearly an extreme right wing platform, because it aims to direct capital to the middle and upper classes, to stimulate corporations, to enhance the class system and to destroy minority rights.

If we compare Stalin's platform with that of the average liberal party, we don't see a lot in common.

But that does not mean Communism is not on the extreme left wing of the spectrun.

Sorry Saigon, you don't get to redifne things to suit your own definitions and beliefs..there is nothing Rightwing about it.

 

[GoneBezerk]

I'm done with the lying sack of shit.

It will just lie, lie and lie some more either from being stupid or evil, maybe both.

Socialists and Communists fighting for control of Europe doesn't make either of them right-wing. It is human nature that even some brothers will fight each other over power, control and wealth but I guess the dumbfuck will claim they aren't from the same mother....

Wikipedia......

Yeah, a bunch of leftists posted bullshit there so it must be true.

Hitler shared the beliefs of the liberals of his time and today.....Eugenics, Euthanasia, Anti-Christian, Anti-Jew, Universal Healthcare, Govt control of industries/companies, etc.

In effect, OP is playing a game of semantics, attempting to equate 'right wing' in the totalitarian central planning scale to the 'right wing' of American conservatism.

Fail.

Pathetically.

 

[Saigon]

In effect, OP is playing a game of semantics, attempting to equate 'right wing' in the totalitarian central planning scale to the 'right wing' of American conservatism.

Not at all, not by a million miles.

As I have explained several times now (remember when I said you wouldn't understand this?!), the centre of the spectrum is further from either extreme than they two extremes are to each other.

That is why it is a horseshoe.

The model suggests that the GOP can not sensibly be called fascists.

The model suggests that the Dems can not sensibly be called communists.

I'd really like to think you could get this, and as always I will answer any sensible question.

 

[SniperFire]

In effect, OP is playing a game of semantics, attempting to equate 'right wing' in the totalitarian central planning scale to the 'right wing' of American conservatism.

Not at all, not by a million miles.

As I have explained several times now (remember when I said you wouldn't understand this?!), the centre of the spectrum is further from either extreme than they two extremes are to each other.

That is why it is a horseshoe.

The model suggests that the GOP can not sensibly be called fascists.

The model suggests that the Dems can not sensibly be called communists.

I'd really like to think you could get this, and as always I will answer any sensible question.

Untrue.

Both or your 'extremes' are totalitarian central planners, are they not?

Or will you simply duck this question for the 5th time?

 

[Misty]

I've seen this argued a million times. You can't even define true conservatism so how can compare it fascism?

 

[SniperFire]

In effect, OP is playing a game of semantics, attempting to equate 'right wing' in the totalitarian central planning scale to the 'right wing' of American conservatism.

Not at all, not by a million miles.

As I have explained several times now (remember when I said you wouldn't understand this?!), the centre of the spectrum is further from either extreme than they two extremes are to each other.

That is why it is a horseshoe.

The model suggests that the GOP can not sensibly be called fascists.

The model suggests that the Dems can not sensibly be called communists.

I'd really like to think you could get this, and as always I will answer any sensible question.

It is a horseshoe because it only represents extremes in totalitarian central planning.

The unrepresented part simply represented as 'anarchy' is where we find American conservatism.

Of course, you know that.

 

[Misty]

Fascism is right wing. So is theocracy, monarchy, oligarchy, aristocracy, plutocracy, corporatism and military rule.

Hmmm I just saw this same list on wiki.

 

[Saigon]

The unrepresented part simply represented as 'anarchy' is where we find American conservatism.

This may be about the stupidest statement on this thread yet - and there are a few contenders.

Really, Sniper, you have absolutely no idea about politics whatsoever, have you?


btw. Central planning is prominent in quite a number of extreme right wing societies. Stroessner, Pinochet, Franco, Antonescu...it just isn't at issue here. It just is not a feature of Conservatism or more moderate right wing ideologies. I don't dodge points, but sometimes ignore things I imagine you could figure out yourself if you could use Google.

 

[SniperFire]

The unrepresented part simply represented as 'anarchy' is where we find American conservatism.

This may be about the stupidest statement on this thread yet - and there are a few contenders.

Really, Sniper, you have absolutely no idea about politics whatsoever, have you?

Would you agree that Fascists were totalitarian central planners?

 

[SniperFire]

And would you agree the America Libertarian / conservative is the antithesis of authoritarian central planning?

 

[Saigon]

I've seen this argued a million times. You can't even define true conservatism so how can compare it fascism?

Conservatism is difficult to define exactly, but we all know where it sits on the spectrum.

It is always in an arc between Centrism and the Right Wing, and usually quite moderate.

It's not often we hear a term like "extreme conservatism" used, as we usually think of conservatism as being more mainstream than harsher "right wing" parties.

 

[Saigon]

And would you agree the America Libertarian / conservative is the antithesis of authoritarian central planning?

Yes, by and large.

But the further you go towards extremism, the more right wing ideologies require authorities to enforce their will, maintain order and implement policy.

While right wing parties might remove some bureaucracy in economic management - it often appears as social management and policing.

The key to understanding this is to understand the ideological principles ALL right wing parties share - namely support for the upper class, the use of capital and a kind of 'social homogeneity'.

How they achieve and implement policy can be wildly different, but the ideology remains.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The key to understanding this is to understand the ideological principles ALL right wing parties share - namely support for the upper class, the use of capital and a kind of 'social homogeneity'.

What you call support for the upper class is really the protection of earning and from taxation outside of representation and enumerated powers.

 

[GoneBezerk]

The idiot Saigon is trying to tell us what we believe when it is too stupid to understand itself.....

 

[francoHFW]

And would you agree the America Libertarian / conservative is the antithesis of authoritarian central planning?

As represented by dupes of the GOP, who will never actually DO any such thing.. The GOP is big government greedy lying corporatists.

 

[Saigon]

The key to understanding this is to understand the ideological principles ALL right wing parties share - namely support for the upper class, the use of capital and a kind of 'social homogeneity'.

What you call support for the upper class is really the protection of earning and from taxation outside of representation and enumerated powers.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

Although in the case of Hitler the emphasis on earnings through dividends suggests that his interest was very much the elite of society, rather than the lower middle class his rhetoric often appealed to.

If we look at the shareholders in corporations like I.G.Farben what we see is a Who's Who of the German elite.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The key to understanding this is to understand the ideological principles ALL right wing parties share - namely support for the upper class, the use of capital and a kind of 'social homogeneity'.

What you call support for the upper class is really the protection of earning and from taxation outside of representation and enumerated powers.

Yes, I'd agree with that.

The theme and tenor of your posts suggest otherwise.