Fascism

[Contumacious]

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

That's not an insult. It's an accurate description of what you're trying to do.

The issue under discussion in this thread is whether fascism is "rightwing." If that yardstick measures anything, it measures the amount of government control supported by a given ideology. If it doesn't measure that, then what does it measure? You already avoided answering that question.

According to the left/right paradigm, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing.

That is INCORRECT


Fascism can be either from the Left or the Right.

The Fascist Threat

In reviewing the history of the rise of fascism, Flynn wrote:

“One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation. The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different but all drove in the same direction. And this was that the economic system must be controlled in its essential functions and this control must be exercised by the producing groups."

Flynn writes that the right and the left disagreed on precisely who fits the bill as the producer group. The left tends to celebrate laborers as producers. The right tends to favor business owners as producers. The political compromise — and it still goes on today – was to cartelize both.

 

[westwall]

Also, you can have social democracies (a number of European states have this) where individualism co-exists with the state.

We all have to co-exist with the state but that isn't socialism. If the state isn't running business it isn't fascism. If the state doesn't own business, it isn't socialism. If the state doesn't own the people it isn't communism.

All this crap is to smear Trump as a fascist by people who don't know what it is, just a bad word.

It isn't pure socialism. Neither is it pure capitalism.

The Kibbutz's were "communist". The state didn't own them. Members were free to leave.

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

Why must you insert malice in everything? Most liberals, and I am one, don't understand the commonality because they have decades of teachers and professors telling them false info. Remove the malice from your posts so that all can learn here. And that is ultimately what we want to happen is it not?

 

[bripat9643]

Again, name the real differences between Nazi Germany and Communist Russia

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

Here is what you just said:

1. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both
2. Fascism is widely regarded as right wing.

You posted two sentences in sequence that contradict other. That's pretty much the story of this whole thread: one failed attempt at committing logic after another.

How do they contradict each other?
Nazism.
Fascism.

I've linked to sources already so I'm not going to repeat that.

Nazism is fascism.

 

[westwall]

No, Coyote is c

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Tell that to Massey.

I'm not saying you don't care. But clearly, there are others who do not unless the financial cost becomes to high. I'm also talking historically - we would not have enacted those laws had there not been a need. Human life was cheap.

I think you'll find many of the abuses came from those in bed with government. It's how many got big. There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. You are applying your own terms to the words. Capitalism is private ownership. Period. It does not mean greedy, evil or inhumane, just private ownership.

I think that's a convenient excuse for greedy, evil, inhumane behavior.

There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. EXACTLY. Now you get it.

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

 

[westwall]

That is what you implied in your post to Coyote. There are few people who are malicious. That's the point. Most are merely uninformed. It is our duty to inform those who wish to learn. Insulting them doesn't help, nor does it impress those sitting on the sidelines trying to learn.

 

[westwall]

Capitalism exists in degrees - from totally unfettered (which I think does not exist anywhere but in theory now) to almost completely state controlled. Can we agree on that?

No...complete state control means capitalism does not exist.

EXACTLY.

Why is that so hard to understand.

Capitalism means LIBERTY FREEDOM


.

Really? To some. To others it's sweatshops.

Capitalism needs some regulation.

Absolutely! Unregulated capitalism is every bit as bad as out of control socialism! Well, maybe not quite as bad... out of control socialism is capable of mass murder on a scale that can only be dreamed of by the worst capitalist asshole, but they would certainly try. And that is the problem.

The problem with economic systems and political ideologies is that what looks good in theory often crashes in the face of human nature. Socialism and communism, when you look at what they sprang out of - looks good on paper. People forget what it was like at the time - very restrictive class structures, which in Europe meant very little economic and social mobility - big gaps between the poor and the rich and few means of bridging them. Pre-union days meant horrible exploitation of workers and appalling work conditions in many cases. And that is unfettered capitalism. It's easy to see why socialism, with it's egalitarian structure and promises of social equality and wealth sharing was so appealing. But in real life it doesn't work that way because there are always people who want more and, in particular want power over others and there are always going to be people who don't want to work. More importantly, it fails economically because there is no incentive to work harder or better or more efficiently and no reward. That's the big failing - we humans are like our dogs - we need to be paid personally, altruism only goes so far and usually only works in small environments like religious communities where people share a common philosophy.

Agreed. And that is why our system of government is the best. It protects the rights of the individual. Government by its very nature is anti person. It is interested in the collective, but the individual is merely another impediment to its control.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

That was capitalism but capitalism doesn't dictate how people are to be treated. That's where the leftist spin comes in. A socialist system can very much treat people like garbage too. I see morality mixed into economic descriptions to further agendas.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Who decides what a life is worth?

Whaaaat? You're all over the place. Ask the aborted fetus. There, a new tangent.

Not at all.

In unregulated capitalism - human life has very little value. Let's not derail into an abortion debate.

Actually, it has tremendous value or capitalism wouldn't exist....

That's patently untrue. In capitalism - the only thing of value is the bottom line, and human lives are just another commodity. If that were case, there would be no need to have laws regulating the number of hours a person can work, mandating safety standards, ending child labor, etc.

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Yep. I have employees I pay more than I do myself.

This entire notion that capitalism is inherently evil can only come from a certain extreme segment of the population.

 

[Iceweasel]

I could charge people more than I do quite easily. And they would never know. Bottom line my ass!

 

[westwall]

What's all this purity business? Purity is a religious concept. A social democracy isn't socialism. I'm not sure why it's called that but the countries themselves, like Germany are the Federal Republic of Germany. Which ones identify as socialist? I'm not even sure Greece does.

Maybe that's the problem - defining ideologies gets very fuzzy in reality. If something has some aspects of an ideology what is it?

Left wingers like you deliberate obfuscate the issue because you don't want people to understand the reality of socialism and fascism.

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. Got it.

Let me know when you're prepared to move past that. If you can't, then I'll chalk it up to an inability to communicate on your part.

Socialism and fascism are not soley economic systems, as you wish to imply. Look it up beyond the dictionary and it's obvious but that requires a bit more work.

That's not an insult. It's an accurate description of what you're trying to do.

The issue under discussion in this thread is whether fascism is "rightwing." If that yardstick measures anything, it measures the amount of government control supported by a given ideology. If it doesn't measure that, then what does it measure? You already avoided answering that question.

According to the left/right paradigm, fascism is leftwing, not rightwing.

That is INCORRECT


Fascism can be either from the Left or the Right.

The Fascist Threat

In reviewing the history of the rise of fascism, Flynn wrote:

“One of the most baffling phenomena of fascism is the almost incredible collaboration between men of the extreme Right and the extreme Left in its creation. The explanation lies at this point. Both Right and Left joined in this urge for regulation. The motives, the arguments, and the forms of expression were different but all drove in the same direction. And this was that the economic system must be controlled in its essential functions and this control must be exercised by the producing groups."

Flynn writes that the right and the left disagreed on precisely who fits the bill as the producer group. The left tends to celebrate laborers as producers. The right tends to favor business owners as producers. The political compromise — and it still goes on today – was to cartelize both.

Do you yet understand why fascism can't be both left or right? Do you understand the problem with that line of thinking? Fascism is a collectivist government type. Thus is is leftist. The opposite of a collectivist government type is an individualist system. The most extreme version of that is anarchy. Those are your two extremes. Fascism, socialism, communism, are ALL leftwing. Anarchy is rightwing.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. .

Yet you support Wry Catcher, who started this in the clean debate section but immediately started calling people names.

 

[westwall]

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

That was capitalism but capitalism doesn't dictate how people are to be treated. That's where the leftist spin comes in. A socialist system can very much treat people like garbage too. I see morality mixed into economic descriptions to further agendas.

I agree. I even stated that within the body of my post. However, we, as a people, must make sure that assholes like Shkreli are controlled so that they can't abuse US.

 

[Staidhup]

Interesting in that the word is once again used out of context by a mysterious source that has no credentials, at least from what I can see. There is no Dr. Lawrence Britt in academia, nor is he the author of any political science papers or books. This may be why his observation lacks substance. Within the political context of Fascism, government is run by one party, opposition parties are prohibited, the government controls all aspects of production, distribution,and labor. Individual freedoms are subject to state control and oversight, freedom of the press does not exist. Loyal party followers are rewarded with lavish monopolies,contracts, in short cronyism. What you have from an economic standpoint is total centralized control over the economy by a select few. Nationalism is the legitimate offspring of the movement which leans toward former national accomplishments,as exhibited in Italy with the Roman conquest of the world, and Germany with Germanic myth and racial purity. The distributions between Socialism, Communism, and Fascism are but a very thin line and have more to do with party apparatus, policies, and succession. All three are frauds designed with the sole purpose of population control for the express desire of a few at the top, which is why propaganda is so important to preservation of the facade.

In short what this mysterious Dr Britt is confused with is the simple distinctions between Populism and Fascism, with strong racist overtones employed to serve his argument which is weak at best.

 

[bripat9643]

That is what you implied in your post to Coyote. There are few people who are malicious. That's the point. Most are merely uninformed. It is our duty to inform those who wish to learn. Insulting them doesn't help, nor does it impress those sitting on the sidelines trying to learn.

I disagree with your theory that few people are malicious. If you want to see the proof of that, just watch this video:



Your also mistaken if you believe people like Coyote are capable of "learning" anything. Her views are set in concrete. The more irrefutable the facts and logic you post are, the harder she will defend her delusions.

 

[westwall]

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. .

Yet you support Wry Catcher, who started this in the clean debate section but immediately started calling people names.

Instead of hurling insults, let us discuss the topic. Wry is a powerfully ignorant person who wanted to try and control the discussion but couldn't control his baser instincts. That's why the thread got moved. Let us discuss the topic, and not the people involved.

 

[Coyote]

And people like you fail abysmally at debating and have to resort to personal insults. .

Yet you support Wry Catcher, who started this in the clean debate section but immediately started calling people names.

I do? Thread was moved. Not sure if you noticed that bit.

In the meantime - do you have anything to add on the topic of fascism? I don't think Trump is fascist, yet, but there are some tendancies. I also do not think that our system of government would allow a fascist system to rise.

 

[12icer]

Yeah the eradication of the liberal bullshit pumps will just continue when the TRUMP alights. They are about to be shown for what they are PURE SCUM. Their labels have come back to them because THEY ARE everything they accuse GOOD HONORABLE PEOPLE of being with complete indifference, and disdain for truth.

 

[westwall]

That is what you implied in your post to Coyote. There are few people who are malicious. That's the point. Most are merely uninformed. It is our duty to inform those who wish to learn. Insulting them doesn't help, nor does it impress those sitting on the sidelines trying to learn.

I disagree with your theory that few people are malicious. If you want to see the proof of that, just watch this video:



Your also mistaken if you believe people like Coyote are capable of "learning" anything. Her views are set in concrete. The more irrefutable the facts and logic you post are, the harder she will defend her delusions.

Wrong. I used to be like Coyote, I learned. Most of the members of La Raza are not malicious. There are some who are however, and quite virulently at that. Once again you wish to paint all with the brush that should only be applied to the few.

 

[Coyote]

In terms of results - very little. I'm sure that means you will argue that proves Nazi Germany was "leftwing" and others would argue that proves Stalin was "rightwing". What they did was less reflected of an ideology than it was of a single-minded obsession of an autocratic ruler and in that, it defies all ideology.

So now your claiming that fascism and socialism have no relation to the left/right political spectrum?

You've argued yourself into a circle. You've been claiming for this entire thread that fascism is "right wing," but now you just admitted that calling it "right wing" is bullshit.

Actually if you read what I wrote (which you don't seem very good at) - I've stated the following. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both and unique and I've posted sources for that already. Fascism is widely regarded as rightwing. Socialism as leftwing.

In fact both Stalinism and Nazism have become their own categories.

Here is what you just said:

1. Hitler's Nazism is largely regarded as neither right nor left, but a mess of both
2. Fascism is widely regarded as right wing.

You posted two sentences in sequence that contradict other. That's pretty much the story of this whole thread: one failed attempt at committing logic after another.

How do they contradict each other?
Nazism.
Fascism.

I've linked to sources already so I'm not going to repeat that.

Nazism is fascism.

Where some disagree with you on that is that fascism did not have a racial component to it and Nazism is primarily a racial superiority ideology.

 

[bripat9643]

No, Coyote is c

You are trolling or out of touch with reality beyond all human comprehension.

I have been a business owner for 32 years and have known many many others. Money is not the bottom line on many occasions. You have to pay the bills but often there are more considerations involved. Quit jerking us around!

Tell that to Massey.

I'm not saying you don't care. But clearly, there are others who do not unless the financial cost becomes to high. I'm also talking historically - we would not have enacted those laws had there not been a need. Human life was cheap.

I think you'll find many of the abuses came from those in bed with government. It's how many got big. There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. You are applying your own terms to the words. Capitalism is private ownership. Period. It does not mean greedy, evil or inhumane, just private ownership.

I think that's a convenient excuse for greedy, evil, inhumane behavior.

There's nothing about the system of capitalism that dictates human worth. EXACTLY. Now you get it.

What "greedy, evil, inhumane behavior" does it excuse?

Under capitalism, the consumers dictate the value of your labor. The concept of "human worth," is so nebulous that it's meaningless.

No, Coyote is correct. When capitalism was first flexing its muscles it treated human beings very poorly. I will grant you that it was the leadership of the company that dictated that and not capitalism as a philosophy, but the reality is that slaves in the southern US had a better life than the Irish factory workers did in the North. That's because they were property and property has a value. The workers in the north were considered nothing more than a necessary nuisance.

No she isn't. When capitalism was "first flexing it's muscles," life generally sucked. It was hard. Infant mortality was sky high. Women had 6-10 children because more than half of them would die before they reached adulthood. Making a living in a factory was hard, but it wasn't as hard as farming to make a living.

If slaves had it better, then why did they always try to escape and then head North when they did? If life in the factory was so bad, then why did people leave the farm and flock to the factory towns?