Do You Guy's Know The Difference Between:-

BluesLegend

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2014
Messages
45,994
Reaction score
10,155
Points
2,410
Location
Trump's Army
They're just different facets of the same degenerate evil.

There is no need to pick nits over whatever subtle distinctions might exist between them. The underlying ideology is the same, and the result of implementing it is the same.
This is why we can't have nice things. Because misinformed idiots like you have made up what passes for your mind and you're not changing it regardless of how badly Republicans fuck this up again.

This is the third time that Republicans have crashed the economy, leaving millions unemployed and without health insurance, in the past 40 years. You're done for this time. The only way for right wing economic policies to survive, is to have a right wing dictatorship, with kills and destroys all leftist opposition.

This is your transition to the Trump Regime - a banana republic hellhole.
You spew lie after lie, look nobody buys the BS you are peddling.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
816
Points
195
Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality.
Who's morality? Yours? Hitlers? Mao? Stalin? Trump?

But putting that aside, no. Telling attributes are the ones that serve as the root cause. Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable. There's the disease (big government/group rights) and then there's the symptoms of the disease (Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism).
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.
 

Death Angel

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Messages
29,312
Reaction score
10,006
Points
910
Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

And hands up if any of you have ever actually read Das Capital?
We're just lowly AMERICANS who put a man on the moon. We are an ignorant bunch. We were never a penal colony, just simple settlers in a wilderness
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
816
Points
195
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 leftright 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.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality.
Who's morality? Yours? Hitlers? Mao? Stalin? Trump?

But putting that aside, no. Telling attributes are the ones that serve as the root cause. Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable. There's the disease (big government/group rights) and then there's the symptoms of the disease (Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism).
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.
That's some leap in logic.

I started off stating that fascism is based on big government and group rights. That it is reliance on big government and elevating group rights above individual rights which ultimately leads to socialism eventually degrading into communism when money runs out and services are rationed. That it is the natural order that liberalism will be pushed aside by radicalism, that radicalism has to surrender to socialism, and that socialism will eventually devolve into communism.

Those are the claims I have made. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop misstating my claims.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
816
Points
195
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 leftright 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?
 

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
668
Points
210
Location
Midwest
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 leftright 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.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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 leftright 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.
uh huh.

Which group was the dominant group in their government?

"During the Rwandan genocide of 1994, 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 genocide spread throughout the country with shocking speed and brutality, as ordinary citizens were incited by local officials and the Hutu Power government to take up arms against their neighbors..."


you should be ashamed of yourself.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
816
Points
195
Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality.
Who's morality? Yours? Hitlers? Mao? Stalin? Trump?

But putting that aside, no. Telling attributes are the ones that serve as the root cause. Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable. There's the disease (big government/group rights) and then there's the symptoms of the disease (Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism).
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.
That's some leap in logic.

I started off stating that fascism is based on big government and group rights. That it is reliance on big government and elevating group rights above individual rights which ultimately leads to socialism eventually degrading into communism when money runs out and services are rationed. That it is the natural order that liberalism will be pushed aside by radicalism, that radicalism has to surrender to socialism, and that socialism will eventually devolve into communism.

Those are the claims I have made. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop misstating my claims.
How am I misstating your claims? I gave three things I found morally objectionable. Nationalism, racism and authoritarianism. This was your reply.
Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable.
 

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
668
Points
210
Location
Midwest
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 leftright 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?
The UK has never had free speech, but hasn't there been a drastic crackdown lately on what people are allowed to say. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by liberal, I'm assuming national programs, but giving the government more power over its people is always a risk. Aren't many Eastern European nations chaffing over some of the dictates of the European Union?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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 leftright 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.
I agree. One size does not fit all. Lastly, our government does not want lower prices period. We are a far cry from a nation based upon the principles of free enterprise. We are a managed economy.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality.
Who's morality? Yours? Hitlers? Mao? Stalin? Trump?

But putting that aside, no. Telling attributes are the ones that serve as the root cause. Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable. There's the disease (big government/group rights) and then there's the symptoms of the disease (Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism).
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.
That's some leap in logic.

I started off stating that fascism is based on big government and group rights. That it is reliance on big government and elevating group rights above individual rights which ultimately leads to socialism eventually degrading into communism when money runs out and services are rationed. That it is the natural order that liberalism will be pushed aside by radicalism, that radicalism has to surrender to socialism, and that socialism will eventually devolve into communism.

Those are the claims I have made. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop misstating my claims.
How am I misstating your claims? I gave three things I found morally objectionable. Nationalism, racism and authoritarianism. This was your reply.
Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable.
Dude, if you can't see how you reached conclusions I did not make, I am afraid I cannot help you.

I haven't misstated your position and I'd appreciate it if you didn't misstate mine. Now what conclusions can you reach from my position that fascism is based on big government and group rights. That it is reliance on big government and elevating group rights above individual rights which ultimately leads to socialism eventually degrading into communism when money runs out and services are rationed. That it is the natural order that liberalism will be pushed aside by radicalism, that radicalism has to surrender to socialism, and that socialism will eventually devolve into communism.
 

DustyInfinity

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
2,023
Reaction score
668
Points
210
Location
Midwest
Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality.
Who's morality? Yours? Hitlers? Mao? Stalin? Trump?

But putting that aside, no. Telling attributes are the ones that serve as the root cause. Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable. There's the disease (big government/group rights) and then there's the symptoms of the disease (Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism).
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.
That's some leap in logic.

I started off stating that fascism is based on big government and group rights. That it is reliance on big government and elevating group rights above individual rights which ultimately leads to socialism eventually degrading into communism when money runs out and services are rationed. That it is the natural order that liberalism will be pushed aside by radicalism, that radicalism has to surrender to socialism, and that socialism will eventually devolve into communism.

Those are the claims I have made. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop misstating my claims.
How am I misstating your claims? I gave three things I found morally objectionable. Nationalism, racism and authoritarianism. This was your reply.
Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable.
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.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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 leftright 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.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
816
Points
195
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 leftright 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?
 
Last edited:

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality.
Who's morality? Yours? Hitlers? Mao? Stalin? Trump?

But putting that aside, no. Telling attributes are the ones that serve as the root cause. Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable. There's the disease (big government/group rights) and then there's the symptoms of the disease (Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism).
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.
That's some leap in logic.

I started off stating that fascism is based on big government and group rights. That it is reliance on big government and elevating group rights above individual rights which ultimately leads to socialism eventually degrading into communism when money runs out and services are rationed. That it is the natural order that liberalism will be pushed aside by radicalism, that radicalism has to surrender to socialism, and that socialism will eventually devolve into communism.

Those are the claims I have made. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop misstating my claims.
How am I misstating your claims? I gave three things I found morally objectionable. Nationalism, racism and authoritarianism. This was your reply.
Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable.
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.
That's actually a very important finding of Shafarevich's book. Socialism seeks to subordinate God, country and family because they compete with loyalty to state. Ron Paul said it best...
"Throughout our nation's history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people's allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before putting their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation's Christian heritage." Dr. Ron Paul
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
816
Points
195
Telling attributes to me are the ones that are the most objectionable to morality.
Who's morality? Yours? Hitlers? Mao? Stalin? Trump?

But putting that aside, no. Telling attributes are the ones that serve as the root cause. Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable. There's the disease (big government/group rights) and then there's the symptoms of the disease (Nationalism, Racism, and totalitarianism).
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.
That's some leap in logic.

I started off stating that fascism is based on big government and group rights. That it is reliance on big government and elevating group rights above individual rights which ultimately leads to socialism eventually degrading into communism when money runs out and services are rationed. That it is the natural order that liberalism will be pushed aside by radicalism, that radicalism has to surrender to socialism, and that socialism will eventually devolve into communism.

Those are the claims I have made. I would greatly appreciate it if you would stop misstating my claims.
How am I misstating your claims? I gave three things I found morally objectionable. Nationalism, racism and authoritarianism. This was your reply.
Big government and group rights are the root cause for the things you found morally objectionable.
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.
I'm talking about Germany specifically, because their form of Nationalism gave them the impression that they had the imperative to unite all German-speaking people and to acquire lebensraum for them.
 

forkup

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2016
Messages
5,211
Reaction score
816
Points
195
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 leftright 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.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
69,882
Reaction score
3,813
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
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 leftright 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.

 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top