Do You Guy's Know The Difference Between:-

[ding]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

There is not a country in the world that allows for completely free speech. Try yelling fire in a movie theatre and see what happens. There are naturally even necessarily restrictions on what someone can say.

As to the European Union. There have been problems that's still a far cry from being able to establish they'll all of a sudden turn Communist. Try telling a Pole for instance their Communists. I very much doubt they'll have much of a sense of humor about it.

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwandan Genocide - Facts, Response & Trials | HISTORY

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

www.history.com

Yes I still disagree, from your link.

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

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

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

 

[9thIDdoc]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

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

Is there a difference? Why would someone care.?

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just did. It's the logical conclusion.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rwandan Genocide - Facts, Response & Trials | HISTORY

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

www.history.com

Yes I still disagree, from your link.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[ding]

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

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

According to Rudolph Rummel,

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

R. J. Rummel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Communist are Socialist with guns

 

[ding]

So the bigger and more powerful a government gets the more evil it can inflict upon it's citizens.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Where is Trump on the political spectrum?

 

[Levant]

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

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

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

 

[Levant]

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

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

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

 

[Levant]

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

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

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

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

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

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

Is it 40% tax rates, 60% tax rates and 100% tax rates?

 

[DustyInfinity]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[DustyInfinity]

I was curious how liberalism turned into government control and power. Didn't it originally mean free? Does anyone else see the irony of 'liberals' banning free speech and wanting more government power? This reminds me of Ding's progression. liberalism - Radicalism - Socialism - Communism.
Didn't the soviets turn the democrat party into the big government party? Yes, I know Mcarthy's lists had the wrong names on them, but it is pretty well documented that the Soviets had many people planted in the US. There is still a statue of Alger Hiss at Harvard.

 

[DustyInfinity]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I'll prove it. Which of these policies is the one you have a problem with? Nazis created a system where ordinary workers could go on the world's very first cruises. Nazi's slaughtered millions of Jews.

Tell me which of these is the problematic one?

forkup, you're a socialist at heart and you'll never change. Cuba and Venezuela are your kind of countries. Move to either one. I'll pay your way after you have moved. Just send me your address and I'll mail a check and good riddance.
Now you go to my Ignore List. I have no interest in reading another word of your Bidenistic nonsense.
ciao brutto

Lol, what you don't like it when you actually have to deal in facts?

The National Socialist People's Welfare (German: Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt, NSV) was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1931 as a local welfare organization; on 3 May 1933, shortly after the Nazi Party took power in Weimar Germany, Hitler turned it into a party organization of the NSDAP. The main offices were in Berlin. The structure of the NSV was based on the Nazi Party model, with local, county (Kreis) and district (Gau) administrations.[1]

Erich Hilgenfeldt, who worked as office head at the NSV, organized a charity drive to celebrate Adolf Hitler's birthday on 20 April, 1931. Following this move Joseph Goebbels named him the leader of the NSV. The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ on 3 May 1933.[2] On 21 September in the same year, Hilgenfeldt was appointed as Reich Commissioner for the Winterhilfswerk (Winter Support Programme). Under Hilgenfeldt, the programme was massively expanded so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world". One method of expansion was to absorb, or in Nazi parlance coordinate, already existing yet non-Nazi charity organizations. In 1933, Hitler decreed the banning of all private charity organizations in Germany, ordering NSV chairman Hilgenfeldt to "see to the disbanding of all private welfare institutions", which provided the Nazis the means to engage in the social engineering of society through the selection of who could receive government benefits.[3] Hitler had essentially nationalized local municipalities, German federal states and private delivery structures that had provided welfare services to the public.[4]


NSV membership card, 1935
The NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1935, second only to the German Labour Front. It had 4.7 million members and 520,000 volunteer workers. Nazi Party members who were active in communal welfare professionally or as volunteers had to be NSV members.[5]

With 17 million Germans receiving assistance under the auspices of NSV by 1939, the agency "projected a powerful image of caring and support".[6] The Nazis provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft, which promoted the collectivity of a people's community where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated 8,000 day-nurseries by 1939 and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families and was involved with a wide variety of other facilities.[7]

The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes and interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941.[8] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible "for travellers' aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; support for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics".[9] The Office of Youth Relief, which had 30,000 branch offices by 1941, took the job of supervising "social workers, corrective training, mediation assistance" and dealing with judicial authorities to prevent juvenile delinquency.[10]

One of the NSV's premier activities was the Winter Relief of the German People, which coordinated an annual drive to collect charity for the poor under the slogan: "None shall starve or freeze". These social welfare programs represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans "the highest possible standard of living".[11]

During World War II, the NSV took over more and more governmental responsibilities, especially in the fields of child and youth labor. The expenses for the Nazi’s welfare state continued to mount, increasing significantly just before and after the beginning of World War II. In three budgetary years, the funds required by Germany's social welfare programs had more than doubled from 640.4 million Reichmarks in 1938 to 1.395 billion Reichmarks by 1941.[12]

The NSV was also involved in the distribution of soup to the citizens of Warsaw after the city's surrender; Jews were excluded from the effort, which focused on the propaganda value.[13]

After Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II, the American Military Government issued a special law outlawing the Nazi Party and all of its branches. Known as Law number five, this denazification decree disbanded the NSV, like all organizations linked to the Nazi Party. The social welfare organizations had to be established anew during the postwar reconstruction of both West and East Germany.

Anyone who calls themselves a socialist.?.youre practically a nazi already
And just like the nazis everything is about race with you uneducated brainwashed leftwing socialist morons

You're so fucking dumbed down 2nd and 3rd worlders think you're jokes.. to them ...you're pathetic desperate laughing stocks to be used and exploited

View attachment 343954

Please point to where you see me claiming Nazis weren't socialists? Go ahead. My argument was that it wasn't the social aspect of Nazism that gave it it's notoriety. But rather the nationalistic and racial aspect of them. Feel free to go through your own post and tell me specifically what you find objectionable about their social programs.

Mein Kampf was not so much about Socialism as it was about racism and German exceptionalism. Unless you want me to draw the obvious parallels between Trumpism and Nazism, I'd suggest you refrain from trying to put up a strawman argument.

Tell me which joke of a European nation you're from ...or decaying anglosphere nation and I will show you a creeping authoritarian nazi like nightmare thats only getting worse ...mr democatic socialist

Go ahead which loser nazi country run by fags and women are ya from

Oh lord, why is it so hard for some people to remain civil on the internet? See, I wouldn't mind answering questions to someone who can have a civil conversation between opposing views. Then questions are the way people who don't agree can at least learn to understand each other somewhat. However, I see no point in answering questions of someone who can't make it through 2 posts without starting to name-call. I know that trolling is fun for some people, but I just find it tedious. Maybe one day you'll reach the age of 6, which is the maximum age I have allowed this level of discourse from my kid and we can try talking again.

They erased my fu 2nd post to the educated moron who was gonna show us how drumph was hitler ...gtfoh mods
Did the nazi eurotrash hit the report button lol good

These people are idiots

I don't report anything ever. I prefer to let stupidity speak for itself.

Le me guess what comes after this

I live in a Social Democracy, meaning that my country recognizes as does yours by the way just to a lesser extent than society as a whole does have a responsibility to help its weaker members. That IS Socialism

We heard it all before a million times from ignorant western europeans
Whats next
The post office , sewer pipes, and armed forces are also the benefits of democratic socailism ..

News flash your vaunted social saftey nets are buckling under the the starin of culturally enriching immigrants with 5 kids each and an average unemployment rate over 70% across the west ..
You throw old people out of thier apartments to make room for people who hate you and homelessness is rampant

Tell us how much you care again asswipe .....or rather your enlightened government and the bureaucratic machine does

God you people are pathetic excuses for human beings
Sub human socialist violent murdering animals

Go stand in the mirror and go give yourself a lecture about how the similarities between deumph and hitler are uncanny...moron

The west is indeed racing towards collapse ...and rivers of blood in western europe....we'll probably be sitting that one out as americans may be to busy firing on each other.

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just did. It's the logical conclusion.

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