Do You Guy's Know The Difference Between:-

[Tommy Tainant]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think I should sell my shares ?

I suggest you look into the relationship between intrinsic value and numerical representation of intrinsic value and understand what that means when a currency crashes. Owning cash isn't always the right answer either.

Your financial awareness is stronger than your political punditry.

 

[ding]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you think I should sell my shares ?

I suggest you look into the relationship between intrinsic value and numerical representation of intrinsic value and understand what that means when a currency crashes. Owning cash isn't always the right answer either.

Your financial awareness is stronger than your political punditry.

Let's not get carried away

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

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

Your link shows Hong Kong as having more personal liberty than the US. The site is bullshit. The US is the best country, with the best government, in the world. If you don't like it, move to whichever country you think is better. Insist on your right to go there for asylum.

The link you are objecting to is from the Cato Institute. Founded and managed by the Koch brothers. Hardly a bastion of the left I would say. Just because you don't believe the information doesn't make it untrue. Anyways what parameters are you using in your claim that the US is the best country/government in the world? Your claim so it should be easy to answer.

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

I think you are on to something there.

Big government vs small government
individual rights vs group rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I just did. It's the logical conclusion.

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

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

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

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

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

Given that social democratic parties arose in Europe, drawing mainly from Marxism and that Marx is considered to be the father of socialism, I find it odd that you would be so quick to kick him to the curb.

Given that the foundation of socialism is materialism, I'm not sure how he could have failed to foresee a a consumption society.

And given that he was trying to overthrow the status quo and start a revolution, I don't see how he could have failed to see a world where socialism didn't influenced political systems.

But as for socialism creating something resembling true equality and creating upward mobility, that's a bunch of horseshit. The goal of socialism isn't equality, it's uniformity. Socialism would rather the poor remain poor as long as the rich are less rich.

You don't have to take my word for it, you will get to experience it for yourself.

The foundation is materialism meaning the idea that all change in history is economically driven. Marx's theories revolved around the idea that the bourgeoisie exploits the proletariat and takes what they produce for themselves. Marx definitely didn't count on a society where the proletariat would be in a position to buy for themselves most of what they produced (consumer society). His whole theory was built around the idea that that inequality would eventually cause a revolution.

As to the goal of Socialism. Again you are making assertions that reality just doesn't bear out. As I said before the Socialist movement was the driving force for most if not all major social changes, none that I can think of are about uniformity. Universal Suffrage isn't about uniformity it's about giving everybody an equal vote for political representation. Abolishing of child labor is not about uniformity but about giving every child equal rights to an education. The founding of labor unions isn't about uniformity but rather about ensuring workers have not just duties but also rights. If you can think of one feel free to mention it.

As to me seeing the truth of your predictions at a later date. It's kind of unfalsifiable, isn't it? You can claim that the reason that your prediction hasn't come out is that not sufficient time has passed for the next millennium and there's no way to disprove it. Here's a novel thought though, you could be wrong? Might be worth entertaining... maybe?

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Think is now been safely established that not only do many Americans not know the difference between socialism and communism - they don't actually know the difference between left and right.

Take care when biking around US army camps!

 

[Levant]

The link you are objecting to is from the Cato Institute. Founded and managed by the Koch brothers. Hardly a bastion of the left I would say. Just because you don't believe the information doesn't make it untrue. Anyways what parameters are you using in your claim that the US is the best country/government in the world? Your claim so it should be easy to answer.

Ok. If you and the Koch Brothers think that Hong Kong is more free than the US, you're all welcome to your opinions and to move there.

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Hong Kong was but won't be soon.

The impression I get of the US is that a few rich individuals through their soundbite media, control a not very savvy nor educated populous.

 

[forkup]

The link you are objecting to is from the Cato Institute. Founded and managed by the Koch brothers. Hardly a bastion of the left I would say. Just because you don't believe the information doesn't make it untrue. Anyways what parameters are you using in your claim that the US is the best country/government in the world? Your claim so it should be easy to answer.

Ok. If you and the Koch Brothers think that Hong Kong is more free than the US, you're all welcome to your opinions and to move there.

You seem to be very unwilling to pin yourself on any testable parameters for your statements. Could it be that you know they are untrue and rather be considered a liar than simply wrong in your beliefs? My guess is yes. As for me moving. If you read trough this OP you would see I'm European.

 

[CowboyTed]

Humans long to be free....its about freedom.....anything that stunts freedom is evil.....

Freedom could mean you can go around shooting people... so stopping people murdering each other is evil...

We are a society and society has rules... Thats for your comment...

 

[CowboyTed]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

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

Didn't read it all but the answer is they don't know...

If anything there ideology seems to have a coloration with ignorance..

They have pretty much little understanding of the nuances of different types of government and the pros and cons of each of them.

This happens everyday here... Ignorance on display...

The truth is life is a balance and any one saying Socialism is evil is just as stupid and some one say Capitalism is evil. In there pure forms both have serious downsides but the best is get the balance between both...

 

[Oz and the Orchestra]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

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

Didn't read it all but the answer is they don't know...

If anything there ideology seems to have a coloration with ignorance..

They have pretty much little understanding of the nuances of different types of government and the pros and cons of each of them.

This happens everyday here... Ignorance on display...

The truth is life is a balance and any one saying Socialism is evil is just as stupid and some one say Capitalism is evil. In there pure forms both have serious downsides but the best is get the balance between both...

Yes I agree! The early capitalism of Blake's 'Dark Satanic Mill'. Has been tempered with socialism over the many decades
since, In Britain the Welfare State, NHS and a gradual improvement in working conditions.

 

[progressive hunter]

View attachment 343867

your graph is pretty close but the conservative republicans are on the left of center not the right,,,thats due to the constitution being the center and they wanting more government than the constitution allows,,,

What? First, the constitution is not in the middle.

The constitution is very much a right-wing document.

Under the constitution the powers of the Federal government are extremely limited. They are limited in a way, that no other government in world history had been limited. And even to this day, no government is as limited as ours is under the constitution.

This places the constitution clearly in the side of the right.

Further, saying conservatives and republicans are left of center, is a bit deceptive.

First, conservatives and republicans are not the same. Republicans are a group of politicians, while conservationism, is an ideology.

I'd be hard pressed to know a conservative that supports government run health care, or all the social programs, or so on.

Bush Jr supported partial privatization of the Social Security. That's about as right-wing a policy as you can get. Bush supported giving VA patients vouchers so they could go to private hospitals. Bush supported school choice and vouchers to do to charter and private schools.

So saying that conservatives are on the left, is not supportable by the facts.

you completely ignored the founding of the country and what they considered and accepted,,,

the founders were close to full anarchist and thats proven by the articles of confederation and the phrase they went by,,,
CAN MAN GOVERN HIMSELF??? which means anarchy

THEY SETTLED ON THE CONSTITUTION BECAUSE they didnt account for stupid and greedy people,,

and please dont try and cherry pick singled out policies to support them,,
the overall of both parties is bigger government than the constitution allows,,,which means they are both to the left of the constitution,,
the right is libertarian to anarchist,,,

sorry but thats the facts and its backed up by history,,,

No, that is false. The problem was not that men were greedy, or that man can't govern himself, or anything like that.

The problem was the Federal government wasn't able to raise an effective army to defend the country as a whole. So they created the constitution.

Again, in what way are conservatives left of the constitutions?

history doesnt support that,,,

republicans are to the left of the constitution because their platform and actions call for more government than the constitution allows,,,,

why conservatives vote for them can only be explained by the kool ade they drink,,,

Again, in what way are conservatives left of the constitutions?

asked and answered,,,

I am growing tired of trying to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Be specific. In what way, are conservatives left of the constitution? NAME IT.

What way? Either shut up, or put up.

so are you agreeing that republicans are left of the constitution???

since youre the one ignoring history you shouldnt complain to me about having an intelligent conversation

You keep making statements you can't back up.

In what way are Conservatives left of the constitution. Name it.

What do you claim we want, that the constitution does not support?

we can start with they vote for a party thats to the left of the constitution,,,

bigger government,,,

Name how conservatives want what is "left of the constitution"?

I'm going to keep asking until you answer me.

bigger government than the constitution allows,,,

can you say 'PATRIOT ACT"???

I havent heard back from you,,,
anything else you would like to know???

 

[danielpalos]

View attachment 343867

Where is Trump on this chart?

 

[bripat9643]

View attachment 343867

Your graph is well screwed, You put National Socialism as extreme left, when everybody else has it as extreme right.

Marxism is international - anybody can be a Marxist.
National Socialism is as its name suggests nationalist and inverted - only very select people can be NS.
If you put Communist - you have to put Capitalist opposite.
Liberal and Libertarian are pretty much the same thing.

I didn't create the graph. I didn't "put National Socialism as extreme left."
And "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.
You need to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I took notes on the fine book which eludes you and Leftists and "progressives" (sick) everywhere.

Liberals are fascists and libertarians describes our Founding Fathers, who cherished liberty and feared oppressive government, which liberals adore and promote, like they promote the butchery of innocent unborn babies.

I love that little switch you pulled here.

put National Socialism as extreme left."

nd "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.

If you don't think there's a difference between Socialism and National Socialism the internet is your friend. Definition of SOCIALISM

Nazism | Definition, Leaders, Ideology, & History

Nazism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany, characterized by intense nationalism, mass appeal, dictatorial rule, and a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

www.britannica.com

In short, Socialism is at its core a collection of political theories that deal with the role of government and economics. National Socialism is a VERY specific political ideology that had its heyday in Germany during the thirties and forties of the last century. It gained notoriety because it wasn't just authoritarian but also EXTREMELY nationalistic and bigoted in its policies to the point of committing genocide. Them being Socialists wasn't a factor of their notoriety.

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?

You failed to prove that Nazism wasn't socialist and therefore leftwing. Whether that made them "notorious" is beside the point.

 

[Norman]

View attachment 343867

Your graph is well screwed, You put National Socialism as extreme left, when everybody else has it as extreme right.

Marxism is international - anybody can be a Marxist.
National Socialism is as its name suggests nationalist and inverted - only very select people can be NS.
If you put Communist - you have to put Capitalist opposite.
Liberal and Libertarian are pretty much the same thing.

I didn't create the graph. I didn't "put National Socialism as extreme left."
And "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.
You need to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I took notes on the fine book which eludes you and Leftists and "progressives" (sick) everywhere.

Liberals are fascists and libertarians describes our Founding Fathers, who cherished liberty and feared oppressive government, which liberals adore and promote, like they promote the butchery of innocent unborn babies.

I love that little switch you pulled here.

put National Socialism as extreme left."

nd "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.

If you don't think there's a difference between Socialism and National Socialism the internet is your friend. Definition of SOCIALISM

Nazism | Definition, Leaders, Ideology, & History

Nazism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany, characterized by intense nationalism, mass appeal, dictatorial rule, and a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

www.britannica.com

In short, Socialism is at its core a collection of political theories that deal with the role of government and economics. National Socialism is a VERY specific political ideology that had its heyday in Germany during the thirties and forties of the last century. It gained notoriety because it wasn't just authoritarian but also EXTREMELY nationalistic and bigoted in its policies to the point of committing genocide. Them being Socialists wasn't a factor of their notoriety.

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?

You failed to prove that Nazism wasn't socialist and therefore leftwing. Whether that made them "notorious" is beside the point.

Before starting with elaborate theories one should look at the name...

National SOCIALISM.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

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

Socialism and communism are totalitarian.
Thats all that matters

Really? I live in a social Democracy, pretty sure I vote for my elected officials. In fact, since my choices of parties who have a realistic chance of getting power isn't restricted to 2, I would argue my form of government is less authoritarian than yours.

As far as I know, no American politician has ever claimed the US should turn to Communism. Quite a few would like a social Democracy.

Well the duopoly is private. And the voters keep it alive. Not the government.
I thought social democracies were different from socialism?
You statists need to keep your stuff strait, bro.

I would keep it straight if you guys had any interest in sticking to an actual definition. Tell me Harley, how many times have you claimed Bernie is a Communist? Or the entire Democratic party without EVER not EVER acknowledging that not a single one has ever claimed they want to emulate Communism? In fact, I've noticed that every single person on the right on this board routinely interchanges, Communist, Socialist, and Democrat. While they all are certainly not the same. So if you don't feel the need to differentiate between those terms why should I not simply lump Social Democracy in there too and see how well the US compares to that?

Communists almost always deny they are communists. These days they call themselves "progressive."

 

[bripat9643]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

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

Socialism and communism are totalitarian.
Thats all that matters

Really? I live in a social Democracy, pretty sure I vote for my elected officials. In fact, since my choices of parties who have a realistic chance of getting power isn't restricted to 2, I would argue my form of government is less authoritarian than yours.

As far as I know, no American politician has ever claimed the US should turn to Communism. Quite a few would like a social Democracy.

Well the duopoly is private. And the voters keep it alive. Not the government.
I thought social democracies were different from socialism?
You statists need to keep your stuff strait, bro.

I would keep it straight if you guys had any interest in sticking to an actual definition. Tell me Harley, how many times have you claimed Bernie is a Communist? Or the entire Democratic party without EVER not EVER acknowledging that not a single one has ever claimed they want to emulate Communism? In fact, I've noticed that every single person on the right on this board routinely interchanges, Communist, Socialist, and Democrat. While they all are certainly not the same. So if you don't feel the need to differentiate between those terms why should I not simply lump Social Democracy in there too and see how well the US compares to that?

You were being technical. In the next post to me, you claim there is no need to be.
Ay caramba

I didn't realize correcting the assertion that all forms of Socialism are authoritarian was "technical". The fact of the matter simply is that the right has deliberately muddled the meaning of Socialism so they could start to equate it to Communism. Socialism, actual Socialism has been the driving force for stuff like the abolishing of child labor, Universal Suffrage, affordable healthcare, a 5 day work week etc. etc. You can, as I do condemn Communism because that DOES seem to invariably turn to authoritarianism. But that's a condemnation of authoritarianism, not the idea that the community should share its resources. But do me a favor don't try to come to me and say I'm inconsistent in my definition of Socialism.

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. I don't know what your position is on that, how far you are willing to state that people have to be able to take care of themselves but chances are, you recognize that you have at least some responsibility to society at large.

Utter horseshit. Socialist propaganda. Socialism didn't eliminate child labor. Capitalism did. Child labor ended when the productivity of labor increased to the point where parents didn't have to put their children to work to keep the family from starving. By the time legislation was adopted, child labor had already pretty much ended. We don't have affordable healthcare, and all government meddling has done is make it more expensive. Henry Ford pretty much created the 40 hour work week. Other companies had to follow suit to compete with Ford.

Communism is just socialism that its adherents are serious about enforcing. Socialism is inherently authoritarian. Socialism is about government control of your means of earning a living. How could that be anything but authoritarian?

Your country is probably almost as capitalist as the USA. Whenever you ask a so-called socialist to point out a successful example of their program, they always point at a largely capitalist country with welfare programs.

 

[forkup]

View attachment 343867

Your graph is well screwed, You put National Socialism as extreme left, when everybody else has it as extreme right.

Marxism is international - anybody can be a Marxist.
National Socialism is as its name suggests nationalist and inverted - only very select people can be NS.
If you put Communist - you have to put Capitalist opposite.
Liberal and Libertarian are pretty much the same thing.

I didn't create the graph. I didn't "put National Socialism as extreme left."
And "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.
You need to read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I took notes on the fine book which eludes you and Leftists and "progressives" (sick) everywhere.

Liberals are fascists and libertarians describes our Founding Fathers, who cherished liberty and feared oppressive government, which liberals adore and promote, like they promote the butchery of innocent unborn babies.

I love that little switch you pulled here.

put National Socialism as extreme left."

nd "everybody else" is stupid to think that socialism is right wing.

If you don't think there's a difference between Socialism and National Socialism the internet is your friend. Definition of SOCIALISM

Nazism | Definition, Leaders, Ideology, & History

Nazism, totalitarian movement led by Adolf Hitler as head of the Nazi Party in Germany, characterized by intense nationalism, mass appeal, dictatorial rule, and a vision of annihilation of all enemies of the Aryan Volk as the one and only goal of Nazi policy.

www.britannica.com

In short, Socialism is at its core a collection of political theories that deal with the role of government and economics. National Socialism is a VERY specific political ideology that had its heyday in Germany during the thirties and forties of the last century. It gained notoriety because it wasn't just authoritarian but also EXTREMELY nationalistic and bigoted in its policies to the point of committing genocide. Them being Socialists wasn't a factor of their notoriety.

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?

You failed to prove that Nazism wasn't socialist and therefore leftwing. Whether that made them "notorious" is beside the point.

Since I didn't attempt to prove that the Nazis weren't Socialist you seem to be barking up the wrong tree. As for that fact placing them on the left I'm sorry to disappoint you but that's utter nonsense. I explained the origins of the left-right spectrum in this OP already and the parameters it uses to place ideologies. I will say what I said to another poster who disagreed with the placement of Nazism. Create your own spectrum and somehow manage to make it more popular than the classic left-right one. Until you do arbitrarily changing positions of an ideology because you happen to disagree is silly.

 

[Rambunctious]

Humans long to be free....its about freedom.....anything that stunts freedom is evil.....

Freedom could mean you can go around shooting people... so stopping people murdering each other is evil...

We are a society and society has rules... Thats for your comment...

But intelligence is required to decide where the lines are drawn....blanket societal governing is what happens in China...we are suppose to be different.....but I fear the libs like the way they do things in China....Americans will always be free...it may take some blood from time to time but we will be free....and armed....

 

[forkup]

Liberalism/Socialism & Communism?

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

Socialism and communism are totalitarian.
Thats all that matters

Really? I live in a social Democracy, pretty sure I vote for my elected officials. In fact, since my choices of parties who have a realistic chance of getting power isn't restricted to 2, I would argue my form of government is less authoritarian than yours.

As far as I know, no American politician has ever claimed the US should turn to Communism. Quite a few would like a social Democracy.

Well the duopoly is private. And the voters keep it alive. Not the government.
I thought social democracies were different from socialism?
You statists need to keep your stuff strait, bro.

I would keep it straight if you guys had any interest in sticking to an actual definition. Tell me Harley, how many times have you claimed Bernie is a Communist? Or the entire Democratic party without EVER not EVER acknowledging that not a single one has ever claimed they want to emulate Communism? In fact, I've noticed that every single person on the right on this board routinely interchanges, Communist, Socialist, and Democrat. While they all are certainly not the same. So if you don't feel the need to differentiate between those terms why should I not simply lump Social Democracy in there too and see how well the US compares to that?

You were being technical. In the next post to me, you claim there is no need to be.
Ay caramba

I didn't realize correcting the assertion that all forms of Socialism are authoritarian was "technical". The fact of the matter simply is that the right has deliberately muddled the meaning of Socialism so they could start to equate it to Communism. Socialism, actual Socialism has been the driving force for stuff like the abolishing of child labor, Universal Suffrage, affordable healthcare, a 5 day work week etc. etc. You can, as I do condemn Communism because that DOES seem to invariably turn to authoritarianism. But that's a condemnation of authoritarianism, not the idea that the community should share its resources. But do me a favor don't try to come to me and say I'm inconsistent in my definition of Socialism.

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. I don't know what your position is on that, how far you are willing to state that people have to be able to take care of themselves but chances are, you recognize that you have at least some responsibility to society at large.

Utter horseshit. Socialist propaganda. Socialism didn't eliminate child labor. Capitalism did. Child labor ended when the productivity of labor increased to the point where parents didn't have to put their children to work to keep the family from starving. By the time legislation was adopted, child labor had already pretty much ended. We don't have affordable healthcare, and all government meddling has done is make it more expensive. Henry Ford pretty much created the 40 hour work week. Other companies had to follow suit to compete with Ford.

Communism is just socialism that its adherents are serious about enforcing. Socialism is inherently authoritarian. Socialism is about government control of your means of earning a living. How could that be anything but authoritarian?

Your country is probably almost as capitalist as the USA. Whenever you ask a so-called socialist to point out a successful example of their program, they always point at a largely capitalist country with welfare programs.

Child Labor read this, you might just learn something true. Mind you the US was slow to the party when it came the child labor laws. The first ones were put on the books in Europe as early as 1874 by... and here it is Socialist legislators.

Types of socialism - Wikipedia
This is what I hate the most about this argument. Dishonest people (I don't know a different way to describe it) often resort to broad brushing all types of Socialism into one convenient pot , the one of Communism. The basis of Socialism is equality the exact opposite of authoritarianism. It is the idea that society as a whole should share their wealth, not take but share. It doesn't say anywhere the share should even be equal.

Dishonest people also commonly seem to change their minds on what Socialism is. depending on the situation. If Bernie calls for universal healthcare he's a Communist. When it's pointed out to them that other countries have Universal Healthcare they are Communist. When it's pointed out to them that those societies are stable and successful, all of a sudden they are Capitalist.