Fascism is On the Left (Graph)

[iceaura]

Frankly, I don't know how anyone who understands politics could ever conclude fascism to be on the right,

As has been explained to you several times now, it's because fascism backs capitalist corporations with coercive power. Political ideologies that to some extent support private corporate property interests above social and civil interests are to that extent rightwing, by definition, and those that consistently back privately owned capitalist corporations against individual people and their organizations are well right of center.

The fascistic Nazi government of Germany, for example, supplied private, capitalistic corporations with conscripted "employees", banned labor unions, and used the power of the State to enforce corporate work rules and labor policies - no left wing ideology would produce such a government, by definition.

 

[Anarcho Union]

As has been explained to you several times now, it's because fascism backs capitalist corporations with coercive power. Political ideologies that to some extent support private corporate property interests above social and civil interests are to that extent rightwing, by definition, and those that consistently back privately owned capitalist corporations against individual people and their organizations are well right of center.

The fascistic Nazi government of Germany, for example, supplied private, capitalistic corporations with conscripted "employees", banned labor unions, and used the power of the State to enforce corporate work rules and labor policies - no left wing ideology would produce such a government, by definition.

Couldnt of said it better myself

 

[pjdude1219]

It might have something to do with your assertions over what constitutes a right wing ideology.

Those assertions are basically generated from propaganda.

By propaganda I assume you mean the real world which doesn't conform to my screwed up ideology.

Frankly, I don't know how anyone who understands politics could ever conclude fascism to be on the right, unless they were discussing the right of socialism. And not right of center. At best fascism is center left, at best.

I assume you mean by understand politics people with your viewpoint. which is laughable because you know jack about politics.

Again, freedom and tyranny are polar opposites. Fascism is full of tyranny, irrspective of the means it may use. Hence, fascism isn't about right or left except where it fits within the line. Fascism is about tyranny versus freedom.

God your annoying. trying to proclaim left wing( if this thread keeps going your probably going to whip out the idiotic NAzism had socialism in its name) and than going its not ewither when your shown the facts or as you call it propaganda.

 

[pjdude1219]

"Nature" has tremendous control over our lives. People in the Paleolithic Era, before government as we know it was invented, were hardly living in a state that I would call "free." They were never more than one bad season away from famine and starvation. Something like half of their children died before their first birthday, half of the survivors died before puberty, and a large percentage of the women died in childbirth. They were routinely "enslaved" and even "executed" by common illnesses. They had no choice of career: everyone had to be a full-time producer of food; a high-risk occupation since their primary food supply was wild animals. They were in a near-constant state of hostility with neighboring tribes, over the rights to their limited hunting and gathering territory. They had no division of labor so there were no expert artists, musicians or storytellers.

If this is your idea of "freedom," I would probably prefer both fascism and communism.

your dealing with a proponent of randian thought the freedom they care about is the elites to do as they will and the control the lives of the rest of us. they proclaim themselves as libertarian though they aren't( they use libertarianism and conservatism because they political spans tend to be the ones that are the best vechile for destroying anything that could be used to protect against power.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yet, in what way has it curtailed the power of the corporations?

About a million ways: anti-trust legislation, workplace safety regulation, environmental regulations, financial and accounting regulations, minimum wage laws, non-discrimination laws, workers comp and unemployment insurance, insider trading laws, etc.

Whether enough is done, and whether the direction of change is desirable, are of course debatable. But, then, that's more or less the topic of this thread, no?

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time understanding A) how exactly the government is protecting us from corporate malfeasance, and B) what the corporations could be dreaming of doing that could be a whole lot worse than what the government is doing.

Go refresh on what the early industrial revolution looked like: child laborers working long hours in dangerous factories that dangerously degraded the environment, unchecked monopolies, etc.

We just find that since the dawn of this endless Rooseveltian Era, power has shifted too far in the direction of government, and it's time to adjust the balance.

In favor of what? Even more corporate impunity? Segregation?

What tension?

The tension between labor and capital, which you're already referred to, is an obvious one. The tension between church and state is another obvious classic. Power hierarchies abound, and so do the tensions between them.

So where did you conjure up the strawman of unchecked diminution of state power?

From your rhetoric - you hold that the state is too powerful, as such, and propose that it be radically reduced, without any provisos on how much or in what areas. So I'm not seeing any "check" in your recommendations.

But drop the "unchecked" qualifer if you like - any substantial reduction in state power is necessarily an advance in the power of whatever other structures are restrained by state power (corporation, church, race, etc.). And so it is no surprise that libertarian politics are bankrolled by corporate interests with a strong, direct stake in weakening government control of their activities.

 

[quadraphonics]

What else would freedom mean?

Freedom from coercive power, specifically as exercised by some hierarchical structure. There are many examples of such other than the state: church, corporation, race, nationality, gender, etc.

Face it, freedom is about having control over your own life.

Right.

If there were no state trying to control you, there would be no need for freedom.

Ill-posed.

But this is among the central flaws in common libertarian rhetoric: state power is considered in a vacuum, in which context it makes no sense, and the resulting prescription is to destroy the state. Which would be well and good if we actually lived in such a vacuum. But we don't, and so the prescriptions end up in perverse results, as the various other unaccounted power structures capitalize on the vacuum of state power.

It would simply be a natural state of life.

Such a natural state of life would not be particularly free - it would simply be dominated by other power structures. That such may be "natural" is not the same as it being "freedom."

 

[joepistole]

About a million ways: anti-trust legislation, workplace safety regulation, environmental regulations, financial and accounting regulations, minimum wage laws, non-discrimination laws, workers comp and unemployment insurance, insider trading laws, etc.

Whether enough is done, and whether the direction of change is desirable, are of course debatable. But, then, that's more or less the topic of this thread, no?

Go refresh on what the early industrial revolution looked like: child laborers working long hours in dangerous factories that dangerously degraded the environment, unchecked monopolies, etc.

In favor of what? Even more corporate impunity? Segregation?

The tension between labor and capital, which you're already referred to, is an obvious one. The tension between church and state is another obvious classic. Power hierarchies abound, and so do the tensions between them.

From your rhetoric - you hold that the state is too powerful, as such, and propose that it be radically reduced, without any provisos on how much or in what areas. So I'm not seeing any "check" in your recommendations.

But drop the "unchecked" qualifer if you like - any substantial reduction in state power is necessarily an advance in the power of whatever other structures are restrained by state power (corporation, church, race, etc.). And so it is no surprise that libertarian politics are bankrolled by corporate interests with a strong, direct stake in weakening government control of their activities.

Well said Quad.

 

[birch]

^i was thinking the same thing. very good post and pretty much covered the angles or problems clearly.

 

[John T. Galt]

As has been explained to you several times now, it's because fascism backs capitalist corporations with coercive power. Political ideologies that to some extent support private corporate property interests above social and civil interests are to that extent rightwing, by definition, and those that consistently back privately owned capitalist corporations against individual people and their organizations are well right of center.

The fascistic Nazi government of Germany, for example, supplied private, capitalistic corporations with conscripted "employees", banned labor unions, and used the power of the State to enforce corporate work rules and labor policies - no left wing ideology would produce such a government, by definition.

As has been explained to you, arguments from specifics are just that. To whom do the "private corporations" owe their continued existence to? The state thats who.

Capitalism owes its existence to the power of the individual, not the state.

The overall fallacy in your claim is that while the state uses capitalism, if it can even still be called so in that type of environment, but not at above the interests of social and civil course those as well as corporations exist to please the state.

Again, that which favors the state flow towards tyranny and is thus left wing.

 

[John T. Galt]

By propaganda I assume you mean the real world which doesn't conform to my screwed up ideology.

I assume you mean by understand politics people with your viewpoint. which is laughable because you know jack about politics.

God your annoying. trying to proclaim left wing( if this thread keeps going your probably going to whip out the idiotic NAzism had socialism in its name) and than going its not ewither when your shown the facts or as you call it propaganda.

Flaming and trolling, though you don't have to worry about being called on it by a moderator, is a sign that you are losing your argument.

Nice try though!

And by the way, what does nazi stand for? Denial does no good.

 

[John T. Galt]

Freedom from coercive power, specifically as exercised by some hierarchical structure. There are many examples of such other than the state: church, corporation, race, nationality, gender, etc.

Right.



Ill-posed.

But this is among the central flaws in common libertarian rhetoric: state power is considered in a vacuum, in which context it makes no sense, and the resulting prescription is to destroy the state. Which would be well and good if we actually lived in such a vacuum. But we don't, and so the prescriptions end up in perverse results, as the various other unaccounted power structures capitalize on the vacuum of state power.

Such a natural state of life would not be particularly free - it would simply be dominated by other power structures. That such may be "natural" is not the same as it being "freedom."

Response to bold: And they would get their power from ..?

Response to italics: The inherent mistake in this argument is that first, state power is not considered in a vacuum and two the argument is not the abolition of state. Rather the argument is the limited power of it. If that would mean the elimination of it becasue it cannot be contained in its power, better that then the alternative.

REsponse to bold 2: Freedom is having control over your own life and it s opposite would be? Therefore absent any power structure whatsoever a natural state of life would be?

I cannot help but think that you understand the subject to the point that you actually see the opposite argument and understand that for some there is a natural inclination to control others. Yet you argue in favor of them?

Is this an example of party loyalty?

 

[quadraphonics]

Response to bold: And they would get their power from ..?

The same place as any power structure, state or otherwise: a combination of political/ideological allegiance and violence. What else is there?

Why is non-state power somehow more legitimate than state power? Isn't that exactly Social Darwinism?

REsponse to bold 2: Freedom is having control over your own life and it s opposite would be? Therefore absent any power structure whatsoever a natural state of life would be?

Question doesn't make sense - power structures are features of nature. They're inevitable. The only interesting questions have to do with how to get them to play nicely together.

I cannot help but think that you understand the subject to the point that you actually see the opposite argument and understand that for some there is a natural inclination to control others. Yet you argue in favor of them?

Accepting that features of nature are just that is not "favor." Nature is frequently a cruel and brutal thing. Civilization amounts to dealing with that - and the entire point of state intervention in the economy is to address the negative effects of such inclinations.

Is this an example of party loyalty?

Parties are for joiners.

 

[iceaura]

The overall fallacy in your claim is that while the state uses capitalism, if it can even still be called so in that type of environment, but not at above the interests of social and civil course those as well as corporations exist to please the state.

The reason you write muddle like that is that you aren't thinking coherently.

When what pleases the State is encouraging and abetting powerful capitalistic corporations to some great extent, favoring them over other social structures and individuals' interests, supporting them in setting the terms for individuals and society in general, to that great extent that State is governing by a right wing ideology. By definition. That's what right wing means.

And that's how fascistic States govern, in following fascist ideology - furthermore, since their chosen means of encouraging and abetting and favoring are coercive, they are following "authoritarian" rightwing ideology. They are famous for it. It's a field mark, an identifying characteristic, of a fascist ideology in governance.

 

[John T. Galt]

The reason you write muddle like that is that you aren't thinking coherently.

When what pleases the State is encouraging and abetting powerful capitalistic corporations to some great extent, favoring them over other social structures and individuals' interests, supporting them in setting the terms for individuals and society in general, to that great extent that State is governing by a right wing ideology. By definition. That's what right wing means.

And that's how fascistic States govern, in following fascist ideology - furthermore, since their chosen means of encouraging and abetting and favoring are coercive, they are following "authoritarian" rightwing ideology. They are famous for it. It's a field mark, an identifying characteristic, of a fascist ideology in governance.

If it is muddled, then how do you understand it enough to respond? Thus, your statement is meant to inflame.

On to the the important matters, no right wing ideology favors anything over the individuals' interest. This is a fundamental flaw in your argument; that is a lack of understanding political differences. Frankly you're not the only one as many here have this same flaw.

You use those words, but they don't mean to you what they mean to me. All you are guilty of is wordplay. And again, and I really cannot believe that I am the only one that sees this, when your politcal ideology is governed by spectrums, axis's, & compasses you come with ridiculous thoughts such as this.

That being that the opposite of left tyranny is right tyranny. Tyranny is tyranny. There is no left or right wing tyranny. Freedom is the extreme of tyranny. The extreme of tyranny is freedom. You won't admit to this because for you it is all about politics not fundamental philosophy of governance In short, the opposite of tyranny isn't tyranny. Therefore, right wing ideology leads to individual freedom which is the opposite of left wing ideology which leads to tyranny.

This is my issue with the "polisci" geniuses here they were trained by marxist profs who's goal isn't to teach you to think, but what to think.

 

[joepistole]

This is my issue with the "polisci" geniuses here they were trained by marxist profs who's goal isn't to teach you to think, but what to think.

Another in a long series of right wing whacko myths promulgated by right wing whacko leadership (e.g. limbaugh, levin, et al) - only believe that which the limbaugh's of the world tell you.

When was the last time you had an truely independent thought, a thought that did not mimick that of your leadership? Can you say never?

 

[John T. Galt]

Another in a long series of right wing whacko myths promulgated by right wing whacko leadership (e.g. limbaugh, levin, et al) - only believe that which the limbaugh's of the world tell you.

When was the last time you had an truely independent thought, a thought that did not mimick that of your leadership? Can you say never?

This is all you got?

My reply is where are the moderators? Why is that trolling allow to continue? Is there any part of this response from joe that adds intellectualism to the post he is responding to? Hint: no.

He is off topic, trolling and insulting another poster.

Why, quadra, & ice even though I disagree with them and believe them to be very wrong, they are not minimizing oppositional points by cherry picking a paragraph to use scathing rhetoric.

He is doing exactly the same thing I have been accused of and I was warned or banned, why is he allowed to do this???

 

[birch]

As has been explained to you, arguments from specifics are just that. To whom do the "private corporations" owe their continued existence to? The state thats who.

Capitalism owes its existence to the power of the individual, not the state.

The overall fallacy in your claim is that while the state uses capitalism, if it can even still be called so in that type of environment, but not at above the interests of social and civil course those as well as corporations exist to please the state.

Again, that which favors the state flow towards tyranny and is thus left wing.

you don't understand that when you toggle away the labels 'individual', 'state' etc, it's just all capitalism. corporations are not artificial entities with no human involvement. everything that corporations do are because of those human interests involved. they are the winners in the capitalistic game. corporations does not owe the state for it's existence. that is the most absurd nonsense. corporations owe their existence to capitalism.

yet, you seem to be a capitalist and are befuddled as to why they are acting on it.

corporations pleasing the state? lol.

 

[John T. Galt]

you don't understand that when you toggle away the labels 'individual', 'state' etc, it's just all capitalism. corporations are not artificial entities with no human involvement. everything that corporations do are because of those human interests involved. they are the winners in the capitalistic game. corporations does not owe the state for it's existence. that is the most absurd nonsense. corporations owe their existence to capitalism.

yet, you seem to be a capitalist and are befuddled as to why they are acting on it.

corporations pleasing the state? lol.

Nor did I ever say corporations owe their existence to the state. Perhaps before riding on your high horse, you should reread what has been said and is meant by what has been said.

Nothing is befuddling me, except the lack of understanding found in this thread concerning what is fascism.

 

[iceaura]

If it is muddled, then how do you understand it enough to respond?

I'm only responding to the fact that it's a muddle. You can verify that by reading it back to yourself.

Otherwise, I'm just repeating myself in slightly different words, in an attempt to force you to recognize a basic fact: ideologies that enlist governmental resources to support, favor, establish, defend, etc, private capitalistic corporate power at the expense of individual liberties and social organizations, are rightwing ideologies - by definition. That's what rightwing means.

You use those words, but they don't mean to you what they mean to me.

You're wrong about what they mean, and that destroys your ability to express - or even entertain - coherent political thought.

That being that the opposite of left tyranny is right tyranny.

I don't deal in such "opposites". That's Fox&Co bs, and not suitable for adult discussion.

I oppose all tyranny. You oppose only socialistic governmental tyranny. That sets you up for abuse by tyrants - you can't see it coming. All Halliburton, Goldman Sachs, Exxon, et al have to do is oppose "socialism", and you will line up and bend over for Cheney's regime. You're a patsy.

There is no left or right wing tyranny.

That's on Thursdays and Sundays, with you. On Tuesdays and Fridays all tyranny is leftwing, because it's all governmental and government itself is left wing.

Look at your posts above, where you twist your prose into gibberish attempting to claim that any given tyrannical regime - even Nazi Germany, for pity's sake - is left wing. You're being ridiculous.

 

[John T. Galt]

I'm only responding to the fact that it's a muddle. You can verify that by reading it back to yourself.

I think it is more an issue of comprehension problems and simple avoidance. Avodiance is the theme throughout the rest of your post.

Otherwise, I'm just repeating myself in slightly different words, in an attempt to force you to recognize a basic fact: ideologies that enlist governmental resources to support, favor, establish, defend, etc, private capitalistic corporate power at the expense of individual liberties and social organizations, are rightwing ideologies - by definition. That's what rightwing means.

By whose definition, yours. Frankly, this is a blatant lack of understanding of politics period. I am now wondering whether you are even worth my time. I know that Count kicks your ass regularly and you will continue the idiotic drivel. You are a glutton for ass beatings, and apparently like them.

Seriously, you really believe this drivel. Wow!!

You're wrong about what they mean, and that destroys your ability to express - or even entertain - coherent political thought.

Your words:

When what pleases the State is encouraging and abetting powerful capitalistic corporations to some great extent, favoring them over other social structures and individuals' interests, supporting them in setting the terms for individuals and society in general, to that great extent that State is governing by a right wing ideology. By definition. That's what right wing means.

You are absolutely wrong about this. This is not what right wing means unless you are secluded to only reading marxist drivel, which.....

Right wing is polar opposite of tyranny and control over individual freedom. You have been brainwashed into believing this stuff or you are the brainwasher.

I don't deal in such "opposites".

Do you have any clue as to how assinine this statement is? It really reveals much into your thinking. Quick, what the opposite of light? "Ahh, I don't deal in such opposites there's right light and left light?" Whatever the hell that means. Seriously, you really want people to take you seriously? But then some here do, so what does that say about them?

I oppose all tyranny. You oppose only socialistic governmental tyranny.

More assininity, again, the opposite of tyranny is freedom. Since you don't deal in such opposites you clearly support tyranny as long as it follows your kind.