What is Fascism or Reply to Off Topic

There are lots of other non-communist countries with free health-care as well. However, I don't think you should be putting down someone who is ignorant of communism, while you still know virtually nothing about fascism.

 

Said the person that thinks Hitler and Mussolini weren't leftist
socialist fascists.

See post #9.

Some of those brainwashed dummies coming out of our colleges
actually think that it is possible to produce and give away a service
or product that is 100% free. Like, education or healthcare.

Fascist socialist indoctrination is coming along quite well I see.

 

Yeah. Except that's what scholars of political science, history and economics say. I'm just telling you what they said. Remember, your standardbearer is someone whose claim to fame is that he's not held in quite the same regard as Glenn Beck. Do you have some reason why I should ignore the experts, or can you present some extraordinary evidence that shows them to be wrong? So far you've had bupkis.

Of course not. We would pay more in taxes. The question: would what we pay in taxes exceed what we pay in insurance?

 

The questions you need to answer are on post #9, but you won't.

You have already been betrayed by your belief in "free" healthcare.

 

No, I won't, they are irrelevant.

Is that so? Well, either way, it's irrelevant as it has nothing to do with fascism. It's okay, I realize your case has all the strength of a sleepy kitten with muscular atrophy, and the cognitive dissonance must be messing with you. Obviously, your only recourse is to attack me. The thing is: My case has nothing to do with me. It's based on fact. Your case clings to "because I said so."

So here's what I recommend: Present some facts. Some real evidence. Make a better case. Or admit that you're wrong. But trying to attack me only makes my case look stronger.

 

No, those questions aren't irrelevant, they will expose you
and you know it.

Go to post #9, and then we will understand why it is you
think fascism is not left-wing. It has to do with your bias
towards socialism.

But we already know that based on your belief in free
government healthcare.

 

Expose me? This is my point: No matter what I'm exposed as, my facts are all that matter. As far as facts go, I have presented an air-tight case. You have presented bupkis. I win. That's all there is to it.

I think fascism is not left-wing because experts like political scientists, historians, and economists tell me it's right-wing. I believe it's not left-wing because the term "fascism" is literally defined as being right-wing. By at least four dictionaries, and the Encyclopedia Britannica. It's pretty clear that you only believe fascism is left-wing because of your imagined right-wing bias. I mean, you're barely even a conservative!

I do not believe in free government healthcare.

 

Go to post #9. Answer the questions. What are you afraid of?

You lose all credibility when you contradict yourself on earlier posts.

 

It's a pointless distraction. My answers don't change the facts.

Which contradiction is that?

 

I answered your questions. If you can't go to post #9 and answer
mine we are done.

On free healthcare.

 

That's fine. I'm going to continue discussing the topic at hand, which is fascism, rather than my personal ideology. I recognize that you are attempting to defend your position with a fallacious ad-hominem argument, but don't have the ammo to do so. Your argument amounts to "Oh yeah? Well you're a doodie-head!", but at a lower level of maturity. It's amusing, but pathetic.

Ad-homs are simply distracting and the mark of someone without a real argument, and I'm going to keep showing how desperate you are to attack me rather than my argument. It makes my position look water tight, while making yours look like a sieve. After all, my personal political beliefs have no bearing on the conversation, and do not change the facts presented. We do not need to rely on my word, or my ideology, but the explanation, discussion, reasoning, and definitions from experts.

With that in mind, I will re-post my evidence from before:

From the British Dictionary:
fascism
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/
noun (sometimes capital)
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

From Oxford Dictionaries:
fascism

fas|cism
Pronunciation: /ˈfaʃɪz(&#601m/
Definition of fascism in English:
noun

[MASS NOUN]
1 An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

1.1 (In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices:
this is yet another example of health fascism in action.

From Wikipedia:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Here's the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It's long, but does have sections specifically on Opposition to Political and Cultural Liberalism, Conservative Economic Programs, and Fascism and nonfascist conservatisms: Collaboration and crossover

Finally, Kevin Passmore, Professor of History at Cardiff, who literally wrote the book on Fascism, defines it thusly:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism.

 

So, everyone now agrees that hitlary is a neo-fascist?


The truth is that no one can name a single aspect of fascism that is unique to the right of the American political spectrum while many - if not most - are found on American left.

 

True. The tens of millions of dollars in phony "speaking fees" (aka bribe money)
the Clinton's have amassed is why the establishment is so committed to Shrillary.

Even though she was useless as a senator, a disaster as a Sec. of State, and
too stupid to cover her own tracks (email server), she is bought and paid for
and the corporations want their money's worth. Good point, that does make
her a fascist by that poster's definition.

 

Well...

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[/quote]

Nationalism is pretty right-wing.

Opposition to liberalism would seem to be an exclusively right-wing property.

I'm just leaving that there to illustrate my point.

From Kevin Passmore:

That's pretty right-wing, too.

 

Firstly, the Clintons are not the only ones who command a speaking fee. Donald Trump has speaking fees as well ($1-1.5 million), Ronald Reagan had speaking fees of about $1 million. Most of the Bush administration had ties to multinational corporations. We are far closer to a fascist nation than a communist one, and getting closer and closer. All of the candidates represent a corporation if not several (except perhaps Bernie Sanders). Heck, one of the candidates for President of the Nation is literally the head of a multinational conglomerate which bears his name. That's going to give us a good hard shove closer to fascism.

The right is the side that wants to de-regulate the nation's markets, which is good for corporations, bad for citizens. The right privatizes national resources, and services, which is good for corporations, bad for citizens. The right has been union busting which is great for corporations, bad for citizens. The right is weakening our social safety nets, and strengthening security and military (hallmarks of fascism).

 

If you don't watch these videos, you will never know the Clinton's or who it
is you are voting for president.

 

I'm not voting for Clinton. However, I'm not big on watching videos, I prefer to read, so I only watched the first video, decided you seem unsure about what you're presenting, and didn't really bother with the rest. That being said, perhaps you can explain the connection between what you've presented and how that shows that Clinton is a corporatist? Or at least, moreso than other political candidates? Remember, Trump is the head of a multinational conglomerate, that happens to named after him. That's going to be tough to beat.

 

Nationalism is pretty right-wing.



Opposition to liberalism would seem to be an exclusively right-wing property.



I'm just leaving that there to illustrate my point.

From Kevin Passmore:



That's pretty right-wing, too.[/QUOTE]



Um, no.

In American political lexicon, fascism, as government induced authoritarianism, is decidedly a far left ideology. The American political spectrum begins on the far right with anarchism (both communist, and libertarian). Traveling left we come upon libertarianism, and then conservatism. Everything else is left of center.

This is a very fine point which very few understand at first blush, but as government induced authoritarianism increases you are going further left on a linear scale. Many poli-sci courses still teach the Nolan dual axis that illustrates both a vertical and horizontal axis that generally puts fascism in the upper right quadrant to define an authoritarian right. The Nolan dual axis was dismissed as supposition not long after its introduction 45 years ago.

Now for a super fine point - the difference between a certain "authoritarianism" which is something of a misnomer when applied to conservative governance is the direct result of representative governance such was the USA for its first 150 years. Government induced, or bureaucratic induced, authoritarian government without the ideals of a republic which fascism falls under are decidedly far left.

An example of the above explanation can be found in the evolution of "gay marriage" where a branch of government finding law through boot strapping where none existed previously. That the Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments were ignored, and a declaration was made over the will of the people that had been expressed in many state referendums is a prime example of left end of the American political linear scale.

 

Fascism is not merely government induced authoritarianism as it spreads across the entire spectrum. There are several kinds of government induced authoritarianism regimes, fascism happens to be a right-wing authoritarianism government.

You think communism is the far right-wing? Well, there's your problem, you've got your spectrum upside-down.

I have never heard any of this, cite your source. That being said, the Nolan Axis was still be used as recently as 2005. Basically, now we use the Political Compass. That being said, I would love to see whatever you're looking at.

 

Still no, and repeating it doesn't make it so. In the American political lexicon, such a thing could not exist as right wing politics is dependent upon open representative governance. The concept that with Judeo-Christian ethics in a WASPy society would embrace the forfeiture of their own governance to government edict without representation is nonsense. Once that line is crossed, it becomes, by definition, some form of leftism.



We freedomists are very lonely on the right.

I didn't write that. I'll attribute your lack of understanding to poor reading comprehension, and a general lack of knowledge. There are two kinds of anarchism. Anarchism is the lack of government, and as such is is a far right construct. The opposite to the far left is totalitarianism. Neither can exist successfully in reality. In libertarian anarchism, everything is owned privately. In a communistic anarchism, all things are commonly owned. Think in terms of a hippy commune.

The Nolan dual axis pre-supposes the upper right and lower left quadrants. The American political spectrum is linear. Other representations of the spectrum have a built-in inaccuracy. Being linear, any authoritative government, by virtue of government having such power, is never right of center.

The Constitution was designed as a conservative form of governance. Having the libertarian Articles of Confederation fail almost immediately, the Founders chose a form which enumerated God given rights, and left the remainder to the people (Amendments 9 and 10) to decide the moralities of its society.

If it's your position that anything besides a societal free-for-all makes conservatives into fascists, so be it, but you're wrong.

 

Um, no.

In American political lexicon, fascism, as government induced authoritarianism, is decidedly a far left ideology. The American political spectrum begins on the far right with anarchism (both communist, and libertarian). Traveling left we come upon libertarianism, and then conservatism. Everything else is left of center.

This is a very fine point which very few understand at first blush, but as government induced authoritarianism increases you are going further left on a linear scale. Many poli-sci courses still teach the Nolan dual axis that illustrates both a vertical and horizontal axis that generally puts fascism in the upper right quadrant to define an authoritarian right. The Nolan dual axis was dismissed as supposition not long after its introduction 45 years ago.

Now for a super fine point - the difference between a certain "authoritarianism" which is something of a misnomer when applied to conservative governance is the direct result of representative governance such was the USA for its first 150 years. Government induced, or bureaucratic induced, authoritarian government without the ideals of a republic which fascism falls under are decidedly far left.

An example of the above explanation can be found in the evolution of "gay marriage" where a branch of government finding law through boot strapping where none existed previously. That the Constitution's 9th and 10th Amendments were ignored, and a declaration was made over the will of the people that had been expressed in many state referendums is a prime example of left end of the American political linear scale.[/QUOTE]

Firstly, what? Secondly, we're not looking at the "American political lexicon" (what?), we're looking at where fascism has existed globally. Fascism is a form of government where nationalist, authoritarianism, and capitalism meet. This has been pretty exclusively right-wing government. Thirdly, Italy, Germany, and Austria were all Christian majorities, and all happily gave up the democratic process in favor of smaller government. Finally, what line? What definition? Give me a citation or something.

"Freedomists" is not a word, and are you honestly suggesting that people on the left don't like freedom?

You're still wrong. Authoritarianism is neither left, nor right. It is continuous across the spectrum. Likewise, it's opposite, anarchism spreads across the political spectrum. Have you not looked at my link yet? Communism and fascism can both be authoritarian forms of government, but differ in how property, resources, and money are distributed.

Once again, we're not talking about the American political spectrum, we're talking about the global political spectrum. The American constitution doesn't allow us to sway too far into fascism, or into communism, and restricts us from wading too far into authoritarianism or anarchy. The American political spectrum is fairly small compared to the global political spectrum, which is where fascism can take hold.

Or I could say that it was designed as a liberal form of governance, which starts with three words "We the People", and recognizes that government serves the people, and that the citizenry of the United States are of higher importance than the nation itself.

No, it's because political scientists set out a spectrum of political ideologies, and fascism falls on the right side of it. I'm not saying this to demonize the right, because the left has it's share of demons as well. But, if we're going to use the nomenclature, we should definitely use it correctly. Here, allow me to reiterate, again, exactly how fascism is defined:

From the British Dictionary:
fascism
/ˈfæʃɪzəm/
noun (sometimes capital)
1. any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism
2. any ideology, movement, programme, tendency, etc, that may be characterized as right-wing, chauvinist, authoritarian, etc
3. prejudice in relation to the subject specified: body fascism

From Oxford Dictionaries:
fascism

fas|cism
Pronunciation: /ˈfaʃɪz(&#601m/
Definition of fascism in English:
noun

[MASS NOUN]
1 An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

1.1 (In general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practices:
this is yet another example of health fascism in action.

From Wikipedia:

Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism. Fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Here's the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It's long, but does have sections specifically on Opposition to Political and Cultural Liberalism, Conservative Economic Programs, and Fascism and nonfascist conservatisms: Collaboration and crossover

Finally, Kevin Passmore, Professor of History at Cardiff, who literally wrote the book on Fascism, defines it thusly:

Fascism is a set of ideologies and practices that seeks to place the nation, defined in exclusive biological, cultural, and/or historical terms, above all other sources of loyalty, and to create a mobilized national community. Fascist nationalism is reactionary in that it entails implacable hostility to socialism and feminism, for they are seen as prioritizing class or gender rather than nation. This is why fascism is a movement of the extreme right. Fascism is also a movement of the radical right because the defeat of socialism and feminism and the creation of the mobilized nation are held to depend upon the advent to power of a new elite acting in the name of the people, headed by a charismatic leader, and embodied in a mass, militarized party. Fascists are pushed towards conservatism by common hatred of socialism and feminism, but are prepared to override conservative interests - family, property, religion, the universities, the civil service - where the interests of the nation are considered to require it. Fascist radicalism also derives from a desire to assuage discontent by accepting specific demands of the labour and women's movements, so long as these demands accord with the national priority. Fascists seek to ensure the harmonization of workers' and women's interests with those of the nation by mobilizing them within special sections of the party and/or within a corporate system. Access to these organizations and to the benefits they confer upon members depends on the individual's national, political, and/or racial characteristics. All aspects of fascist policy are suffused with ultranationalism.

 

I'm sorry, but I can not help you with your religious beliefs.

 

"Freedomist."

 

So, um, citations? Did you make these? Did some acne riddled, political hack, living in his mother's basement, who didn't know what he was talking about make it? Was it Jonah Goldbloom? Your chart has fascism as being an extension of communism, which is merely an extension of socialism and Marxism. I mean that's funny. Socialism and communism are views on completely different things, and don't really even belong on the same scale.

And what is the definition of "freedomist"? That's really what I was getting at.

This is just a really poor showing. I can get into MS Paint and make graphs too. You can't just make stuff up and call it evidence. Show me some sources, some citations, some data of some sort, some justification. I mean, the first graph is titled incorrectly, and graphs should start with the 0-points to the lower left.

 

You either get it, or not. Again, sorry that I can not help you with your beliefs.