Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Kes Sparhawk Amesley
PhD Rhetorical Studies in history and culture, marxism, movements, organizing
"The terms "left wing" and "right wing" generally indicate a cluster of philosophies, but because it originated as a Western term, usually it's associated with the idea of what the state is for, how its citizens are governed, who owns the resources, and the degree of celebration of military. (The latter has in the last 60 years or so come to be the least helpful.)
The original "center" can be viewed as Whig Liberalism: a philosophy which was developed in Western Europe, especially Great Britain, and became the basis for the rebellion of the American colonies. You can recognize this liberalism in the Declaration of Independence and in the preamble to the constitution.
Europe moved farther to the left with the development of Marxism, which is a materialist philosophy: it continued on the path of liberalism, with the assumption that the people as a whole should choose their own government and leaders, but added to that that workers are the center of what's important, and the wealthy and their industries exploit and harm the people as a whole. The workers should run the government, and all workers should ally around the world and overthrow their exploiters in order to make their own decisions.
In reactions, the right side expanded into the concept of fascism, that the best government has strong leaders who make all decisions for the people, allied with large businesses who can efficiently exploit resources. Fascism postulated that a strong government, a strong military, and strong industries would be best, and that conquering inferior (ie less strong) countries and peoples would improve the original country by increasing its strength and helping it continue to define itself against the rest of the world.
By these standards, Hitler and his party are easily identified as fascist, and therefore right wing. The term "national socialist" came about primarily because fascism is one of the newest of the successful political ideas, and after the first World War, Germany was politically torn between going left and going right (as were many other countries). But the party emphasis was on the "national,"not the "socialist." Hitler refined the general idea of fascism to make it distinctly anti-semitic and racist, and by keeping a "them" always in front of and within the Germans , he found it easy to build an "us" willing to conquer an inferior world, believing themselves superior to any force which would stand against them."
The right and business is NOT supported by this: "Fascism is totalitarianism which emphasizes the subordination of the individual to advance the interests of the state"
Those (e.g. Mussolini, Hitler) advocating for the subjugation of individuals and privately owned business (capitalism) to the interests and benefit of the collective society (socialism) are Leftists.
You've been hoodwinked, and sadly... fell for it.
You have been caught! If you were correct, you would have dealt with the whole quote as I quoted it instead of just the last sentence that you posted. You didn't. So we know you know you are wrong. That is the last step of brainwashing: the person says what he knows it wrong and continues to assert it. You are brainwashed. And you have shown that you willingly lie.
This has gone far enough. You've been thoroughly exposed and refuted. Deny whatever you want.
Kes Sparhawk Amesley
PhD Rhetorical Studies in history and culture, marxism, movements, organizing
"The terms "left wing" and "right wing" generally indicate a cluster of philosophies, but because it originated as a Western term, usually it's associated with the idea of what the state is for, how its citizens are governed, who owns the resources, and the degree of celebration of military. (The latter has in the last 60 years or so come to be the least helpful.)
The original "center" can be viewed as Whig Liberalism: a philosophy which was developed in Western Europe, especially Great Britain, and became the basis for the rebellion of the American colonies. You can recognize this liberalism in the Declaration of Independence and in the preamble to the constitution.
Europe moved farther to the left with the development of Marxism, which is a materialist philosophy: it continued on the path of liberalism, with the assumption that the people as a whole should choose their own government and leaders, but added to that that workers are the center of what's important, and the wealthy and their industries exploit and harm the people as a whole. The workers should run the government, and all workers should ally around the world and overthrow their exploiters in order to make their own decisions.
In reactions, the right side expanded into the concept of fascism, that the best government has strong leaders who make all decisions for the people, allied with large businesses who can efficiently exploit resources. Fascism postulated that a strong government, a strong military, and strong industries would be best, and that conquering inferior (ie less strong) countries and peoples would improve the original country by increasing its strength and helping it continue to define itself against the rest of the world.
By these standards, Hitler and his party are easily identified as fascist, and therefore right wing. The term "national socialist" came about primarily because fascism is one of the newest of the successful political ideas, and after the first World War, Germany was politically torn between going left and going right (as were many other countries). But the party emphasis was on the "national,"not the "socialist." Hitler refined the general idea of fascism to make it distinctly anti-semitic and racist, and by keeping a "them" always in front of and within the Germans , he found it easy to build an "us" willing to conquer an inferior world, believing themselves superior to any force which would stand against them."
And Hitler used the term "socialist" in the party name to deceive and win over as much of the left as he could. He knew socialism was very popular and he wanted to gather all he could together, so he used the terms "national, nationalist, socialist, and socialism to accomplish that.
There is no left versus right, when both wings are attached to the same vulture, feeding on America’s carcass.
=\=\=\=
The political spectrum is divided into :
“What’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine, do not trespass upon the person, liberty or property of another.”
-versus-
"Everything belongs to Big Brother, to be distributed according to individual need, minus a cut for the management, and a skim for the bankers."
And Hitler used the term "socialist" in the party name to deceive and win over as much of the left as he could. He knew socialism was very popular and he wanted to gather all he could together, so he used the terms "national, nationalist, socialist, and socialism to accomplish that.
Good post, jmking.
That is correct, the name essentially was a lure. Hitler exterminated, imprisoned social democrats when he consolidated his power, and despised communist which was obvious.
There is no left versus right, when both wings are attached to the same vulture, feeding on America’s carcass.
=\=\=\=
The political spectrum is divided into :
“What’s yours is yours, what’s mine is mine, do not trespass upon the person, liberty or property of another.â€
-versus-
"Everything belongs to Big Brother, to be distributed according to individual need, minus a cut for the management, and a skim for the bankers."
Debating whether Hitler was "left" or "right" is a useless exercise. It's right up there with dogs chasing cars.
The terms "left" and "right" have become meaningless and most people use them however they choose. A much better dichotomy is how people define the role of government. Some prefer a very strong government with central planning (Venezuela, for example) and others prefer a smaller government with decentralized planning (early USA, for example).
The simplest debate is over the role of government without using the usual terms such as left, right, liberal and conservative.
Yes cause there is absolutely no right-winger in the entire world who thinks fascism is bad so they associate it with the left because the right clearly never does anything wrong
So much McCarthyism brainwashing in this thread.... It's baffling.
Agree McCarthyism is a much more 'closer to home' example than Hitler:
"McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of subversion or treason without proper regard for evidence.[1] It also means "the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism."[2]
The term has its origins in the period in the United States known as the Second Red Scare, lasting roughly from 1950 to 1956 and characterized by heightened political repression against supposed communists, as well as a campaign spreading fear of their influence on American institutions and of espionage by Soviet agents.
Originally coined to criticize the anti-communist pursuits of Republican U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin, "McCarthyism" soon took on a broader meaning, describing the excesses of similar efforts. The term is also now used more generally to describe reckless, unsubstantiated accusations, as well as demagogic attacks on the character or patriotism of political adversaries."
Debating whether Hitler was "left" or "right" is a useless exercise. It's right up there with dogs chasing cars.
The terms "left" and "right" have become meaningless and most people use them however they choose. A much better dichotomy is how people define the role of government. Some prefer a very strong government with central planning (Venezuela, for example) and others prefer a smaller government with decentralized planning (early USA, for example).
The simplest debate is over the role of government without using the usual terms such as left, right, liberal and conservative.
I personally believe the US government only has reason to be involved in economic issues. Anything to do with social and civil freedoms, assuming they don't harm or kill another person, should be legal. That puts me in the libertarian camp. But I also believe in public domain, UHC, environmental regulation, building codes, public education even through college, protectionist trade agreements (anti-TPP) and so on. Someone with a thought process like myself falls under Mutualism (Thomas Paine falls close to this one), Socialist Libertarian, and Anarcho-Socialism. These are terms that fall under the "left" camp given their thoughts on economic issues AND HAVE THE TERM SOCIALISM IN THEIR POLITICAL MOVEMENTS. And these ones actually have socialist qualities.
This thread is "Socialism Kills". There is more than one type socialism. I've stated this numerous times to people who only think the left can be Marxism. Believe it or not Sweden falls on the left due to protectionist working culture (maternity leave, tariffs, mandatory vacation, minimum wage, etc.). So does Germany. Canada, etc. None of these leftist countries are Marxist. Only a few countries have ever been Marxist. Marxism is the only left-leaning ideology that has had violent revolutions.
So no. Labels definitely matter.
The role of government is not between restrictive and non-existent. If I only want the government involved in roughly half of all issues, but in those situations I want them involved in I want them to have a very active role, would you say that's restrictive? Cutting them out of 50% of what they are involved in now give or take, and put extra effort in the other 50%? You're being too simplistic also.
POLITICS ARE A GRADIENT, FOLKS. Like the pH scale, you can be acidic or alkaline, or neutral, but some are more basic or acidic than others.
The rich 1% who we complain about sending our jobs to foreigners, who are in the Panama Papers to get out of paying their fair share of taxes, who won't fight for any issue unless it's for some good PR and as long as their issue doesn't come into their pearly white gated communities... They are the same ones who fought to push back against workers having more rights through McCarthyism. Because left politics directly means that everyone has equity. And that would interfere with them getting stuff without paying for it and keep sending more jobs away and create more homeless so they can buy a second yacht. They don't want anyone interfering with them buying multiple 14000 square foot houses, yachts, and more. That's why they have us believing we have a choice in this election between two very rich people who don't want to lose that way of life either.
McCarthyism is why the 1950s lost their some 90% corporate tax rate. And yet the right thinks the 1950s was when America was "great". maybe it's because of that corporate tax rate and decent COL? McCarthyism is why America is REGRESSING in its economy.
Learn a little bit folks. If there can be right-libertarians like Johnson and right-authoritarians like Trump, it can happen on the left too folks.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
maybe it's because of that corporate tax rate and decent COL? McCarthyism is why America is REGRESSING in its economy.
