Are all Republicans fascists?

T. A. Gardner said:
None of that proves anything. It isn't empirical, hell it doesn't even make sense. You are just randomly slapping labels on things without so much as even defining your terms. That government is Right wing because I say it is! That's what your argument so far amounts to. Pulling out nonsense like There are many scales... or whatever is an irrelevant Appeal to popularity, a logical fallacy.

My definitions above are consistent, scalable, empirical, and fixed. Yours are random, concocted, and ill-defined.
Click to expand...

Right vs Left politics started with the French assembly the Catholic Authoritarian Nationalist Monarchy sat on the Right.
All others sat on the Left.
Which includes the first Leftists Capitalist supporters for greater liberty, equality & rights of the French Revolution.

The real definition of Right vs Left never said anything about amount of government control.

But, rather is a measure of closeness to Theocratic, tradition, hierarchy, Nationalism like the French Monarchists.

The reason for Communists being Leftists is for being anti Religion.

The reason for Republicans being labeled Right wing is due to the Religious Right Fundamentalists.
 
AssHatZombie said:
fascism is when state and corporate power align interests and form a monolithic power structure, often facilitating cartels, monopolies, and laws which use government power to externalize corporate costs onto the people and privatize profits into the hands of private individuals.
Click to expand...

Another way of saying fascism is government manipulation of markets.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
They're political movements. Not a nickel's worth of difference.
Click to expand...

There is a slight one.

BLM's goal is to defund and dismantle police.
Antifa's goal is to implement fascism, with themselves as the ruling class.

Both are racist.
Both are violent thugs.
Both are funded and supported by Democrats.
Both routinely burn, loot, and pillage cities.
Both are fascist.
Both are receiving their orders from the Democrat party.


The only difference at all is in their goals.
 
Historically, fascism comes about as a deterioration of democracy. This has many causes.
Chief among them is loss of faith in democratic institutions to solves the nation's problems.
 
AssHatZombie said:
fascism is when state and corporations form a monolithic power structure.
Click to expand...

It is also when government dictates markets, such as the energy market, the healthcare market, or the automotive market, implements any kind of price control, etc.

Many supplying those markets are NOT trying to form a monolithic power structure with the government. They are trying to fight the oligarchy and survive.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
When defined properly, Democracy cannot exist on the Left or extremes of the Right. On the Left, it can't exist because Leftist governments are dictatorships and totalitarian. On the extreme Right there is no government, anarchy reigns.
Click to expand...

Anarchy is no government. There is no 'left' or 'right'.
Democracy is government by popular vote. There is no 'left' or ' right'.
A republic is government by constitution. There is no 'left' or 'right'.
A dictatorship is government dictat, issued by a single individual, such as a King. There is no 'left' or 'right'.
An oligarchy is a dictatorship by committee. There is no king. The Committee issues the dictats instead. There is no 'left' or 'right'.

That said, Democrats want to implement fascism, communism, and even want to return to slavery. All of these are forms of socialism. All of these are based on theft. To implement them, Democrats favor dictatorships and oligarchies, people don't like their wealth stolen. They have converted the federal government and the State governments of New York and California into oligarchies, discarding the constitution in each case.

There HAVE been benevolent kings and oligarchies in the past, at least for a while before things went to shit.
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
It is also when government dictates markets, such as the energy market, the healthcare market, or the automotive market, implements any kind of price control, etc.

Many supplying those markets are NOT trying to form a monolithic power structure with the government. They are trying to fight the oligarchy and survive.
Click to expand...

Those are all industrial markets run by capitalists. We have a for-profit healthcare system. How did you miss that? Autos are run by enormous corporations. The big 3 committed to going electric because it is the future market. They could figure that out. It gives you great trouble.
How little you can see through your orange glasses.
 
Into the Night said:
It is also when government dictates markets, such as the energy market, the healthcare market, or the automotive market, implements any kind of price control, etc.

Many supplying those markets are NOT trying to form a monolithic power structure with the government. They are trying to fight the oligarchy and survive.
Click to expand...

I am more sympathetic to those populist state interventions.
 
Nordberg said:
Those are all industrial markets run by capitalists. We have a for-profit healthcare system. How did you miss that? Autos are run by enormous corporations. The big 3 committed to going electric because it is the future market. They could figure that out. It gives you great trouble.
How little you can see through your orange glasses.
Click to expand...

Amazing that many conservatives cannot state the elements of capitalism.
 
Trump and the GOP are trying to undermine the systems of voting. Instead of strengthening the institutions of voting they are weakening them so political bodies can control them. This is fascism.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
That's just unthinking rhetoric.

I can't upload pictures to this site, so I'll just have to describe this. You have a graph. It has three axes at right angles to one and other. These are labeled Political, Economic, and Social. X, Y, Z, if you will.

The Political axis is defined from Anarchy (a lack of any government system) to Dictatorship (one person rules all) at opposite extremes. Think of this as zero (0) being anarchy and ten (10) being dictatorship.

The Economic axis is defined from Barter (lack of an economic system) to Command Economy (total control of the economy by the state). Again, this goes from zero to ten with Barter being zero.

The Social axis is defined from Individual (individual actions dominate the society) to Group or State (the individual is subsumed into the whole of society and there is no individualism). Again, zero to ten.

When you place the often ill-defined political terms on this graph, the Left comes out in the region near ten (10) while the extreme Right comes out near zero (0). It makes for an orderly placement of political, economic, and social systems that is often lacking in discussions. So, placed on this graph both Fascism and Communism come out on the Left (near 10). Both are dictatorships. Both use command economies to a large degree, and both subsume the individual placing the state above the individual in importance. There's not a nickel's worth of difference between the two. Yet, Fascism is claimed to be on the "Right" while Communism is on the "Left." That makes ZERO empirical sense. Two things that share similar characteristics cannot be opposites.
Sure, Fascists and Communists can hate each other. One group of Communists can hate another too. That doesn't make them opposites in terms of their political, economic, or social views and they'd all still be on the Left when it comes to that.
Click to expand...

One of the main issues the assembly debated was how much power the king should have, says David A. Bell, a professor of early modern France at Princeton University. Would he have the right to an absolute veto? As the debate continued, those who thought the king should have an absolute veto sat on the right of the president of the assembly, and those who thought he should not — the more radical view — sat on the left of the president of the assembly. In other words, those who wanted to hew closer to tradition were on the right, and those who wanted more change were on the left.

“So these groupings became known as the left and the right, and that’s where we trace the origins,” Bell tells TIME.

https://time.com/5673239/left-right-politics-origins/

The left–right political spectrum is a system of classifying political positions characteristic of left-right politics, ideologies and parties with emphasis placed on issues of social equality and social hierarchy. In addition to positions on the left and on the right, there are centrists or moderates who are not strongly aligned with either extreme. There are those who view the left-right political spectrum as overly simplistic, and who reject this method of classifying political stands, suggesting instead some other system, such as a two-dimensional rather than a one-dimensional description.

On this type of political spectrum, left-wing politics and right-wing politics are often presented as opposed, although a particular individual or group may take a left-wing stance on one matter and a right-wing stance on another; and some stances may overlap and be considered either left-wing or right-wing depending on the ideology.[1] In France, where the terms originated, the left has been called "the party of movement" and the right "the party of order".[2][3][4][5]

Contents
History Edit
Origins in the French Revolution Edit
The terms "left" and "right" appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president's right and supporters of the revolution to his left.[6] One deputy, the Baron de Gauville, explained: "We began to recognize each other: those who were loyal to religion and the king took up positions to the right of the chair so as to avoid the shouts, oaths, and indecencies that enjoyed free rein in the opposing camp".[7]

When the National Assembly was replaced in 1791 by a Legislative Assembly comprising entirely new members, the divisions continued. "Innovators" sat on the left, "moderates" gathered in the centre, while the "conscientious defenders of the constitution" found themselves sitting on the right, where the defenders of the Ancien Régime had previously gathered.[clarification needed] When the succeeding National Convention met in 1792, the seating arrangement continued, but following the coup d'état of 2 June 1793 and the arrest of the Girondins the right side of the assembly was deserted and any remaining members who had sat there moved to the centre. However, following the Thermidorian Reaction of 1794 the members of the far-left were excluded and the method of seating was abolished. The new constitution included rules for the assembly that would "break up the party groups".[8] However, following the Restoration in 1814–1815 political clubs were again formed. The majority ultraroyalists chose to sit on the right. The "constitutionals" sat in the centre while independents sat on the left. The terms extreme right and extreme left as well as centre-right and centre-left came to be used to describe the nuances of ideology of different sections of the assembly.[9]

The terms "left" and "right" were not used to refer to political ideology per se, but only to seating in the legislature. After 1848, the main opposing camps were the "democratic socialists" and the "reactionaries" who used red and white flags to identify their party affiliation.[10] With the establishment of the Third Republic in 1871, the terms were adopted by political parties: the Republican Left, the Centre Right and the Centre Left (1871) and the Extreme Left (1876) and Radical Left (1881). The beliefs of the group called the Radical Left were actually closer to the Centre Left than the beliefs of those called the Extreme Left.[11]

Beginning in the early twentieth century, the terms "left" and "right" came to be associated with specific political ideologies and were used to describe citizens' political beliefs, gradually replacing the terms "reds" and "the reaction". The words Left and Right were at first used by their opponents as slurs. Those on the Left often called themselves "republicans", which at the time meant favoring a republic over a monarchy, while those on the Right often called themselves "conservatives".[10] By 1914, the Left half of the legislature in France was composed of Unified Socialists, Republican Socialists and Socialist Radicals, while the parties that were called "Left" now sat on the right side. The use of the words Left and Right spread from France to other countries and came to be applied to a large number of political parties worldwide, which often differed in their political beliefs.[12] There was asymmetry in the use of the terms Left and Right by the opposing sides. The Right mostly denied that the left–right spectrum was meaningful because they saw it as artificial and damaging to unity. However, the Left, seeking to change society, promoted the distinction. As Alain observed in 1931: "When people ask me if the division between parties of the Right and parties of the Left, men of the Right and men of the Left, still makes sense, the first thing that comes to mind is that the person asking the question is certainly not a man of the Left."[13] In British politics, the terms "right" and "left" came into common use for the first time in the late 1930s in debates over the Spanish Civil War.[14] The Scottish sociologist Robert M. MacIver noted in The Web of Government (1947):

The right is always the party sector associated with the interests of the upper or dominant classes, the left the sector expressive of the lower economic or social classes, and the centre that of the middle classes. Historically this criterion seems acceptable. The conservative right has defended entrenched prerogatives, privileges and powers; the left has attacked them. The right has been more favorable to the aristocratic position, to the hierarchy of birth or of wealth; the left has fought for the equalization of advantage or of opportunity, for the claims of the less advantaged. Defence and attack have met, under democratic conditions, not in the name of class but in the name of principle; but the opposing principles have broadly corresponded to the interests of the different classes.[15]

Ideological groupings Edit
Generally, the left-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "ideas such as freedom, equality, fraternity, rights, progress, reform and internationalism" while the right-wing is characterized by an emphasis on "notions such as authority, hierarchy, order, duty, tradition, reaction and nationalism".[16]

Political scientists and other analysts regard the left as including anarchists,[17] communists, socialists, democratic socialists, social democrats,[18] left-libertarians, progressives and social liberals.[19][20] Movements for racial equality[21] and trade unionism have also been associated with the left.[22] Political scientists and other analysts regard the right as including conservatives, right-libertarians,[23] neoconservatives, imperialists, monarchists,[24] fascists,[25] reactionaries and traditionalists.[citation needed]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top