• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is Fascism Right Or Left?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Only ones they've built up themselves eg the Chinese PLA. The officer class in Germany were different: they in many respects chose Hitler and he allowed them largely to keep their positions
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
All sounds leftist to me. Communists love strong militaries. Military hawkishness is neither right nor left.
Seriously? One of the hallmarks of leftism is to spend money on social programs and deny the military money.

If you are saying communism is leftist then you must agree that Nazism was far right fascism, simply by the fact that Hitler outlawed communism!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
 

Reynolds

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Seriously? One of the hallmarks of leftism is to spend money on social programs and deny the military money.

If you are saying communism is leftist then you must agree that Nazism was far right fascism, simply by the fact that Hitler outlawed communism!

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
Hitler outlawed Communism because he was Nazi. Not really all that different in ideology. Both were struggling for power.

Is communism far left or far right? Its left of socialism. Do Communist countries believe in huge military spending? They most definitely do.
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History


......In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies (Keynesian economics) promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?

In the Thirties, intellectuals smitten by progressivism considered limited, constitutional governance anachronistic. The Great Depression had apparently proven capitalism defunct. The remaining choice had narrowed between communism and fascism. Hitler was about an inch to the right of Stalin. Western intellectuals infatuated with Marxism thus associated fascism with the Right.

Later, Marxists from the Frankfurt School popularized this prevailing sentiment. Theodor Adorno in The Authoritarian Personality devised the "F" scale to demean conservatives as latent fascists. The label "fascist" has subsequently meant anyone liberals seek to ostracize or discredit.



Fascism is an amorphous ideology mobilizing an entire nation (Mussolini, Franco and Peron) or race (Hitler) for a common purpose. Leaders of industry, science, education, the arts and politics combine to shepherd society in an all encompassing quest. Hitler’s premise was a pure Aryan Germany capable of dominating Europe.

While he feinted right, Hitler and Stalin were natural bedfellows. Hitler mimicked Lenin’s path to totalitarian tyranny, parlaying crises into power. Nazis despised Marxists not over ideology, but because they had betrayed Germany in World War I and Nazis found it unconscionable that German communists yielded fealty to Slavs in Moscow.

The National Socialist German Workers Party staged elaborate marches with uniformed workers calling one another "comrade" while toting tools the way soldiers shoulder rifles. The bright red Nazi flag symbolized socialism in a "classless, casteless" Germany (white represents Aryanism). Fascist central planning was not egalitarian, but it divvied up economic rewards very similarly to communism: party membership and partnering with the state.

Where communists generally focused on class, Nazis fixated on race. Communists view life through the prism of a perpetual workers’ revolution. National Socialists used race as a metaphor to justify their nation’s engagement in an existential struggle......

Obama, Hitler, And Exploding The Biggest Lie In History
 

Adonia

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When the minimum wage increased, McDonalds replaced workers with self-order kiosks.
Is the goal really to eliminate all entry level positions?

It is not a "one size fits all" question.

Setting aside "minimum wages", it is my "health care premiums" rising at 30% per year that dwarf any issues with salary. The difference between a $2000 deductible last year and a $7000 deductible this year REALLY matters.

Have you considered one of the religious based health share programs? I am enrolled in one now and there are no deductibles - everything is paid in full by the network.
 

Adonia

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
FASCISM:

the definition of fascism

IMO the CAUSE of fascism is an aberration which comes out of perverted patriotism (left or right - which is an expression of love of country).
Note: it is "perversion" a wrong over-reaction coming out of a real or imagined or propagandized expectation of the coming destruction of one's government or one's actual country.

My opinion.

Well, that eliminates the claim that Trump is a dictator - he has no such power.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
When the minimum wage increased, McDonalds replaced workers with self-order kiosks.
Is the goal really to eliminate all entry level positions?

It is not a "one size fits all" question.

Setting aside "minimum wages", it is my "health care premiums" rising at 30% per year that dwarf any issues with salary. The difference between a $2000 deductible last year and a $7000 deductible this year REALLY matters.
Actually, it is. When a person works 40 hrs/wk in America they should not be in poverty.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Most? We have a huge chicken plant here. Most of their workforce is part time. Management hates it. Management wants full time employees. Most of the workforce will not work over 16 hours per week because the income disqualifies them from govt. programs.
They refuse full time work to keep welfare.

My great grandmother and great grand father left the reservation. They left it to better themselves. My grandmother talked all the time about how glad she was her Mammy and Pappy left. She said they give you just enough money to KEEP you living poor. The social programs keep the Indians on the reservation, the blacks on the plantation, and have drug the rest of the ethnic groups down to the plantation as well.
That's why we need to provide a decent safety net for the poor in this country like all other industrialized nations do.
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I see you are still spouting the arbitrary and unrealistic standard that the church should buy everyone health care insurance as to why private charities can't provide for the poor. Since the church can't (or won't) do this you say that private charities are a failure.
I'd say that the U.S. doesn't provide a realistic safety net for the needy as do all other industrialized societies.
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, it is. When a person works 40 hrs/wk in America they should not be in poverty.
They're not. Federal poverty level for a single person is $12,060 or less annual income. A person working full time earning minimum wage would make an annual income of $15,080.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
 

Revmitchell

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Actually, it is. When a person works 40 hrs/wk in America they should not be in poverty.

Says who? Just because one works 40 hours does not mean they get paid what they want. If you do not make what you need then go somewhere else where you are more valuable. No one owes you a living.
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Says who? Just because one works 40 hours does not mean they get paid what they want. If you do not make what you need then go somewhere else where you are more valuable. No one owes you a living.
No one owes you their labour with such an attitude!
 

Adonia

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I'd say that the U.S. doesn't provide a realistic safety net for the needy as do all other industrialized societies.

Our Federal Constitution does not authorize a realistic safety net for any citizen. It exists only to insure the basic liberties of the people by providing things like national defense, a court system where disputes are adjudicated, and ensuring a level playing field where all can prosper.

Our Constitution exists to limit the governments actions against the people, not to allow it to have control over every facet of our daily lives. What other industrialized countries do for their citizens is immaterial to what ours is supposed to do to us, which can be summed up in four words - leave the citizenry alone!
 

Matt Black

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Your Constitution can of course be amended...in any event, does that prohibit State governments from rendering assistance?
 

FollowTheWay

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
They're not. Federal poverty level for a single person is $12,060 or less annual income. A person working full time earning minimum wage would make an annual income of $15,080.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL
I agree that the gross annual salary for a person working at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 is about $15,080. All wages are subject to a FICA tax of 7.65% which leaves a take-home pay of $13,926. The average family size is 2.54 people/household. and the federal poverty rate by size of household is:
1 - $12,140
2 - $16,160
3 - $20,780
The minimum wage will marginally support a single person but not a couple. of course then there's the cost of an apartment. The median cost of a 1BR in Indianapolis is $690/mo. I just pick that as what i consider to be an average city. Even in a small town I doubt you could beat that by much. Housing costs would then be $8,280 excluding utilities. That means a person making the minimum wage would have $5,650 for EVERYTHING ELSE including food and medical. Think you could do that?
 

InTheLight

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree that the gross annual salary for a person working at the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 is about $15,080. All wages are subject to a FICA tax of 7.65% which leaves a take-home pay of $13,926. The average family size is 2.54 people/household. and the federal poverty rate by size of household is:
1 - $12,140
2 - $16,160
3 - $20,780
The minimum wage will marginally support a single person but not a couple. of course then there's the cost of an apartment. The median cost of a 1BR in Indianapolis is $690/mo. I just pick that as what i consider to be an average city. Even in a small town I doubt you could beat that by much. Housing costs would then be $8,280 excluding utilities. That means a person making the minimum wage would have $5,650 for EVERYTHING ELSE including food and medical. Think you could do that?

The minimum wage is an entry wage. It's not supposed to support a family. I don't know why this needs to be explained to you.

Also, I would hope someone has higher aspirations in life than to make minimum wage and rent a small apartment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top