Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Guest UK Debt Slave

Left Wing - Right Wing -left Wing - Right Wing

Recommended Posts

Guest UK Debt Slave

Gerald Warner correctly recognises that the terms left wing and right wing are badly misused and abused by the media and our politicians. It's just another tool in the box to divide people

You can read his blog here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwa...left-and-right/

And this is my response:

Mussolini described fascism as a union of state and corporate power whereas in a communist system, all output is state owned.

The Fascists recognised that allowing some degree of private ownership operating in union with the state would create a more efficient system (of tyranny)

Gerald Warner’s post makes a very good point, one carefully ignored in the mainstream media and particularly by modern politicians who cynically divide people using the false paradigm of ‘left’ and ‘right’ wing ideology.

As others have correctly pointed out, the real divide is the degree of state intervention employed to regulate society and redistribute wealth. Both Communism and Fascism are big government, statist ideologies. Private ownership is tolerated under a fascist system providing that the owners of private capital are pursuing the same objectives as the state. Taking Germany as an example, the big arms manufacturers, Krupp, Fokker, Messerschmidt, Benz etc flourished under Nazism because they produced the weapons that greased the wheels of Hitler’s war machine. The banking system achieves the same for our modern totalitarians without firing a shot.

“Banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies.†- Thomas Jefferson

Never a better trueism in my opinion.

Today, more subtle (but every bit as dangerous) methods are used to destroy nations, the most obvious one being DEBT. It is DEBT that is used to sow the seeds of destruction. Why involve yourself in the dirty, messy business of war when you can sink entire nations with financial weapons of mass destruction like credit derivatives and sub-prime mortgages?

So where are we today?

My own conclusion is that we are already living in a fascist state, albeit one softer in nature than those governments we are more accustomed to associate with fascism and tyranny. Government does not need to mass murder its people to qualify as fascist. Suppression of our laws, our civil liberties, the institution of a surveillance state and the subtle brainwashing and manipulation of the people are quite enough.

This is why I believe NuLabour is the most dangerous political movement that has ever gained power in our nation. It is a malignant cancer that rots our nation from within, destroying everything decent and wholesome in its path. It is pure Fabianism. These ‘class warriors’ choose to undermine and destroy society via a slow, painful, grinding war of attrition rather than by offensive action. The tories have been very nearly as bad. Even Thatcher’s reputation is overstated and Ted Heath was a closet collectivist all along. Major, Lamont, Soros and the Rothschilds engineered the first big gold heist in the last recession. None of the people we elect it seems give a stuff about Britain or the British people. Nationalism has been relegated to some quaint obsession pursued only by nutcases and extremists.

It’s so obvious when you see it.

Everything that has happened in the UK in the last 40 years or so has been part of a carefully contrived plan to destroy our nation by stealth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerald Warner correctly recognises that the terms left wing and right wing are badly misused and abused by the media and our politicians. It's just another tool in the box to divide people

You can read his blog here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwa...left-and-right/

And this is my response:

yep

at least a few more can see it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gerald Warner correctly recognises that the terms left wing and right wing are badly misused and abused by the media and our politicians. It's just another tool in the box to divide people

You can read his blog here:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwa...left-and-right/

And this is my response:

You are confusing the similarities in outcome (totalitarian states) with the the underlying intents of the two ideologies . However misguided, Communism as a principle doesn't have to share the societal illiberalism and militarism that is part of the definition of Fascism even if in practice that may be how it pans out.

To equate any modern European country with a Fascist sate is hysterical and silly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are confusing the similarities in outcome (totalitarian states) with the the underlying intents of the two ideologies . However misguided, Communism as a principle doesn't have to share the societal illiberalism and militarism that is part of the definition of Fascism even if in practice that may be how it pans out.

To equate any modern European country with a Fascist sate is hysterical and silly.

open your eyes

big business/bankers/government all linked together

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
open your eyes

big business/bankers/government all linked together

agreed. That's international capitalism - I'm with Marx on the analysis if not his proposed solution ;)

That doesn't make it Fascism unless you bend the definition of that ideology so much to make it fit that it becomes something other than what you started with.

Fascism requires corporatism, but corporatism alone isn't enough to define fascism. You need a one-party state, extreme militarism, a strongly nationalist political ideology, (usually) a strong reliance on organised religion as a tool of the state and an absolute rejection of liberal concepts such as gender/race equality and multiculturalism.

Whatever you think about British Society in 2009, it doesn't fit that bill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed. That's international capitalism - I'm with Marx on the analysis if not his proposed solution ;)

That doesn't make it Fascism unless you bend the definition of that ideology so much to make it fit that it becomes something other than what you started with.

Fascism requires corporatism, but corporatism alone isn't enough to define fascism. You need a one-party state, extreme militarism, a strongly nationalist political ideology, (usually) a strong reliance on organised religion as a tool of the state and an absolute rejection of liberal concepts such as gender/race equality and multiculturalism.

Whatever you think about British Society in 2009, it doesn't fit that bill.

Check again?

We actually have all of them, with better PR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed. That's international capitalism - I'm with Marx on the analysis if not his proposed solution ;)

That doesn't make it Fascism unless you bend the definition of that ideology so much to make it fit that it becomes something other than what you started with.

Fascism requires corporatism, but corporatism alone isn't enough to define fascism. You need a one-party state, extreme militarism, a strongly nationalist political ideology, (usually) a strong reliance on organised religion as a tool of the state and an absolute rejection of liberal concepts such as gender/race equality and multiculturalism.

Whatever you think about British Society in 2009, it doesn't fit that bill.

but we have been lulled into a false sense of security with cheap food,cheap credit and a relaively comfortable style of living for the best part of 60 years.

these things can be reversed very quickly.

thinking in "drug dealer" terms,you could be a complete sadist and slowly increase the "dose" your addict needs until they are hopelessly dependent...can be done by way of offering the odd freebie here and there.

and then once they are properly on the source...severely restrict the supply

then demand that payment be in other means...like prostitution or something.

classic pimp tactics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't see the fascism angle really; there is no real nationalism nor a purging of those who are thought to 'weaken' it (which is the primary driver for totalitarianism; the old enemies within and without routine). Quite the opposite and more is the pity according to many on the right.

It looks a lot more like same old same old bog standard capitalism to me.

Edited by Cogs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading jonah goldbergs liberal fascism at the mo. dispite the fact that the authors writting style is wide eyed and rabid he does make some good points Re: the classification of fascism as more of a left wing movement, based on the original german nazi manifesto which called for a strong welfare state, confiscation of private property in certain areas of the economy, profit sharing of heavy industries with the state and the illigalisation of unearned income (ie rents and dividends).

he does make the point that fascism is very difficult to define as it has a strong nationalistic side and hense manifests differently with in nations. this nationalism, he states, is the reason its hated by the communist left who believe in 'workers of the world unite' internationalism.

he also points out that racism or anti semitism isnt a deffining tenant of fascism as whilst it was heavily present in germany, it wasnt present under mussolini in the 20s and 30s (until the nazis strong armed the italians into it at some point, forget the date).

do i think we have fascism here and now in britain? not really, crash gordon is too NWO internationalist.

but i do agree with some of the posts here and on the torygraph board: the left/right mudslinging isnt really relavent. i think the focus should be on the collectivist Vs the libertarian angles of the political divide. for me, i feel were slipping, slow but surely into a collectivist distopia, and it worries me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great to see so many people waking up to the truth

Interesting times we live in

There is no left, there is no right.

It is simply a control system, guiding us inexorably toward an endgame determined by our elites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Great to see so many people waking up to the truth

Interesting times we live in

There is no left, there is no right.

It is simply a control system, guiding us inexorably toward an endgame determined by our elites.

yep

but i dont think they have an end game they just want as much control as possible

money supply being the main control tool

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed. That's international capitalism - I'm with Marx on the analysis if not his proposed solution ;)

That doesn't make it Fascism unless you bend the definition of that ideology so much to make it fit that it becomes something other than what you started with.

Fascism requires corporatism, but corporatism alone isn't enough to define fascism. You need a one-party state, extreme militarism, a strongly nationalist political ideology, (usually) a strong reliance on organised religion as a tool of the state and an absolute rejection of liberal concepts such as gender/race equality and multiculturalism.

Whatever you think about British Society in 2009, it doesn't fit that bill.

Fascism redefines the state as a secular religion. Watched the BBC lately?

Fascism adopts a militaristic approach to planning and reshaping society in pursuit of national goals. Those goals don't necessarily mean invading Poland - our approach to public health in this country is becoming very much fascistic.

That our economy is anything other than Corporatist-Fascist is utterly indisputable in my opinion. Forget the State-Finance nexus of which Mussolini would be proud - Fascism co-opts corporations as tools of social engineering and control. Worked in a British company lately?

We're very much living in a soft-Fascist society, but the 'left' can't comprehend the implications of that reality, so we'll continue on this road until it gets a little bit less comfortable. Maybe we're on course for a bit of good old hard Fascism in our lifetimes, post state failure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Left wing/right wing has always been a lazy way of thinking for the media...the terms are now totally devoid of any meaning.

More accurately it should be 'an elected supine government dedicated to serving the interests of powerful vested interest groups'.

Having a vote at the ballot box is a complete delusion...the main political parties all converge at roughly the same point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree the left/right thing is a very simplistic viewpoint and arguably it can only be applied to moderate or mildly radical politics. Once the politics become totalitarian, the two wings become more and more similar, as enforcement and control become increasingly part of peoples' daily lives. And if you take away the enforcement and control from the extremes, you end up with anarchy on the left (nobody has the right to rule) and libertarianism on the right (I have the right to do whatever I like) which amount to the same thing in the end.

Since the Second World War, the torch of radical thinking has been handed on several times. In the immediate post-war period it was held by the radical socialist reformers, who created the Welfare State and the nationalised industries. Somewhere around the mid 60's the torch was grabbed by the far-left, within the trade unions, student groups, feminists etc. wh pushed for reforms that seemed ridculous at the time but are now taken for granted. The next radical torch-bearers were the yuppie 'me' generation and the new monetarist 'Loadsamoney' culture of the Thatcher-Reagan era, which led to the invention of New Labour. The present torchbearers for radicalism are worrying, to say the least. I would say they include the extreme racist right, radical Islam and various nationalist movements. We need to make sure there's not a power vacuum developing here in Britain.

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new Fascism is not Nationalist it is INTERNATIONALISM

Don't buy into the old Nationalism = Nazism

That is a common mistake or trap people on the Liberal side (like Me) fall into

Remember Nationalism in this coutry helped fight Hitler

Nelson Mandelas ANC, African NATIONAL Congress

Ghandi an Indian Nationalist against British Internationalism

If Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel... Internationalism is the first

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The new Fascism is not Nationalist it is INTERNATIONALISM
No. Internationalism can have different wings, just like national politics. You can have imperialism, where one nation seeks to dominate and then control others, or you can have consentual international co-operation, where countries co-operate with the intention of mutual benefit, as with the European Union, Nato, the United Nations, the Commonwealth (in its modern form).

....Yes, I know all the arguments against the EU but there's no point in telling them to me as I'm firmly pro EU!

Putting 'National' into a name doesn't make an organisation good or bad. The British National Party and the Scottish National Party are politically very different, one being right and the other being left - although they are both very damaging to Britain in my mind.

Edited by blankster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
agreed. That's international capitalism - I'm with Marx on the analysis if not his proposed solution ;)

That doesn't make it Fascism unless you bend the definition of that ideology so much to make it fit that it becomes something other than what you started with.

Fascism requires corporatism, but corporatism alone isn't enough to define fascism. You need a one-party state, extreme militarism, a strongly nationalist political ideology, (usually) a strong reliance on organised religion as a tool of the state and an absolute rejection of liberal concepts such as gender/race equality and multiculturalism.

Whatever you think about British Society in 2009, it doesn't fit that bill.

I think the UK has all those things. I think you are being pedantic.

Banks are corporate entities.

We have the illusion of 2 main parties, but they are essentially the same party. They are just theater, puppets of the corporate banks and other industry lobbies.

Our ideology is terror, and the mainstream press help to push this message since they are merely theater also. Murdoch, Berlusconi, fascist media...

Organized religion? Plenty of it where I live in Berkshire - Islam, Hindu/Sikh, Catholics (enjoying a renaissance because of the Polish)

As for ther other stuff about race and sex.. I think you are now going way off track...

What we have is Fascism. Socialism, Serfdom.... the label doesn't matter too much. What we have is WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
agreed. That's international capitalism - I'm with Marx on the analysis if not his proposed solution ;)

That doesn't make it Fascism unless you bend the definition of that ideology so much to make it fit that it becomes something other than what you started with.

Fascism requires corporatism, but corporatism alone isn't enough to define fascism. You need a one-party state, extreme militarism, a strongly nationalist political ideology, (usually) a strong reliance on organised religion as a tool of the state and an absolute rejection of liberal concepts such as gender/race equality and multiculturalism.

Whatever you think about British Society in 2009, it doesn't fit that bill.

As the poster above remarks

We pretty much have all of the things you included in your post

We certainly have corporatism

We have something approaching a one party state because all the main parties are really following a very similar agenda.

The tax burden may be tweaked a litle under the tories and it's possible that the public sector will bear the brunt of the austerity measures that will ne necessary to rebalance the books a little.

All of the main political parties are big government statists. They all favour Keynesian economics.

We have a central bank. Plank No.5 of the communist manifesto.

Militarism?

Yep. We have that too but the UK is the just sucking on the tit of American Imperialism. The US military is of course the main instrument for the internationalists to undermine nation states.

Iraq?

Afghanistan?

Meddling in the ex Soviet satellite states, particularly Georgia

Nationalism has been replaced by Internationalism. The rulers want their fascist totalitarian state to be global

Religion? The new religion is environmentalism and just as religion was used very effectively to cajole and control, so is environmentalism. The whole global warming debate (errrrrr....what debate? It's akin to farting in public to question it.) is just a cynical means to brainwash and tax people. The science behind it is a encyclopedia of half baked mumbo jumbo and spurious scientific half truths.

I accept your arguement that the system differs from our traditional understanding of fascism with respect to minority rights, sexual orientation, race, etc etc. However, I believe these issues are also being cynically exploited to undermine society too, not to improve it.

Edited by UK Debt Slave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As the poster above remarks

We pretty much have all of the things you included in your post

We certainly have corporatism

Yes we do, but corporatism isn't fascism.

We have something approaching a one party state because all the main parties are really following a very similar agenda

That's not what a "one party state" means. You can start your own party if you don't like it, or vote for one of the minority parties.

We have a central bank. Plank No.5 of the communist manifesto.
Communist countries also had roads (mostly) but not all countries with roads are communist.
Militarism?

Yep. We have that too

Iraq?

Afghanistan?

Meddling in the ex Soviet satellite states, particularly Georgia

That's having an army and using it. Militarism requires the glorification of the military class and the close involvement of the military in the running of the country. That we don't have

Nationalism has been replaced by Internationalism.

Indeed. That's why it's not fascism. It's global capitalism.

Religion? The new religion is environmentalism

Having religion isn't a requirement of fascism. It's the running of the country on religiosu grounds that's one of its markers. We're a very secularist state.

I accept your arguement that the system differs from our traditional understanding of fascism with respect to minority rights, sexual orientation, race, etc etc. However, I believe these issues are also being cynically exploited to undermine society too, not to improve it.

Social illiberalism and overt nationalism are defining characteristics of fascism. We don't have either as major political themes in this country.

If you look at the checklist and then look at the BNP's policies, you'll find that they're a much closer fit.

As I said in my first post, you can bend the definition of fascism to fit, but it gets so bent that it becomes something quite different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What we have is Fascism. Socialism, Serfdom.... the label doesn't matter too much. What we have is WRONG.

it's not me trying to apply the label. Before you do so, it's worth looking at what the label actually means and seeing if it fits. Your argument means that the label "fascist" could apply to any country at just about any stage of its development. All that serves top do is to render the label itself essentially meaningless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest UK Debt Slave
Indeed. That's why it's not fascism. It's global capitalism.

It's global corporatism, not capitalism

One of the defining aspects of capitalism is CAPITAL

There is no capital. There is only bank created, interest bearing debt.

It's a monopoly game, not capitalism

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why involve yourself in the dirty, messy business of war when you can sink entire nations with financial weapons of mass destruction like credit derivatives and sub-prime mortgages?

...or not. As is clearly the case with this particular GFC that we've just been through. Surely recent episodes have just shown that there is no recession or financial crisis [however global] that can't be cured when there is enough govt. spend thrown at the problem.

What people should really wake up to is the role of sovereign govts in modern economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the defining aspects of capitalism is CAPITAL

No it's not. It's the belief in capital. Just as its possible to have religion with no obvious manifestation of any deities, it's possible to have capitalism as the basis of debt-driven economies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's global corporatism, not capitalism

One of the defining aspects of capitalism is CAPITAL

There is no capital. There is only bank created, interest bearing debt.

It's a monopoly game, not capitalism

I really don't think the 'interest bearing debt' or not, makes any real odds or is important

Marx blurred the definition of capital to make lying a little easier and since then liars on both sides have had a field day and the people arguing about capitalism have been arguing using Marx's blurred definitions - neither can win properly because both are wrong.

Marx really did balls things up, because if you ignore his conflation of land and capital the real problem is quite easy to identify - obvious - stands out like a sore thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   285 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.