The simplistic and I say blatantly false political constructs nomally taught today do not address the real issues.
socialism and fascism are in fact normally merged in governments because of political corruption issues. Easy to talk tgrash. Easy to mislead the general populace.
The word socialism from it's roots would imply a community governance of shared interests, not normally involving loss of basic human rights. Well, debateable even at this .
The word "fascism" from its root would imply government via a more restreictive set of interests working together, with some special or elite set of people running the show to the detriment of the rights of others.
I think a constructive or true discussion of government needs better logic, better terms, and attention to key issues.
Previous to the American Revolution, with perhaps a few historical preludes across the ages, most government consisted of autocratic authoritarian rulers of varying strength (meaning numbers of troops or cops or tax collectors) that largely disrespected the notion of human rights, especially individual human rights. A few "good" kings were highly regarded by their citizens as a community because of benevolence or relative liberty.
The American Revolution created a new monster..... a limited government, according to the hopes of its originators, that could only with difficultly become oppressive like the British had been with the colonies. This is American Exceptionalism at the root. A people relatively free with a government that protected the individual rights of ordinary citizens. Ideals of equal justice for all, regardless of wealth or rank or "connections". A kind of limited democracy where the majority could not become oppressive over a minority.
Well, we had some coloniies with "slavery", but the founders were uncomfortable and designed to stop importation of slaves after 1820, and many wanted to end slavery altogether. But as a broken set, we did not have the possible strength to maintain our freedom from Britain or other European powers at that time.
Considerable research by historian Anthony Chaitkin, develops the evidence that Britain schemed to break apart the colonies over first commercial issues in the first decade of our independence, and many other stratagems. Finally, the secessionist and abolitionists were both funded from Britain to divide our nation.
In fact, there was a scheme to get a hayseed radical named Abe Lincoln elected as a provocation so outrageous to the South, that they would secede. It was funded by some British aligned NY bankers, who hoped to just sweet talk silly Abe to let the secession go forward. After that, the British foreign office hoped to militarily take the Mississippi corridor and limet the colonies' permanently, weaken them commercially,and destroy them with war between themselves.
In this time span, Russia intervened to help the US hold out with naval operations on the West Coast that deterred British expansion there., and France acted to protect us on the Atlantic, and Spain in the Gulf. The North was able to blockade Southern ports, and doom the secessionists. But the damnYanks up North still had British-aligned bankers, and somehow they got the investment capital to re-imagine American industry. Abe bought on with the whole railroad idea.
Abe Lincoln was more of Union man than a humanitarian abolitionist. The reason he fought was because he instinctively knew that as a divided nation, we could not stand.
So in conclusion, the true politcal spectrum is not left or right, but free humans and slave humans. Nothing else is the real issue.
socialism and fascism are in fact normally merged in governments because of political corruption issues. Easy to talk tgrash. Easy to mislead the general populace.
The word socialism from it's roots would imply a community governance of shared interests, not normally involving loss of basic human rights. Well, debateable even at this .
The word "fascism" from its root would imply government via a more restreictive set of interests working together, with some special or elite set of people running the show to the detriment of the rights of others.
I think a constructive or true discussion of government needs better logic, better terms, and attention to key issues.
Previous to the American Revolution, with perhaps a few historical preludes across the ages, most government consisted of autocratic authoritarian rulers of varying strength (meaning numbers of troops or cops or tax collectors) that largely disrespected the notion of human rights, especially individual human rights. A few "good" kings were highly regarded by their citizens as a community because of benevolence or relative liberty.
The American Revolution created a new monster..... a limited government, according to the hopes of its originators, that could only with difficultly become oppressive like the British had been with the colonies. This is American Exceptionalism at the root. A people relatively free with a government that protected the individual rights of ordinary citizens. Ideals of equal justice for all, regardless of wealth or rank or "connections". A kind of limited democracy where the majority could not become oppressive over a minority.
Well, we had some coloniies with "slavery", but the founders were uncomfortable and designed to stop importation of slaves after 1820, and many wanted to end slavery altogether. But as a broken set, we did not have the possible strength to maintain our freedom from Britain or other European powers at that time.
Considerable research by historian Anthony Chaitkin, develops the evidence that Britain schemed to break apart the colonies over first commercial issues in the first decade of our independence, and many other stratagems. Finally, the secessionist and abolitionists were both funded from Britain to divide our nation.
In fact, there was a scheme to get a hayseed radical named Abe Lincoln elected as a provocation so outrageous to the South, that they would secede. It was funded by some British aligned NY bankers, who hoped to just sweet talk silly Abe to let the secession go forward. After that, the British foreign office hoped to militarily take the Mississippi corridor and limet the colonies' permanently, weaken them commercially,and destroy them with war between themselves.
In this time span, Russia intervened to help the US hold out with naval operations on the West Coast that deterred British expansion there., and France acted to protect us on the Atlantic, and Spain in the Gulf. The North was able to blockade Southern ports, and doom the secessionists. But the damnYanks up North still had British-aligned bankers, and somehow they got the investment capital to re-imagine American industry. Abe bought on with the whole railroad idea.
Abe Lincoln was more of Union man than a humanitarian abolitionist. The reason he fought was because he instinctively knew that as a divided nation, we could not stand.
So in conclusion, the true politcal spectrum is not left or right, but free humans and slave humans. Nothing else is the real issue.