Who is Fascist?

ViRedd · Feb 18, 2008

Who Is "Fascist"?
By Thomas Sowell
Thursday, February 14, 2008

Those who put a high value on words may recoil at the title of Jonah Goldberg's new book, "Liberal Fascism." As a result, they may refuse to read it, which will be their loss -- and a major loss.

Those who value substance over words, however, will find in this book a wealth of challenging insights, backed up by thorough research and brilliant analysis.

This is the sort of book that challenges the fundamental assumptions of its time -- and which, for that reason, is likely to be shunned rather than criticized.

Because the word "fascist" is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that "Liberal Fascism" begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.

The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and "rigidly secular" schools.

Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run.

They were for "industrial policy," long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States.

Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate.

Moreover, during the 1920s "progressives" in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.

Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H.G. Wells called for "Liberal Fascism," saying "the world is sick of parliamentary politics."

Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini -- as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they "did things," instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco's Spain.

Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s.

W.E.B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers.

Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was "absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order."

As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that "there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past."

In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas and assumptions.

Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the left distance themselves from these international pariahs.

Fascism, initially recognized as a kindred ideology of the left, has since come down to us defined as being on "the right" -- indeed, as representing the farthest right, supposedly further extensions of conservatism.

If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the left does today.

The left may say that they are not racists or anti-semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American "progressives" in the eugenics movement.

Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" is too rich a book to be summarized in a newspaper column. Get a copy and start re-thinking the received notions about who is on "the left" and who is on "the right." It is a book for people who want to think, rather than repeat rhetoric.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

7xstall · Feb 18, 2008

i've always said Hitler was a leftist and people give me a shit storm for it.

this book sounds great.

.

medicineman · Feb 18, 2008

7xstall said:
i've always said Hitler was a leftist and people give me a shit storm for it.

this book sounds great.

.

That was the concept in the 1930s-40s. We are in a new age and the repukes have made it their own with a few modifications

1921 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
Sounds like the Bush regime to me. Extreme jingoism-Bush doctrine- Wait untill the repukes break out their race card against Obama, Muslim, chocolate people, etc. If you want to see the beginning of a fascist dictator you only have to look at what the Bush regime has been up to for the past 7 years.

brutality=Torture

7xstall · Feb 18, 2008

medicineman said:
That was the concept in the 1930s-40s. We are in a new age and the repukes have made it their own with a few modifications

1921 1often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality J. W. Aldridge>
Sounds like the Bush regime to me. Extreme jingoism-Bush doctrine- Wait untill the repukes break out their race card against Obama, Muslim, chocolate people, etc. If you want to see the beginning of a fascist dictator you only have to look at what the Bush regime has been up to for the past 7 years.

brutality=Torture

i guess all the red things indicate where Bush parts company with fascism, or are you saying that he does those things??

i've considered Bush a big government conservative since 9/11.. a neo-con, not much of a leftist at all except when it comes to spending.

.

medicineman · Feb 18, 2008

7xstall said:
i guess all the red things indicate where Bush parts company with fascism, or are you saying that he does those things??

i've considered Bush a big government conservative since 9/11.. a neo-con, not much of a leftist at all except when it comes to spending.

.

I'm saying those are things he's either doing or wants to do. BTW, is it better to spend on our kids health and education or spend on killing a million Iraqis. Be careful how you answer, you might turn out to be anti-American???

Dankdude · Feb 18, 2008

Isn't funny how someone comes along and redefines Fascism and People like Vi and 7x eat it up?

How do you define fascism

Bush Busta, a Weaselish sort, was engaged in a favorite activity of the Usenets mustelids: he was dismantling a right winger in debate. The right winger, a lofty sort who likes to refer to himself as a "capitalist pig" had loftily proclaimed that Saddam was a fascist.

Busta wanted to know what made Saddam a fascist, and asked if El Cochino could describe fascism, and how Saddam fit into it.

"Read the newspapers", El Cochino loftily proclaimed.

"Newspapers define fascism?" Busta wanted to know.

American papers dont like to talk about fascism much.

I started thinking about that. What is fascism?

Mussolini said that fascism should more properly be called "corporatism" since it was, under Mussolini, a blending of state and corporate power. Mussolini ought to know; he was the first fascist leader. As an economic system, fascism was widely admired in the west (Churchill considered Mussolini "a great man" and liked the economic aspects of fascism). In America fascism was, unsurprisingly, extremely popular among the upper class. The leading advocates of a fascist economic system to fight the depression Germany in the late thirties had beaten the depression were the Bush family and other elite clans. There was even a weird kind of half-assed coup attempt staged against FDR by those same interests in the mid thirties. Fascism isnt a puppet of the ruling class. It is an extension.

Definition one: it is an economic system in which corporations (or the wealthy elite) are essentially the government and vice versa.

But there are other elements.

For example, it takes a republican form of government. A monarchy can often be similar to a fascist state, with an aristocracy instead of CEOs as the financial support for the throne. Fascist states often have some of the attributes of a republic familiar to Americans: a popular vote (albeit it often a sham), So definition two: its a republic, not a monarchy.

Fascism places the state foremost. The country does not serve the citizen; the citizen serves the country. The notion of plebeian sovereignty is utterly foreign to a fascist regime. This, of course, means that fascism is noted for its extreme nationalism, often taking patriotic displays and political art to absurd levels. The best-known example is Hitlers Germany, which featured incredible national architecture, mass rallies, and the flag and national symbols every where. The leader (fascism usually has a single individual at the top who may or may not exercise absolute authority, and may even be a puppet) is equated to the nation. Mussolini WAS Italy. Hitler WAS Germany. Franco WAS Spain. Definition three: fascism has extreme nationalism.

Everyone thinks of Hitler when you say the word "fascism", but in fact, he was an atypical example. Hitlers self-aggrandizing and increasingly lawless regime didnt really fit on any of the political charts. While fascist regimes are, because of the lack of accountability, usually thuggish and corrupt, they dont necessarily become the genocidal nightmares of mass death that Germany inflicted on the world in the 1930s and 1940s. Definition four: Nazism was fascism, but fascism isnt necessarily Nazism.

Fascist regimes are hostile to liberalism, intellectuals, trade unions, and dissent. Such regimes usually erect these groups as "inner enemies of the state." Sometimes racial or ethnic groups, those that are a visible minority within the country, are singled out as "the rot from within." This usually leads to institutional persecution and abuse. And foreign nations are often pointed out as an imminent danger to the Fatherland, and if the regime has the military power, they will often attack other nations "out of self-defense." Definition five: Fascist regimes erect enemies, inside and out.

While considering themselves traditional and conservative, fascist regimes usually are neither, often invoking a golden past that is either romanticized beyond any rational historians view, and painting an idyllic past, often one eventually corrupted by the target groups. They proceed to blame these groups bitterly for this wonderful past that never was, and vow to restore the Fatherland to its greatness.

Nor are they by any stretch of the definition conservative, even though they embrace the term avidly. While conservatives believe in orderly and deliberate procedures and resist change, fascists seek to upset the existing order and institute wild and far-ranging change, often inverting the entire structure of society. Conservatives are often attracted to rule of law, whereas fascists disdain it, seeking to rid the courts of independent "liberal" judges, and eliminating as much of the publics right to redress as they possibly can. Definition six: fascism is not conservative, but is rather radical and reactionary.

Fascism depends on propaganda, rather than information. This stems, in part, from the discontinuity of its self-described features (conservative, traditionalist) and in part because its aims are often at variance with the public weal, and, quite simply, it has to lie in order to get any public support. Thus, it will corrupt the media if the media was free to begin with, and set about redefining public institutions and government apparatus and actions to suit itself, an activity made famous by the George Orwell term, "Newspeak". Definition seven: fascism depends on propaganda and lies for public support.

So, lets recap. Fascism:

Is an economic system geared to the needs, not of the people, but of the wealthy elite.

It is a republican form of government

It features extreme forms of nationalism.

While Nazism is a form of fascism, fascism is not Nazism.

Fascism creates "enemies of the fatherland" in order to gain public support. These "enemies" usually include liberals, socialists, trade unionists, and conspicuous minority groups.

Fascism is not conservative, although it often claims to be traditional.

Fascism will replace a free press with propaganda.

So what does this tell us about Saddam Husseins regime?

Not much, really, because we dont really know that much about the inner workings of his government.

But examination of fascism does tell us something important.

It fits the current regime in Washington to a "T".

Dankdude · Feb 18, 2008

Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic identity. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence.

The term fascism was first used by Italian dictator Benito Mussolini in 1919. The term comes from the Italian word fascio, which means “union” or “league.” It also refers to the ancient Roman symbol of power, the fasces, a bundle of sticks bound to an ax, which represented civic unity and the authority of Roman officials to punish wrongdoers.

Fascist movements surfaced in most European countries and in some former European colonies in the early 20th century. Fascist political parties and movements capitalized on the intense patriotism that emerged as a response to widespread social and political uncertainty after World War I (1914-191

and the Russian Revolution of 1917. With the important exceptions of Italy and Germany, however, fascist movements failed in their attempts to seize political power. In Italy and Germany after World War I, fascists managed to win control of the state and attempted to dominate all of Europe, resulting in millions of deaths in the OpenDNS and World War II (1939-1945). Because fascism had a decisive impact on European history from the end of World War I until the end of the World War II, the period from 1918 to 1945 is sometimes called the fascist era. Fascism was widely discredited after Italy and Germany lost World War II, but persists today in new forms.

Some scholars view fascism in narrow terms, and some even insist that the ideology was limited to Italy under Mussolini. When the term is capitalized as Fascism, it refers to the Italian movement. But other writers define fascism more broadly to include many movements, from Italian Fascism to contemporary neo-Nazi movements in the United States. This article relies on a very broad definition of fascism, and includes most movements that aim for total social renewal based on the national community while also pushing for a rejection of liberal democratic institutions.

Try again Vi.

Dankdude · Feb 18, 2008

George Orwell
What is Fascism?
TRIBUNE
1944
Of all the unanswered questions of our time, perhaps the most important is: ‘What is Fascism?’

One of the social survey organizations in America recently asked this question of a hundred different people, and got answers ranging from ‘pure democracy’ to ‘pure diabolism’. In this country if you ask the average thinking person to define Fascism, he usually answers by pointing to the German and Italian régimes. But this is very unsatisfactory, because even the major Fascist states differ from one another a good deal in structure and ideology.

It is not easy, for instance, to fit Germany and Japan into the same framework, and it is even harder with some of the small states which are describable as Fascist. It is usually assumed, for instance, that Fascism is inherently warlike, that it thrives in an atmosphere of war hysteria and can only solve its economic problems by means of war preparation or foreign conquests. But clearly this is not true of, say, Portugal or the various South American dictatorships. Or again, antisemitism is supposed to be one of the distinguishing marks of Fascism; but some Fascist movements are not antisemitic. Learned controversies, reverberating for years on end in American magazines, have not even been able to determine whether or not Fascism is a form of capitalism. But still, when we apply the term ‘Fascism’ to Germany or Japan or Mussolini's Italy, we know broadly what we mean. It is in internal politics that this word has lost the last vestige of meaning. For if you examine the press you will find that there is almost no set of people — certainly no political party or organized body of any kind — which has not been denounced as Fascist during the past ten years. Here I am not speaking of the verbal use of the term ‘Fascist’. I am speaking of what I have seen in print. I have seen the words ‘Fascist in sympathy’, or ‘of Fascist tendency’, or just plain ‘Fascist’, applied in all seriousness to the following bodies of people:

Conservatives: All Conservatives, appeasers or anti-appeasers, are held to be subjectively pro-Fascist. British rule in India and the Colonies is held to be indistinguishable from Nazism. Organizations of what one might call a patriotic and traditional type are labelled crypto-Fascist or ‘Fascist-minded’. Examples are the Boy Scouts, the Metropolitan Police, M.I.5, the British Legion. Key phrase: ‘The public schools are breeding-grounds of Fascism’.

Socialists: Defenders of old-style capitalism (example, Sir Ernest Benn) maintain that Socialism and Fascism are the same thing. Some Catholic journalists maintain that Socialists have been the principal collaborators in the Nazi-occupied countries. The same accusation is made from a different angle by the Communist party during its ultra-Left phases. In the period 1930-35 the Daily Worker habitually referred to the Labour Party as the Labour Fascists. This is echoed by other Left extremists such as Anarchists. Some Indian Nationalists consider the British trade unions to be Fascist organizations.

Communists: A considerable school of thought (examples, Rauschning, Peter Drucker, James Burnham, F. A. Voigt) refuses to recognize a difference between the Nazi and Soviet régimes, and holds that all Fascists and Communists are aiming at approximately the same thing and are even to some extent the same people. Leaders in The Times (pre-war) have referred to the U.S.S.R. as a ‘Fascist country’. Again from a different angle this is echoed by Anarchists and Trotskyists.

Trotskyists: Communists charge the Trotskyists proper, i.e. Trotsky's own organization, with being a crypto-Fascist organization in Nazi pay. This was widely believed on the Left during the Popular Front period. In their ultra-Right phases the Communists tend to apply the same accusation to all factions to the Left of themselves, e.g. Common Wealth or the I.L.P.

Catholics: Outside its own ranks, the Catholic Church is almost universally regarded as pro-Fascist, both objectively and subjectively;

War resisters: Pacifists and others who are anti-war are frequently accused not only of making things easier for the Axis, but of becoming tinged with pro-Fascist feeling.

Supporters of the war: War resisters usually base their case on the claim that British imperialism is worse than Nazism, and tend to apply the term ‘Fascist’ to anyone who wishes for a military victory. The supporters of the People's Convention came near to claiming that willingness to resist a Nazi invasion was a sign of Fascist sympathies. The Home Guard was denounced as a Fascist organization as soon as it appeared. In addition, the whole of the Left tends to equate militarism with Fascism. Politically conscious private soldiers nearly always refer to their officers as ‘Fascist-minded’ or ‘natural Fascists’. Battle-schools, spit and polish, saluting of officers are all considered conducive to Fascism. Before the war, joining the Territorials was regarded as a sign of Fascist tendencies. Conscription and a professional army are both denounced as Fascist phenomena.

Nationalists: Nationalism is universally regarded as inherently Fascist, but this is held only to apply to such national movements as the speaker happens to disapprove of. Arab nationalism, Polish nationalism, Finnish nationalism, the Indian Congress Party, the Muslim League, Zionism, and the I.R.A. are all described as Fascist but not by the same people.

* * *

It will be seen that, as used, the word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else.

Yet underneath all this mess there does lie a kind of buried meaning. To begin with, it is clear that there are very great differences, some of them easy to point out and not easy to explain away, between the régimes called Fascist and those called democratic. Secondly, if ‘Fascist’ means ‘in sympathy with Hitler’, some of the accusations I have listed above are obviously very much more justified than others. Thirdly, even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By ‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.

But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.

1944

THE END

Dankdude · Feb 18, 2008

Fascism
definition, origins, characteristics, fascist state, corporative state

Fascism - definition

A totalitarian philosophy of government that glorifies the state and nation and assigns to the state control over every aspect of national life. The name was first used by the party started by Benito Mussolini , who ruled Italy from 1922 until the Italian defeat in World War II. However, it has also been applied to similar ideologies in other countries, e.g., to National Socialism in Germany and to the regime of Francisco Franco in Spain.

Origins of Fascism

While socialism (particularly Marxism) came into existence as a clearly formulated theory or program based on a specific interpretation of history, fascism introduced no systematic exposition of its ideology or purpose other than a negative reaction against socialist and democratic egalitarianism. The growth of democratic ideology and popular participation in politics in the 19th cent. was terrifying to some conservative elements in European society, and fascism grew out of the attempt to counter it by forming mass parties based largely on the middle classes and the petty bourgeoisie, exploiting their fear of political domination by the lower classes. Forerunners of fascism, such as Georges Boulanger in France and Adolf Stöker and Karl Lueger in Germany and Austria, in their efforts to gain political power played on people's fears of revolution with its subsequent chaos, anarchy, and general insecurity. They appealed to nationalist sentiments and prejudices, exploited anti-Semitism , and portrayed themselves as champions of law, order, Christian morality, and the sanctity of private property.

Emergence after World War I

The Russian Revolution (1917), the collapse of the Central Powers in 1918, and the disorders caused by Communist attempts to seize power in Germany, Italy, Hungary, and other countries greatly strengthened fascism's appeal to many sections of the European populace. In Italy, particularly, social unrest was combined with nationalist dissatisfaction over the government's failure to reap the promised fruits of victory after World War I. The action of Gabriele D'Annunzio in seizing Fiume ( Rijeka ) was one manifestation of the discontent existing in Italy. Appealing to the masses and especially to the lower middle class through demagogic promises of order and social justice, the fascists could depend upon support, financial and otherwise, from vested interests, who could not muster such popularity themselves.
Governmental paralysis enabled Mussolini in 1922 to obtain the premiership by a show of force. As leader of his National Fascist party, he presented himself as the strong-armed savior of Italy from anarchy and Communism. Borrowing from Russian Communism a system of party organization based on a strict hierarchy and cells, which became typical of fascism everywhere, he made use of an elite party militia-the Black Shirts-to crush opposition and to maintain his power.
In Germany at about the same time a fascist movement similar to that in Italy steadily gathered strength; it called itself the National Socialist German Workers' party (Nazi party). Its leader, Adolf Hitler , won support from a middle class ruined by inflation, from certain elements of the working class, especially the unemployed, and from discontented war veterans; he also gained the backing of powerful financial interests, to whom he symbolized stability and order. However, it was not until 1933 that Hitler could carry through his plans for making Germany a fascist state and the National Socialists the sole legal party in the country.
The military aggression so inherent in fascist philosophy exploded in the Italian invasion (1935) of Ethiopia, the attack (1936) of the Spanish fascists (Falangists) on their republican government (see Spanish civil war ), and Nazi Germany's systematic aggression in Central and Eastern Europe, which finally precipitated (1939) World War II .

Fascism since World War II

The Italian Social Movement (MSI), a minor neofascist party, was formed in Italy in 1946. It won wider support when the pervasive corruption of the governing parties was exposed in the early 1990s, and it became a partner in the conservative government formed after the 1994 elections. In 1995, however, the MSI dissolved itself as it was transformed into a new party headed by former MSI leader Gianfranco Fini and including the majority of former MSI members. Fini's right-wing National Alliance rejected fascist ideology, including anti-Semitism, and embraced democracy as one of its principles and has participated in center-right governing coalitions.
In postwar West Germany, neofascism appeared in the form of the temporary growth of the nationalistic National Democratic party in the mid-1960s. Following German reunification, neo-Nazi groups in the country gained increased prominence, with new members being drawn to the organization as a result of social upheaval and economic dislocation, and the nation experienced an increase in related violence, especially attacks on immigrants and foreigners. Neo-Nazi groups also exist on a small scale in the United States, and right-wing nationalistic movements and parties in countries such as France, Russia, and some republics of the former Yugoslavia have political groups with elements of fascism. For many of these parties, however, ethnic and racial animosity is often more significant than fascist philosophy.

Characteristics of Fascist Philosophy

Fascism, especially in its early stages, is obliged to be antitheoretical and frankly opportunistic in order to appeal to many diverse groups. Nevertheless, a few key concepts are basic to it. First and most important is the glorification of the state and the total subordination of the individual to it. The state is defined as an organic whole into which individuals must be absorbed for their own and the state's benefit. This "total state" is absolute in its methods and unlimited by law in its control and direction of its citizens.
A second ruling concept of fascism is embodied in the theory of social Darwinism. The doctrine of survival of the fittest and the necessity of struggle for life is applied by fascists to the life of a nation-state. Peaceful, complacent nations are seen as doomed to fall before more dynamic ones, making struggle and aggressive militarism a leading characteristic of the fascist state. Imperialism is the logical outcome of this dogma.
Another element of fascism is its elitism. Salvation from rule by the mob and the destruction of the existing social order can be effected only by an authoritarian leader who embodies the highest ideals of the nation. This concept of the leader as hero or superman, borrowed in part from the romanticism of Friedrich Nietzsche , Thomas Carlyle , and Richard Wagner , is closely linked with fascism's rejection of reason and intelligence and its emphasis on vision, creativeness, and "the will."

The Fascist State

Fascism has found adherents in all countries. Its essentially vague and emotional nature facilitates the development of unique national varieties, whose leaders often deny indignantly that they are fascists at all. In its dictatorial methods and in its use of brutal intimidation of the opposition by the militia and the secret police, fascism does not greatly distinguish itself from other despotic and totalitarian regimes. There are particular similarities with the Communist regime in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. However, unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.
Although Mussolini's and Hitler's governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, the capitalist and landowning classes were protected by the fascist system, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization. On the other hand, the state adopted a paternalistic attitude toward labor, improving its conditions in some respects, reducing unemployment through large-scale public works and armament programs, and controlling its leisure time through organized activities.
Many of these features were adopted by the Franco regime in Spain and by quasi-fascist dictators in Latin America (e.g., Juan Perón ) and elsewhere. A variation of fascism was the so-called clerico-fascist system set up in Austria under Engelbert Dollfuss . This purported to be based on the social and economic doctrines enunciated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, which, however, were never put into operation.

Corporative state

The economic system inaugurated by the Fascist regime of Benito Mussolini in Italy. It was adapted in modified form under other European dictatorships, among them Adolf Hitler's National Socialist regime in Germany and the Spanish regime of Francisco Franco. Although the Italian system was based upon unlimited government control of economic life, it still preserved the framework of capitalism. Legislation of 1926 and later years set up guilds, or associations, of employees and employers to administer various sectors of the national economy. These were represented in the national council of corporations. The corporations were generally weighted by the state in favor of the wealthy classes, and they served to combat socialism and syndicalism by absorbing the trade union movement. The Italian corporative state aimed in general at reduced consumption in the interest of militarization.

Dankdude · Feb 18, 2008

If your going to post Bullshit Vi, Try and do a bit more research before you look like a fool.

closet.cult · Feb 18, 2008

thanks for this thread. very interesting. i especially like orwell's peice. it is within the description of orwell that Vi's artical on jonah's new book "liberal fascism" would fit. it is a word to describe a bully leadership.

that describes the left as well as the right. there is no difference. well, the right seems more corrupt. but it is because they own the buisnesses. the left still gets the money out of you and the big buisnesses, but its always for a good cause.

mockingbird131313 · Feb 19, 2008

7xstall said:
i guess all the red things indicate where Bush parts company with fascism, or are you saying that he does those things??

i've considered Bush a big government conservative since 9/11.. a neo-con, not much of a leftist at all except when it comes to spending.

.

I think Dubya is a liberal.

closet.cult · Feb 20, 2008

7xstall said:
i guess all the red things indicate where Bush parts company with fascism, or are you saying that he does those things??

i've considered Bush a big government conservative since 9/11.. a neo-con, not much of a leftist at all except when it comes to spending.

i'm completely lost. i don't understand what you're talking about here.

bush is a leftist, all the way. he's a republican the same way that he is a torturer: he re-defined it. NOW, republican stands for BIG government spending, INCREASED government intereferance in its citizen's lives and internationally.

Just ask yourself if any of the policies of this administration are 'conservative'? big government conservative is an oxymoron, by the way. that statement only proves he is no republican. he is a neo-con.

NEO-CONS are the missing link between republicans and democrats. they ARE democrats, inside our borders. socialists. they only differ in that they choose to involve themselves outside our borders with delusions of grandour about 'taking over the world'.

you might disagree, but i'm looking at their long term goals. one-world government. tagging people like cattle. socialized programs that catagorize the population and a heavy handed approach to totalitarian, militia controlled populations. they go left, and then take it to extreams at a multi-national level. these are the plans. but for now they work with the framework of the political party they occupy. one step at a time to accomplish their goals...

i guess the next step is to elect a democrat who subscribes to their philosophy. say hello to our next president: Hillary Clinton.

7xstall · Feb 20, 2008

ok, i think i agree w/ you guys.

i think he is a bit conservative on the whole role of government thing. i know you'll completely disagree, cult, but i think Bush actually believes that he is doing us a favor by placing the government between us and the "terrorists". that would be, after all, the government's job - if there are terrorists coming after us... do i think they are coming or would come if we just treated them with civility? no, but we smack them around via Israel so we get what we pay for there.

yeah, i think he's still holding on to his deep conservative roots on this one. he doesn't mind taking shit for the patriot act or the real ID or whatever on the grounds that he really does think that stuff matters to our national security.

(i'll save med the trouble and call myself some name now)

he's far left on spending. he seems to really think that government should redistribute our money to massive corporate farms, to stupid crap like corn ethanol and other failing businesses BUT, then he gives us all a tax break... ???

very hard to nail W down one way or the other. he's a big government conservative and there's enough room in that description for lefty extraordinaire Clinton too. he has sort of a restrained approach to progressivism. lol

.

medicineman · Feb 20, 2008

7xstall said:
ok, i think i agree w/ you guys.

i think he is a bit conservative on the whole role of government thing. i know you'll completely disagree, cult, but i think Bush actually believes that he is doing us a favor by placing the government between us and the "terrorists". that would be, after all, the government's job - if there are terrorists coming after us... do i think they are coming or would come if we just treated them with civility? no, but we smack them around via Israel so we get what we pay for there.

yeah, i think he's still holding on to his deep conservative roots on this one. he doesn't mind taking shit for the patriot act or the real ID or whatever on the grounds that he really does think that stuff matters to our national security.

(i'll save med the trouble and call myself some name now)

he's far left on spending. he seems to really think that government should redistribute our money to massive corporate farms, to stupid crap like corn ethanol and other failing businesses BUT, then he gives us all a tax break... ???

very hard to nail W down one way or the other. he's a big government conservative and there's enough room in that description for lefty extraordinaire Clinton too. he has sort of a restrained approach to progressivism. lol

.

I really hate that you dufus, I need my frustration discharges against braindead people. Anyone that actually thinks Bush is doing anything beneficial for the citizens of this or any other country is absolutely brain dead. Bush has a one track mind. Do what the Master wants, be petted and told he's a good boy. Try and memorize the speeches given him or listen to the implanted speaker so he won't stumble on words in public, a hard task for him. Bush is a puppet, period.

mockingbird131313 · Feb 20, 2008

medicineman said:
I really hate that you dufus, I need my frustration discharges against braindead people. Anyone that actually thinks Bush is doing anything beneficial for the citizens of this or any other country is absolutely brain dead. Bush has a one track mind. Do what the Master wants, be petted and told he's a good boy. Try and memorize the speeches given him or listen to the implanted speaker so he won't stumble on words in public, a hard task for him. Bush is a puppet, period.

The current issue on the table is whether bush is a conservative or not. He is a liberal.

ViRedd · Feb 20, 2008

Dankdude said:
If your going to post Bullshit Vi, Try and do a bit more research before you look like a fool.

You know, Dank ... I think it would be doing us both a big favor if you and I agreed to keeping personal attacks out of the forum.

As for all the stuff you cut & pasted, a lot of it is in direct agreement with Dr. Sowell's article. I mean, what do you call Hillary's statement "It takes a village?" What do you call the Left's desire to take over complete industries and turning them over to the central government to run? What do you call the Left's race to reimpose the Fairness Doctrine? If you want more examples, I'll give them to you. But in the meantime, you might keep in mind that racism and fascism are two different animals. Hitler was a racist fascist ... Mussolini was not racist, but just a socialistic fascist. Hillary and Obama fall into that category.

Vi

closet.cult · Feb 20, 2008

7xstall said:
ok, i think i agree w/ you guys.

i think he is a bit conservative on the whole role of government thing. i know you'll completely disagree, cult, but i think Bush actually believes that he is doing us a favor by placing the government between us and the "terrorists". that would be, after all, the government's job - if there are terrorists coming after us... do i think they are coming or would come if we just treated them with civility? no, but we smack them around via Israel so we get what we pay for there.

yeah, i think he's still holding on to his deep conservative roots on this one. he doesn't mind taking shit for the patriot act or the real ID or whatever on the grounds that he really does think that stuff matters to our national security.

(i'll save med the trouble and call myself some name now)

he's far left on spending. he seems to really think that government should redistribute our money to massive corporate farms, to stupid crap like corn ethanol and other failing businesses BUT, then he gives us all a tax break... ???

very hard to nail W down one way or the other. he's a big government conservative and there's enough room in that description for lefty extraordinaire Clinton too. he has sort of a restrained approach to progressivism. lol

goddamn, man. you give the man alot of credit. but you're wrong. he's corrupt.

if you did some research on his grandfather and his father-in-law, george herbert walker, you'd find out they were nazi traiters who laundered money for hitler. they actually had an assasination plot to overthrow the president of the united and states and replace him with a hitler-ish nazi dictator with the same plans of eugenics and ethnic cleansing here in the u.s.

they recruited an american general in their conspiracy and he played along long enough to find out who all the co-conspirators were and then blew the whistle. there is enough information in the u.s. congressional library to confirm everything i have just written. somehow, the story gets buried but alex jones interveiwed the award winning journalist who uncovered the story.

the bush family are nazis. they are not liberals. they probably hate liberals. but they are anything but conservative and religious. they are evil and part of the scheme of big business and bankers to enslave the sheeplike people in this entertainment driven, materalistic and narsasistic country. their phylosophy on running the country: "give the people new cars and porno and instant gratification and they'll look the other way while we kill brown people in other countries and slowly steal more and more of their wealth."

you've probably heard all this befor. the difference between you and i is you still have faith in this asshole for some reason. you actually believe the reasons he gives you for his actions. :roll:

"making us safe for terrorism" jesus, man! can you really be this naive?

i'll say it again, if the democrats did what he has done in office you would see thru this bullshit in an instant. you need to get over your party loyalty. judge the man by his actions. he doesn't give a shit about morality or human life. better yet, there's an old saying: show me a man's friends and i'll tell you about the man." this president has been connected to almost every major corporate scandel that has went down since his term began. on a first name bases with the scumbags who destroyed huge corporations and people's life savings. he is toxic evil; but too dumb to be anything other then someone else's puppet.

Dankdude · Feb 20, 2008

Vi Fascism is right wing ideology taken to the extreme, Marxism (ie) Communism is left wing ideology taken to an extreme. The aim is the same (total control over society) but polar opposites.
Believe it of not right wing ideology is not utopia, nor is left wing ideology.
There has to be a balance between the two.
You can not take away social programs from society lest we increase the crime rates nation wide. If that were to happen you would end up with a prison industrial complex and a military industrial complex, (sound familiar) A fascist state. If we were to give everything to the people we end up with the people being totally dependant of the government, a communist state.

Your Views lean more towards fascism, where you want the world to be only for the elite.
Neither Obama or Clinton are fascist or communist.
The ideology you espouse is the reason for our failing infrastructure, failing economy, and the failing of our society.
Your views have had 15 years to see how they would work.
Let's see what has been accomplished.
- Elimination of the middle class.
- Failing bridges
- Failing electrical grids
- Soaring fuel prices

These are yet just a few examples of how the right wing ideology has screwed up the country.
In the mean time We have lost more and more jobs in this country because people like you want production but don't want to pay for it.
If you want Quality, you have to pay for it.
Your Argument would be that prices will rise....
That is complete and utter bullshit, were prices may go up, they won't go up more than the market can bare.
People like you want everything made cheaply, but when it's all said and done and all the jobs are shipped overseas for cheaper manufacturing markets, who is going to be there to buy all the stuff that is being produced?

Ronald Reagan was no pillar of truth either, He never took into account that the greedy bastards at the top weren't going to trickle down squat. Wonder why that is?
Because they have the same ideology you espouse.

Now no one likes to pay taxes, but they are a necessary evil, but you don't see it that way. You would rather smoke the finest cigars, drink the finest scotch and smoke the finest weed all the while people are dying in our streets due to lack of proper medical care.
(Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome Burned)
Either way you pay for Medical Care, Either you pay out of pocket after you receive your paycheck or you pay for universal medical care through taxation.
I would rather pay for it before I get my paycheck that way I don't miss it in the first place.

When someone points out where you are wrong you either have a snide comment or you say that they are making a personal attack.
Talk About personal attacks, anyone who doesn't agree with your way of seeing things, you have the awdasity of calling them socialist or communist.....
Hell the last time you and I talked, the first thing you said to me on the phone was how you doing ya commie.
What kind of shit is that?
The cut and paste examples I gave are not even remotely a left wing ideology.

Dankdude · Feb 20, 2008

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the peoples attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choicerelentless propaganda and disinformationwere usually effective. Often the regimes would incite spontaneous acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and terrorists. Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting national security, and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elites behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the godless. A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of have-not citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Normal and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or traitors was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Who is Fascist?

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member