How strong is the fascist impulse on the Liberal Left?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:21 PM GMT
    QUITE STRONG

    "Fascism, properly understood, is a phenomenon of the left. This fact — an inconvenient truth if there ever was one — is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents."

    "Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the 'problem' and therefore defined as the enemy. Contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism."



    "Fascism, properly understood, is a phenomenon of the left. This fact — an inconvenient truth if there ever was one — is obscured in our time by the equally mistaken belief that fascism and communism are opposites. In reality, they are closely related, historical competitors for the same constituents."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:29 PM GMT
    Jack_NNJ.

    The reason Newark smells that way.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:31 PM GMT
    Yes. But fascism must be properly understood.

    Fascism was a brand of Marxian socialism. The fascists and communists split over questions of ideological purity, not because they were opposite viewpoints.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:34 PM GMT
    Jack_NNJ said
    QUITE STRONG

    "Fascism, properly understood, is a phenomenon of the left."

    OK, that ends your argument there. Fascism is defined as a RIGHT Wing phenomenon. It has always been OPPOSED to Left-Wing Liberalism. Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy (where Fascism arose, based on a Latin term), were enemies of the Left. Do try reading some actual history books, and not some lunatic revisionism.

    But I know the Teabagger crowd throws these mutually exclusive terms around carelessly. President Obama is alternately a Fascist, a Communist, a Socialist, a Libtard (whatever that is), a Muslim, anything negative the looney Teabaggers can throw against the wall and hope sticks.

    And you're a part of that?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:34 PM GMT
    Cash saidJack_NNJ.

    The reason Newark smells that way.


    This officially ends this thread. No further posts are necessary.
  • Timbales

    Posts: 13993

    May 17, 2014 11:35 PM GMT
    and this would be 'all things gay' how?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:35 PM GMT
    The political spectrum is not a straight line, but an arch. The very extreme left and very extreme right are on the same, mirrored level. That being opposite sides of the same totalitarian coin.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:37 PM GMT
    _SAGE_ saidThe political spectrum is not a straight line, but an arch. The very extreme left and very extreme right are on the same, mirrored level- just opposite sides of the same totalitarian coin.

    Except that there is no extreme left, at least in the United States. We have Eisenhower Republicanism (Obama) and Batshit Crazy Fascism (Tea Party).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:40 PM GMT
    woodsmen said
    Jack_NNJ saidYes. But fascism must be properly understood. Fascism was a brand of Marxian socialism. The fascists and communists split over questions of ideological purity, not because they were opposite viewpoints.

    Wikipedia: Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races.

    Fascism never had anything to do with socialism. The troll is attempting to rewrite history. The rightists have been trying to wash off the stain of Nazism for decades, and they think they have a chance with "low-information voters". But it won't work.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:47 PM GMT
    Sharkspeare said
    _SAGE_ saidThe political spectrum is not a straight line, but an arch. The very extreme left and very extreme right are on the same, mirrored level- just opposite sides of the same totalitarian coin.

    Except that there is no extreme left, at least in the United States. We have Eisenhower Republicanism (Obama) and Batshit Crazy Fascism (Tea Party).


    Cuba is close enough ;]
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:49 PM GMT
    woodsmen saidWikipedia: Common definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism — especially once in power — has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.


    Unless of course we also count the USSR and China (well, to most of those criteria).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 17, 2014 11:51 PM GMT
    Sounds like something Sarah Palin would say, but not really fully understand.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:03 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidWikipedia: Common definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism — especially once in power — has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.

    shhh... don't tell that to the delusional Teabaggers. They've been indoctrinated to call anyone who opposes them a Fascist, and a Socialist and a Communist (never mind that those terms are mutually exclusive). Despite the fact they're being directed and funded by Right-Wing corporate Fascists.

    But the angry "get off my lawn" crowd who feel compelled to wave the America flag in somebody's face, more as an act of personal crabbiness than a mark of true patriotism, haven't a clue what any of these political terms actually mean. If it sounds bad they use it.

    And the real Corporate Fascists have latched onto these people, a genuine coup on their part. An easily manipulated, poorly informed demographic, that will happily disregard their own interests to follow Right Wing Pied Pipers to their own destruction.

    But isn't that how Mussolini and Hitler also rose to power? The pattern is chillingly similar.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:08 AM GMT
    woodsmen said
    Jack_NNJ saidYes. But fascism must be properly understood. Fascism was a brand of Marxian socialism. The fascists and communists split over questions of ideological purity, not because they were opposite viewpoints.

    Wikipedia: Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races.


    Leninism/Stalinism also borrowed theories and terminology from socialism. And Marx's well-known statements about the Jews were embraced by both sides.

    In any case, only the Germanic brand of fascism got excited about the racial purity thing. Mussolini thought the "Jewish Question" was a waste of time, and indeed it would have been in the more polyglot Italy.

    Not that Mussolini had any great love for Jews. He shed no tears over the millions of Jews that the Nazis killed.

    Additionally, another irony is that for all the talk of the USSR being focused on an international type of socialism, the Russians sure jumped on the nationalistic bandwagon pretty quickly. Stalin instituted a massive cultural project, with veneration of "Mother Russia," patriotic songs, and all kinds of pomp, parades, and propaganda aimed at whipping up nationalistic fervor.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:11 AM GMT
    _SAGE_ said
    woodsmen saidWikipedia: Common definition of fascism focuses on three concepts: the fascist negations of anti-liberalism, anti-communism and anti-conservatism; nationalist authoritarian goals of creating a regulated economic structure to transform social relations within a modern, self-determined culture; and a political aesthetic of romantic symbolism, mass mobilization, a positive view of violence, and promotion of masculinity, youth and charismatic leadership. According to many scholars, fascism — especially once in power — has historically attacked communism, conservatism and parliamentary liberalism, attracting support primarily from the far right.


    Unless of course we also count the USSR and China (well, to most of those criteria).


    Yes, fascism attacked communism - just as communism attacked fascism. But they attacked each other as heretical to true socialism. It was an internecine conflict.

    Fascism and communism were rivals, not opposites as many on the Left contend.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:14 AM GMT
    Sharkspeare said
    woodsmen said
    Jack_NNJ saidYes. But fascism must be properly understood. Fascism was a brand of Marxian socialism. The fascists and communists split over questions of ideological purity, not because they were opposite viewpoints.

    Wikipedia: Fascism borrowed theories and terminology from socialism but replaced socialism's focus on class conflict with a focus on conflict between nations and races.

    Fascism never had anything to do with socialism. The troll is attempting to rewrite history. The rightists have been trying to wash off the stain of Nazism for decades, and they think they have a chance with "low-information voters". But it won't work.


    Really, fascism had nothing to do with socialism? It was socialism. Mussolini, in fact, was expelled from the Italian socialist party because of heresy, not because he repudiated the party's program.

    He saw himself as a socialist martyr, a sort of rejected Messiah of the Left, who hoped and prayed that his brother socialists would eventually see the light.

    Hayek, "The Socialist Roots of Naziism [sic]":

    "The increasing veneration for the state, the admiration of power, and of bigness for bigness' sake, the enthusiasm for 'organization' of everything (we now call it 'planning') and [the] inability to leave anything to the simple power of organic growth..."

    Tell me: How does this differ from today's Left/Liberal conception? I'd say not much, if at all.

    If he had written this today, I'm sure he could have worked in something about "community organizing."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:22 AM GMT
    judgingyou said
    Timbales saidand this would be 'all things gay' how?
    More like "all things retarded".


    Oh, whatever. I meant to put it ion New and Politics. So sue me.

    No biggie. Someone started a political thread recently and placed it in the "Food" forum.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:23 AM GMT
    n8698u saidSounds like something Sarah Palin would say, but not really fully understand.


    So let us hear your learned thoughts on the matter.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:40 AM GMT
  • tazzari

    Posts: 2929

    May 18, 2014 12:48 AM GMT
    It's probably one of those words that, like "Nazi," generate more heat than light, and might be better avoided.

    But that old fascist-slayer FDR had this to say:

    Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

    The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

    The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

    Both lessons hit home.

    Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

    This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.

    THE GROWING CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER.

    Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935:

    Ownership of corporate assets:

    Of all corporations reporting from every part of the nation, one-tenth of 1 per cent of them owned 52 per cent of the assets of all of them;

    and to clinch the point:

    Of all corporations reporting, less than 5 per cent of them owned 87 per cent of all the assets of all of them.
  • buddycat

    Posts: 1874

    May 18, 2014 12:52 AM GMT
    I would not listen to anything that was not impartial and from someone with an agenda. Facists like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin appear on the left and right and are void of economic matters. I suggest going to politicalcompass.org and taking their test and looking at their info.

    internationalchart.png
    axeswithnames.gif

    Here is where I am:
    pcgraphpng.php?ec=-3.88&soc=-3.74
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 12:58 AM GMT
    tazzari said
    But that old fascist-slayer FDR had this to say:

    Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

    The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

    The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.


    Both lessons hit home.

    Thanks for this post. Wisdom from the one man in the US who most successfully fought real Fascism. Not the imaginary Fascism of the Teanuts, that some members here are citing.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 1:02 AM GMT
    woodsmen saidThis was explored recently in a NYT piece in which the USA almost fell towards fascism in the 1920s because that was the last time the richest 1 percent controlled almost everything but the 99 percent changed that to the progressivism we enjoy for almost 100 years until now:

    The years from the late 19th and early 20th centuries were not the most egalitarian in American history. Robber barons roamed the economy, living off lavish rents generated by powerful cartels and industrial monopolies.

    The richest 1 percent of Americans reaped nearly one in five dollars generated by the economy and amassed almost half its wealth; at the other end of the scale, wage earners lost ground to inflation. It was the era of the Haymarket riots and Upton Sinclair’s “The Jungle.” Workers staged 1,500 strikes in 1886 alone.

    Ultimately, though, the disparities in wealth and income led to an age of ferment that came to be known as the Progressive Era.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/business/economy/the-politics-of-income-inequality.html?_r=0


    The piece ignored the 'teens, especially WWI. Wilson's War Socialism made even the fascists of Europe take note and applaud.

    The USA "almost fell toward fascism in the 1920s"? In the late 'teens, we were fully fascist under Wilson.

    Anyway, I see nowhere in that piece where the author claimed that we almost fell into fascism because of inequality. Is that something you added based on your definition of fascism?

    Indeed, the rise of fascism was a response to "growing inequality." Like all Progressives, the fascists, socialists, and communists alike all hated the free market and sought to curb its excesses.

    The author also messes up when he mentions Sinclair and the trust-busting of Standard, etc.

    Fact is, which Sinclair acknowledged, "Big Meat" voluntarily put reforms into place.

    Standard Oil and other huge corporations welcomed regulation.

    Why did these companies play ball? Because they were big enough to absorb the costs of heavy regulation, and their smaller competitors would be put at a severe disadvantage, and many were indeed run out of business.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 1:20 AM GMT
    tazzari saidIt's probably one of those words that, like "Nazi," generate more heat than light, and might be better avoided.

    But that old fascist-slayer FDR had this to say:

    Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people.

    The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power.

    The second truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if its business system does not provide employment and produce and distribute goods in such a way as to sustain an acceptable standard of living.

    Both lessons hit home.

    Among us today a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing.

    This concentration is seriously impairing the economic effectiveness of private enterprise as a way of providing employment for labor and capital and as a way of assuring a more equitable distribution of income and earnings among the people of the nation as a whole.

    THE GROWING CONCENTRATION OF ECONOMIC POWER.

    Statistics of the Bureau of Internal Revenue reveal the following amazing figures for 1935:

    Ownership of corporate assets:

    Of all corporations reporting from every part of the nation, one-tenth of 1 per cent of them owned 52 per cent of the assets of all of them;

    and to clinch the point:

    Of all corporations reporting, less than 5 per cent of them owned 87 per cent of all the assets of all of them.


    "That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

    That, in essence, was fascism if by fascism we mean "something undesirable."

    But it is completely wrong. Show me in Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy where any individual, group, or any other controlling private power "owned the government."

    In fact, the exact opposite was true. Fascism was socialism - all private entities were forced into service of the State.

    The Nazis only differed from the Commies in that they didn't think it was necessary to completely nationalize all industry. Industries would fall into line at the point of a gun just as well, which they did.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 18, 2014 1:27 AM GMT
    Jack_NNJ said
    Fascism was socialism - all private entities were forced into service of the State.

    The Nazis only differed from the Commies in that they didn't think it was necessary to completely nationalize all industry. Industries would fall into line at the point of a gun just as well, which they did.

    If that model is correct, please tell us how President Obama is a Fascist by your definition. What industries has he made "fall into line at the point of a gun"? It seems, rather, that it's US corporations that are unbridled and running amuck. Abetted by a Republican Congress. Please explain this.