SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Google REDEFINES Fascism to Protect Leftists; Smear Conservatives
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Google REDEFINES Fascism to Protect Leftists; Smear Conservatives Login/Join 
Member
Picture of TigerDore
posted Hide Post
I agree it is distinction without a difference. And, as you have pointed out, there are no true capitalists in your model. There are only crony capitalists (Solyndra, anyone?), which isn't capitalism, it is the government picking the winners and losers in business- or a form of socialism.

quote:
Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
The original fascist, Mussolini, was far left. He was a socialist, as was Hitler; likewise with Saddam Hussein. Stalin and Mao were communists, as was Castro.

Fascism is far left. Far right is probably more libertarian than anything. At minimum it is about the least government possible without anarchy....


Communism is where politicians and bureaucrats subjugate the people and serve themselves. Fascism is where politicians and bureaucrats subjugate the people and serve themselves, plus serve a few of their superficially capitalist cronies. A distinction without a difference.
 
Posts: 8603 | Registered: September 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
It isn't circular, I think "circular" is the reasoning applied by the left to twist conservatism into fascism. It is definitely linear, conservatism at one end and modern leftism at the other.

What is currently labeled conservatism is really classic liberalism: a desire for self-determination, maximum freedom and limited government. By its very definition, conservatism cannot be fascist. It would be like saying "wetland desert".

+1
There is a good write-up on "Classic Liberalism" at wikipedia.

Evan Sayet explains, very articulately, how "modern liberalism" has come to mean almost exactly the opposite of the classic meaning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Our failed education system has dumbed-down the definitions of "Nazi" or "fascist" such that liberals use those labels on anyone they think is "mean" or that they simply don't like.
In reality, "NAZI" stands for "National SOCIALISM", and Fascism was a similar Italian variant of that. that's why they were immediate, natural allies.

Many naive Leftists don't realize that dictatorship is also considered an essential part of the plan to move from free-markets to socialism to communism. They recognized that most people would never voluntarily submit to communism, so a dictatorship is necessary until the people recognize the superiority of the socialist utopia under a dear leader...at which time he is supposed to relinquish power to a "dictatorship of the people".


"Crom is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, 'What is the riddle of steel?' If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me."
 
Posts: 6641 | Registered: September 10, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Staring back
from the abyss
Picture of Gustofer
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crom:

In reality, "NAZI" stands for "National SOCIALISM",

National Sozialismus


________________________________________________________
"Great danger lies in the notion that we can reason with evil." Doug Patton.
 
Posts: 19975 | Location: Montana | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
It isn't circular, I think "circular" is the reasoning applied by the left to twist conservatism into fascism. It is definitely linear, conservatism at one end and modern leftism at the other.

What is currently labeled conservatism is really classic liberalism: a desire for self-determination, maximum freedom and limited government. By its very definition, conservatism cannot be fascist. It would be like saying "wetland desert".


quote:
Originally posted by TMats:
I believe a better spectrum is circular, rather than linear. Ultimately, carried to their ultimate design, both end with government domination and population subservient to, or suppressed by government. I don't know where you put anarchy, but the end goal of Marxism/Communism is certainly anything but "no government."


"I believe a better spectrum is circular, rather than linear...."

I really don't understand this circular argument.
If you go too far around a circle you end up back where you started. If you have too much freedom, how do you end up at tyranny?

Or, if you have too much tyranny, how do you end up at freedom?

???

How does a desire for self-determination, maximum freedom and limited government" end with "government domination and population subservient to, or suppressed by government"?



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 23944 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TigerDore
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:

I really don't understand this circular argument.
If you go too far around a circle you end up back where you started. If you have too much freedom, how do you end up at tyranny?

Or, if you have too much tyranny, how do you end up at freedom?

???

How does a desire for self-determination, maximum freedom and limited government" end with "government domination and population subservient to, or suppressed by government"?

You are right and I think you see that I agree. The circular argument is a false construct by leftists in academia; a mouse's treadmill to occupy vocal space in an argument they cannot make logically. The left does this a lot.
 
Posts: 8603 | Registered: September 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of leavemebe
posted Hide Post
quote:
You are right and I think you see that I agree. The circular argument is a false construct by leftists in academia; a mouse's treadmill to occupy vocal space in an argument they cannot make logically. The left does this a lot.


+1000. Political systems are very linear. On one side is absolute "government" control and on the other is individual freedom. Lots of shading in between. When you pull back the blinds from the communist/socialist/fascist systems, the big dogs do very well while the average person suffers. I prefer American style self rule - individual freedom and personal responsibility.


____________________________

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them they have been fooled." Unknown observer of human behavior.
 
Posts: 670 | Location: Virginia | Registered: July 13, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Don't Panic
Picture of joel9507
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by chellim1:
"I believe a better spectrum is circular, rather than linear...."

I really don't understand this circular argument.
If you go too far around a circle you end up back where you started. If you have too much freedom, how do you end up at tyranny?

Or, if you have too much tyranny, how do you end up at freedom?

???

How does a desire for self-determination, maximum freedom and limited government" end with "government domination and population subservient to, or suppressed by government"?

This. It's multidimensional.

If you had to squash it into one dimension, a line isn't right, and as you point out a circle incorrectly joins dissimilar ends. Maybe a horseshoe rather than a circle?
 
Posts: 15001 | Location: North Carolina | Registered: October 15, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The "Circular theory" is a fine example of "Doublethink"

Doublethink is enabled by control of the language through 'Newspeak".

For example, in Newspeak "Blackwhite" is defined as follows:

This word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as doublethink. — Orwell, 1984


"Crom is strong! If I die, I have to go before him, and he will ask me, 'What is the riddle of steel?' If I don't know it, he will cast me out of Valhalla and laugh at me."
 
Posts: 6641 | Registered: September 10, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
No double standards
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by joel9507:


Horseshoe analogy is great, just weld a little rod between Communism and Fascism. The topping is different, but the bread underneath is pretty much the same.




"Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women. When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it....While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it"
- Judge Learned Hand, May 1944
 
Posts: 30668 | Location: UT | Registered: November 11, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TigerDore
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scoutmaster:
quote:
Originally posted by joel9507:


Horseshoe analogy is great, just weld a little rod between Communism and Fascism. The topping is different, but the bread underneath is pretty much the same.

Better yet, put the ends in a vice and press them together, then weld the ends into one mass.



.
 
Posts: 8603 | Registered: September 26, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Lawyers, Guns
and Money
Picture of chellim1
posted Hide Post
Fascism: Socialism’s Smarter Brother

By Jack McPherrin | January 20, 2022

In recent years, American politics has been plagued with mutual assertions on both sides of the aisle that the other party is pursuing a fascist agenda. It would therefore behoove many – especially those on the far left claiming to be fascism’s diametric opponents – to gain a greater understanding of what fascism actually entails. They might find that fascism and socialism are far from mutually exclusive.

In fact, fascism and socialism are fundamentally unified around one guiding principle: societal revolution, and the subsequent totalitarian ideological control by the state.

Merriam-Webster defines fascism as “A political philosophy, movement, or regime…that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stand for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition.”
Report Ad

Historian Emilio Gentile – one of the world’s foremost scholars of fascism – describes it as a political ideology with an “extra ingredient” that creates a “political religion.” Gentile contends that this ingredient – essentially, totalitarian control – is found in fascist and Bolshevik states alike.

Fascist principles are often co-opted by left-wing populism, the roots for which are based in a socialist vision for a society incorporating a more equitable distribution of resources. This is precisely what transpired in Hugo Chavez’s communist Venezuela. Chavez rose to power on a populist wave, bent on redistributing the massive oil wealth that had accumulated in the upper echelons of Venezuelan society. Much and more has been written of the failures of the Chavez regime, and can be explored elsewhere. But, in addition to utter economic ruin, these socialist reforms came to engender “a dramatic concentration of power and open disregard for basic human rights guarantees.”

For more clear-cut links between socialism and fascism, one can examine the most infamous historical examples of fascism’s adoption throughout inter-war Europe in the years leading up to World War II. Each of fascism’s proponents was either formerly a socialist, or espoused socialist principles to a significant degree.

In France, prominent French Socialist Party member Leon Deat led the “neo-socialist” movement that became a backbone of the Nazi-allied Vichy government.

In Belgium, Deat’s socialist counterpart and close ally Hendrik de Man adopted a similar perspective, urging “a state plan based on a mixed economy, central direction of that economy, inflationary fiscal policies, and Keynesian deficit financing – the achievement of which would be brought about by an alliance between the proletariat and the middle classes.”

The Union Socialiste Republicaine (USR) represented the combined efforts of Deat and de Man, and has been described as a “fascist movement” with “left-wing goals.”

In Britain, the British Union of Fascists (BUF) was formed by Oswald Mosley and his allies. Mosley had been a strong force within the British Labour Party, and espoused Keynesian-influenced policy goals centered around centralized economic planning. Once Mosley developed enough influence, he began thinking bigger, adding elements of state-run corporatism that originated in the Italian fascist experiment.

Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini was the author of that experiment. Mussolini, himself a former revolutionary socialist, argued that only through centrally controlling all corporate activity could the ultimate objective of a totalitarian state be achieved.[1] Italy in turn became the model upon which Adolf Hitler’s fascist vision for Germany was based.
Report Ad

Hitler – whom French historian Francois Furet has referred to as “Lenin’s younger brother”–preached socialist ideals from the outset.

One of his early speeches contends socialism to be “the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good.”

Yet another proclaims, “We must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint…there are no such things as classes… there can only be a single people and beyond that nothing else.”

As time transpired, this socialist movement came to be riven with corporatist influence. Elaborating in 1931 on his proposed economic plan to revitalize Germany’s floundering economy, Hitler argued “The program demands the nationalization of all public companies, in other words socialization…the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State… the Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners.”

Links to socialism are not confined to Hitler’s public orations. Joseph Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda and Hitler’s closest ally, once claimed “The future belongs to the dictatorship of the socialist idea of the state.”

Early Hitler opponent and German war minister Wilhelm Groener condemned: “There is no doubt that many members of the SA and SS were in the recent period militants of communist organization. Their goal is and remains communism.”

Upon a visit to Germany during Hitler’s rise, Simone Weil detailed, “The whole German youth, in almost every social milieu is driven…by a violent feeling of hatred towards capitalism and a burning desire for a socialist regime.”

German industrial titan Alfried Krupp stated, “They want a sort of Bolshevism with jack-boots but without a brain.” Ironically, the Krupp company would shortly thereafter be suborned by the Nazi cause, and become the primary supplier of Hitler’s Wehrmacht.

The Nazi Party – officially, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party – was able to achieve its level of control by unifying disparate elements of society and eliminating all dissent. Hitler institutionalized his dogmatic agenda by allying himself with Big Business – such as Krupp, I.G. Farben, Siemens, and many others – rather than destroying it.

In summation, the primary difference between socialism and fascism is that fascism is smarter. Fascism recognizes the power potential of suborning private enterprise, and nationalizing those private enterprises in service of its unadulterated socialist objectives.

Unfortunately, the cautionary tale of Nazi Germany is increasingly ignored, as history often is.

Within the United States in particular, this is a cautionary tale that is manifesting before our eyes, illustrated by the ever-increasing clamor for socialist policy initiatives to combat predatory capitalism, the monopolization of Big Tech, and the mainstream media’s naked censorship of those who diverge from their proscribed ideology.

Yet, it is the leftist alliance with Wall Street and corporate stakeholders, as evidenced by the advent of ESG scores and the institutionalization of corporate social responsibility, that provides the greatest cause for concern. It is eerily reminiscent of the corporatism inherent to Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy.

In the aggregate, this alliance represents nothing less than a centralization of power from all corners of society, on a scale similar to, yet greater than, that perpetrated by the Nazis 80 years ago. This overarching cohesion is working to create a totalitarian political religion, one that is bent on destroying economic freedom and individual liberty.
Report Ad

Italian political sociologist Luciano Pellicani convincingly concludes: “Fascism and capitalism are two antithetical realities. If the principles of the first prevail, the principles of the second – full property rights, absolute freedom to buy and sell according to the laws of the market, the logic of profit and competition, etc. – are inevitably seriously restricted, if not annihilated altogether.”

In conclusion: socialism, fascism, it makes no difference. The latter is, and has always been, simply a more sophisticated extension of the former. That sophistication is what makes fascism so much more dangerous. That sophistication is why it took the combined might of the entire free world to combat fascism in history’s most devastating war.

So, if you were interested in societal control, which of these would you pick? Which has the better track record of success?

Which seems reminiscent of what is occurring in America today?

You tell me.

https://humanevents.com/2022/0...sms-smarter-brother/



"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible."
-- Justice Janice Rogers Brown

"The United States government is the largest criminal enterprise on earth."
-rduckwor
 
Posts: 23944 | Location: St. Louis, MO | Registered: April 03, 2009Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Official Space Nerd
Picture of Hound Dog
posted Hide Post
Liberals LOVE changing definitions. Today, "racism" has been re-defined so that only white people can be "racist" (and, blacks and other minorities are incapable of being racist, going by the new definition). . .



Fear God and Dread Nought
Admiral of the Fleet Sir Jacky Fisher
 
Posts: 21821 | Location: Hobbiton, The Shire, Middle Earth | Registered: September 27, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Nullus Anxietas
Picture of ensigmatic
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Crom:
There is a good write-up on "Classic Liberalism" at wikipedia.

Evan Sayet explains, very articulately, how "modern liberalism" has come to mean almost exactly the opposite of the classic meaning:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

Somehow I missed this comment, back when it was made some 4-1/2 years ago.

This is a point I keep trying to make. People (quite a few here on SF) keep referring to the modern left as "liberals." As one of my signature lines notes: There is nothing even remotely "liberal" about today's left.

They're leftists. Their behavior and stated beliefs are closer to fascism than they are liberalism. Thus I sometimes refer to them as leftofacists.

We need to stop calling them "liberals." Liberalism, true liberalism, encompasses some very positive aspects. E.g.:

quote:
Originally posted by TigerDore:
What is currently labeled conservatism is really classic liberalism: a desire for self-determination, maximum freedom and limited government.

This ^^^^^

Except classical liberal philosophy does usually contain elements of statism and socialism. (The former is necessary to establish/enforce the latter.)

But, even if it does have aspects Ayn Rand-style libertarians and conservatives find repugnant, liberalism does have attractive aspects. This is another reason we have to stop calling modern leftists "liberals." It's ascribing to them positive aspects they don't embody. It's giving them cover.



"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system,,,, but too early to shoot the bastards." -- Claire Wolfe
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living." -- Seneca the Younger, Roman Stoic philosopher
 
Posts: 26009 | Location: S.E. Michigan | Registered: January 06, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Ammoholic
Picture of Skins2881
posted Hide Post
What are examples of right wing/conservative/Republican-like fascists or fascistic governments?



Jesse

Sic Semper Tyrannis
 
Posts: 20756 | Location: Loudoun County, Virginia | Registered: December 27, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Savor the limelight
posted Hide Post
quote:
1) She never mentioned Generalissimo Francisco Franco's place on the political spectrum line.

Last I heard, his condition was grave, but stable.
 
Posts: 10822 | Location: SWFL | Registered: October 10, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    Google REDEFINES Fascism to Protect Leftists; Smear Conservatives

© SIGforum 2024