Talk:Fascism
Leftist are fascists, just ask Hitler and Mussolini. <---Nut.
Mussolini referring to FDR as saying “America has a dictator.”
FDR's personal letters reveal that he was impressed by what Mussolini was doing and said that he kept in close touch with that "admirable gentleman."
Mussolini praised the New Deal as following his own corporate state, as quoted in a July 1933 article in the New York Times, "Your plan for coordination of industry follows precisely our lines of cooperation." And Mussolini went as far as also calling FDR a "social-fascist" in a GOOD way.
This also attracted Hitler. Yup... you heard me correctly.
The Nazi press enthusiastically hailed the early New Deal measures: America, like the Reich, had decisively broken with the "uninhibited frenzy of market speculation." The Nazi Party newspaper, the Völkischer Beobachter, "stressed 'Roosevelt's adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies,' praising the president's style of leadership as being compatible with Hitler's own dictatorial Führerprinzip" (p. 190).
Nor was Hitler himself lacking in praise for his American counterpart. He "told American ambassador William Dodd that he was 'in accord with the President in the view that the virtue of duty, readiness for sacrifice, and discipline should dominate the entire people. These moral demands which the President places before every individual citizen of the United States are also the quintessence of the German state philosophy, which finds its expression in the slogan "The Public Weal Transcends the Interest of the Individual"'" (pp. 19-20). A New Order in both countries had replaced an antiquated emphasis on rights.
And on to Woodrow Wilson. Jonah Goldbergh and his book Liberal Fascism(you should atleast read it) points out that Woodrow Wilson was in essence the first fascist dictator(not absolutist sense) and president in the 20th century and this why.
Aside from the fact that Benito Mussolini actually said he got some of his ideas from Woodrow Wilson this is what the progressive president did during his term did.
1: Given broad powers to completely control the U.S. Economy(making it a command economy during his term)
2: Given power to censor the press and nationalized the telephone companies and industry.
3: Made it illegal to criticize him, the government, military, flag and polices especially in your own home(claimed to be just in war, but he wanted to keep these polices up even after his term).
4: Protesters and dissidents violently suppressed during his administration.(Goldbergh points out Wilson arrested more dissidents in just a couple of years than Mussolini did his full 1920s)
5: Established what would be considered the quasi-private police-state agency called the "American Protective League" administered by the "Department of Justice".(Goldbergh also points out Wilson did more violence towards civil liberties in 3 years than Mussolini did in his first 12)
6: Created the first official propaganda ministry
7: And dragged us into WWI(no, not the the Iraq War)
And about the conservative elements of fascism such as patriotism and sexism, it was sexism and patriotism being suppressed that existed way before fascism came abroad.
Oh.. and did you know Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy had Public health care?
Mussolini was an atheist and devout Marxist before he made Fascism, which is socialism and Woodrow Wilson's progressive polices Mussolini admitted to adopting.
Hitler also suppressed Christianity in Schools and they burned Bibles despite what Hitler said about Jesus.
And if it's anything conservative about Hitler, it's appeasing to most people who were generally socially conservative in that generation.
If it's anything, about the Christian Catholic rightwing Fascists such as the dictator in Austria and Francisco Franco of Spain, it was that they refused to deport Jews to Hitler at one point or another.
Not even Bush suspended civil liberties like Woodrow Wilson did even when we did have a terrorist attack.
And if people want to call Bush a Fascist because of the Patriot Act, Obama is one because he he renewed it and plus, ofcourse he's taking more of the economy to the government like a fascist.
And is Obama Socialistic or Fascistic? He's both, just read history. — Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- I thought Obama was a Muslim? At any rate, I dont htink Obama will be pursuing any of the socialistic or fascist ends sought by Hitler, Mussolini or any other tin-pot dictator. You'll still have your freedom. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 01:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Not when liberals take control of the economy.
Look in dictionary and see the similarities, such owning(GM and Chrysler) and/or regulating the economy. — Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- Please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks. RaoulDuke 02:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- So there was no freedom during the Clinton error? No freedoms under JFK? NZ, Australia and Japan (post recent election) had no freedoms? Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please sign your posts with four tildes. Thanks. RaoulDuke 02:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, aside there wasn't freedom taken under conservative admins, I'm pointing out that fascism is on the left spectrum not the right. — Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- Well then, what is the extreme right? A brutal theocracy like the Taliban? Sounds about right (mind the pun). I don't think fascism is the exclusive realm of the left. Fascism, in Germany, came about due to the people feeling ripped off by the League of Nations after the first world war. The were demilitarised and gave a lot of land away. Hitler bought into this and instilled an extreme sense of nationalism and patriotism which the people, in their weakest moment, wholeheartedly embraced. Sounds like a right focused trait to me. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 03:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
What is the extreme right? Franco, religious dictator of Spain. Abortion clinic bombers. Taliban hate us and we hate them. Beside, there not christian and it seems people liberals show sympathy to terrorists, especially the whole terrorist rights crap.— Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- All i am starting to hear from you now is "no true scotsman" arguments. "No thats not us", "No thats not us either" you seem unwilling to accept that there are bad people from BOTH sides and if they are then its "Their not conservatives, their liberals". Sounds like someone else we know. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 03:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Wow you have actually gotten worse. Allow me to explain Christian ≠ conservative, conservative ≠ Christian. - π 03:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't like the fact that this site is pointing solely at conservatives when it was progressive liberals who admired it.
I'm just pointing out that fascism derived from progressivism, just plain fact. I didn't say there aren't bad people on both spectrums but this is about fascism not everything radical. The problem I do have is that Winston Churchill admired Mussolini, aswell. But who cares, he's not an american conservative.— Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- No body can see your point because you do not know of which you speak. As I explained below fascism is not all authoritarian states. - π 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry a fascis-i mean liberal can't understand all this. But FDR did admire Mussolini and Hitler and Mussolini admired him and Mussolini did say he got ideas from Mr Wilson. — Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- I dont understand your point, far right conservatives in the UK are the neo-nazi BNP. Are they liberals? Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- You are just trolling now. Get a dictionary and look the word fascism up and find out what it actually means. - π 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] a very important point that is missing here
A very important point that is missing from your argument is that, for example, Churchill may have been a fan of Mussolini at the beginning when it seemed everything he was doing was above board but ceased when he became a dictator. I dont have the facts in front of me but again, undeniably, Stalin was a ally before he became the mass murdering dictator. After that fact, when it was realised what he had in store, he became the reprehensible monster now remembered in history. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
You were referring to Mr Churchill, yeah that sucks that he said that. I don't know if he was a conservative, maybe he was, but it's liberals here who admired fascism. You need to read Liberal Fascism sometime to see what you can dig out.— Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- No, I dont need to read it. Please respond to my very important point with your knowledge. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- The book makes the same stupid association fallacies and equivocations you are making. Authoritarianism ≠ fascism, there are many forms of authoritarianism; fascism is a right-wing form. - π 05:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh Yeah, that's when FDR said something like "I have hunch that Stalin wants nothing but security for his country and if I give him everything and ask for nothing in return, I think he won't annex anymore countries." I think we knew what happen next.
Sounds like modern day liberals being weak on National Security. Like we'll remove part of our missiles and give none to allies and talk with Iran., just when we found out they violated a U.N.(useless liberal org) resolution and found out they have more nuclear facilities and making even more threats towards us now after exposing it. — Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- Again, foolish gentleman, you have missed the point. FDR would said that (sorry I do not have hard facts here and now) around the time of thr Yalta Conference when Stalin was an ally. Since then, he became a communist murderer. Your Iran talk is irrelevant to this particular point. FDR said that during the Yalta conference BEFORE the communist purges and Chirchill admired mussolini in 1933 BEFORE the 2nd world war. A misjudge of character NOT admiration of fascists and commies.Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 05:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
My point was is that he be friended somebody who obviously annexes countries.
- Sorry man, I mean not to be aggressive, but you are way out of your depth. I would be interested in having a more indepth discussion however you do not seem to be up to it. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 06:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh... I just noticed that that gray symbol at the upper left corner is suppose to be a brain. I just thought that meant you were a nut, because that's what it looks like.— Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- So far we have had association fallacy, equivocation and now ad hominem, do you have an actual argument or just a set of fallacies? - π 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No... just the fact that part of modern liberalism was derive from fascism.— Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- No modern liberalism is derived from classical liberalism, with less emphasis on free markets following the great depression. Marxism and fascism were reactions to modern liberalism. - π 06:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- I can make a watertight argument that because GWB was a good friend of the Saudis that Neo-Conservatism is derived from Islamist theocracies. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
No. The Saudi King did not get ideas from Bush to be a theocrat like Mussolini admitted to getting ideas from Woodrow Wilson.— Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- Have a read of this. It explains that fascism emerged in opposition to liberalism. - π 06:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Senseless jibber-jabber
Sorry, I can no longer debate your senseless gibberish. Ace McWickedI'm a pretty big deal around here... 06:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- He has read a book and it over stimulated him. If he had read a reliable book we would have been spared this inanity. - π 06:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] My two cents
I can think of 5 good reasons that liberals are not fascists. German philosopher (and neo-Nazi) Ernst Nolte wrote a book "Fascism in its Epoch," in which he defines "generic fascism." He make 4 points about fascism as an ideology:
1) The purpose of morality is duty to humanity, the physical manifestation of which is the state.
2) The state has no limit to its power, nor should it protect the rights of any individuals.
3) Morality is inherently tied to race and gender, and the only correct form of race relations is Social Darwinism.
4) Marxian communism and other egalitarian systems should be combatted, with extreme violence if necessary.
Obviously none of these apply to Obama when you put them in perspective. Lastly, Nolte characterizes fascism as a kind of "backlash" against modernity, particularly against democracy and egalitarianism. Obama is clearly not the one exhibiting conservative backlash; his opponents are. Tetronian 02:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
"1) The purpose of morality is duty to humanity, the physical manifestation of which is the state."
What can you do in an uncilized society? Communists are clearly leftwing and they do the same social conservatism.
"2) The state has no limit to its power, nor should it protect the rights of any individuals."
Nor do liberals have limits, they wanna change more and more. Then why do fascist nations have public health care if they don't want to protect there citizens? Probably the same reason liberals want public health care, to control.?
"3) Morality is inherently tied to race and gender, and the only correct form of race relations is Social Darwinism.
HAH... Stalins USSR!
"4) Marxian communism and other egalitarian systems should be combatted, with extreme violence if necessary."
Didn't Hitler at one point get along with the USSR until he invaded it? — Unsigned, by: 76.228.209.71 / talk / contribs
- Allow me to explain. Fascism = authoritarianism, but authoritarianism ≠ fascism. There are many ways to be authoritarian, but what distinguishes fascism from say communism is why they are authoritarian. Fascist are a) nationalists and b) corporatists, both are from the right end of the spectrum. Communists are collectivist from the left end of the spectrum. - π 03:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Didn't Hitler at one point get along with the USSR until he invaded it?" - wow, this has been a fun clueless BoN. Hitler cut a deal with Stalin to split Poland and not fight each other, while he pursued other aims (western Yurp). Then he got bored and stupid and attacked Russia. At least you gave me my daily dose of lulz, BoN. ħuman
05:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Didn't Hitler at one point get along with the USSR until he invaded it?" - wow, this has been a fun clueless BoN. Hitler cut a deal with Stalin to split Poland and not fight each other, while he pursued other aims (western Yurp). Then he got bored and stupid and attacked Russia. At least you gave me my daily dose of lulz, BoN. ħuman
- Something that continues to baffle me: all western and developed countries apart from the United States have some kind of public healthcare system. If public healthcare=fascism that means that the entire western world is fascist. Is there really anybody who would seriously want to claim that? Oh, and if you think the Soviet Union was social darwinist you simply don't know what Social Darwinism means. Social Darwinism and Darwinism are two completely different things. Opposing public healthcare for example is a prime example of Social Darwinism. M the T 21:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fascism without Hitler
If Hitler had not come to power (died in WWI/marginalised during the 1920s/Hindenburg had chosen someone else) or had "moderated" (relatively speaking) his views, how would Fascism have been viewed?
- Hitler wasn't a fascist. Fascism was corporatism/centralised planning of the economy which revolved around a cult of the leader/state. Hitler embraced a variety of socialist mechanisms of the state with the end goal of complete milarisation. Hitler was not a socialist but he was not afraid to use certain socialist models in order to bring about 'perfect order' based on perceived racial purity. Fascism had no such racist origin. Franco even employed black soldiers in the Spanish Civil War. I can't imagine Hitler doing likewise. I concede that the differences are relatively marginal, but Hitler's 'fascism' and Mussolini's variety had important distinctions.
- I also find it funny that fascism is painted as a pariah while communism is treated with kids gloves. Little is made of the authoritarianism inherent within communism - that it demands total consent and participation etc. The line between communist organisation of society and fascism is grey indeed - both in theory and in practise. I wonder why there are no calls for 'dispassionate dissection' for the fascism article. Of course I believe that both articles should be treated rationally and should also be criticised where warranted, I just find it amusing that there is no such reserve with this article. MarcusCicero (talk) 16:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree there MC; too many people think "fascism=racism/xenophobia/etc" and "Fascist=Nazi", it doesn't. Yes, it is a not-very-nice political ideology, but those who bandy the word around to describe anything they don't like (such as the absurd Unite Against Fascism) don't seem to grasp the differences. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think this article is a rather dispassionate analysis of fascism. It calmly describes its general characteristics of internal oppression and outward aggression, and doesn't even contain a list of the crimes committed by its adherents like the one that was included in the article on communism. The difference between the two is that communism envisions individual freedom in theory and results in oppression in practice (hence the need for a distinction), while fascism aims at a strictly hierarchical and authoritarian societal order from the start. Röstigraben (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thats the problem. Communism doesn't hold personal freedom as an ideal. In fact it considers individualism and civil society as a 'liberal bourgeouis' construction. Communism requires total consent and is the intellectual equivilent of the hive mentality, as if human beings were not individuals but a collective with no personal autonomy. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that even communist theory is too beholden to collectivism and illusions about the volonté generale to contain a genuine commitment to individualism, but you have to take Marx's materialism and the state of society in the 19th century into account. For the original communists, all that mattered was to end the exploitation of the disenfranchised at the hands of the capitalists and their oppression at the hands of the governments which served the elite. They thought that true freedom could only be realized in the absence of these systems, the mistake they made was that they didn't consider the possibility to reform them. They thought freedom could be brought about through strict equality and didn't pay attention to the importance of pluralism, but they weren't opposed to individual freedom per se. Anyway, we should probably argue about this over at the communism talk page. Röstigraben (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Thats the problem. Communism doesn't hold personal freedom as an ideal. In fact it considers individualism and civil society as a 'liberal bourgeouis' construction. Communism requires total consent and is the intellectual equivilent of the hive mentality, as if human beings were not individuals but a collective with no personal autonomy. MarcusCicero (talk) 10:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think this article is a rather dispassionate analysis of fascism. It calmly describes its general characteristics of internal oppression and outward aggression, and doesn't even contain a list of the crimes committed by its adherents like the one that was included in the article on communism. The difference between the two is that communism envisions individual freedom in theory and results in oppression in practice (hence the need for a distinction), while fascism aims at a strictly hierarchical and authoritarian societal order from the start. Röstigraben (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree there MC; too many people think "fascism=racism/xenophobia/etc" and "Fascist=Nazi", it doesn't. Yes, it is a not-very-nice political ideology, but those who bandy the word around to describe anything they don't like (such as the absurd Unite Against Fascism) don't seem to grasp the differences. DeltaStarSenior SysopSpeciationspeed! 16:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
- The communism talk page is impervious to reasonable criticism. You're either a right wing nut job, or dogmatically opposed to 'dispassionate dissection' if you think the failings of the Soviet bloc were a natural result of the system and the underlying anti individualist tenets inherent in communism.
- My problem with basic Marxist theory is that 'the dictatorship of the proletariat' is essentially, even at its most charitable intended form, a raw democracy that stems from the wishes of the consenting masses. In other words, you must first be a true blood communist who is a participating member of the communist party in order to have any hope of enacting change or intiative. Anyone who disagree's with the uniquely absolute communist democratic system is a 'counter revolutionary' - which in essence means anybody who disagree's with you. In other words, these people are excluded from any participation in the body politic, both in theory and in practise. Any system that precludes people based on their personal beliefs is a deeply flawed one, necessarily leading to authoritarianism and tyranny. The political theory around the concept of the socialist state is glaringly and offensively naive and oppressive. I see little distinction (In terms of political organisation) in it between fascism, national socialism and communism. MarcusCicero (talk) 13:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Come on, the article on communism was substantially amended as a result of the discussion. It now points out that all attempts at building new communist societies through top-down measures have resulted in oppression and often outright massacres of opponents. Again, I agree that communism's rejection of democratic pluralism is its fatal weakness and that this flaw alone makes its genuine implemenation impossible, you don't have to argue with me about that. Röstigraben (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Fascism does not equal authoritarianism per se - there was a Fascist Party in Brazil in the 1930s.
Could a modern version of 'fascism as a theory' be developed (ie something more than 'authoritarian statism')? What about 'Cult of the Leader (being Dubya/Grinning Tony)'?
- No, thats idiotic. Fascism could and does arise today in various forms, but neither Bush nor Blair were 'fascists'. Those kind of silly accusations sum up everything that is most irritating about left wing college students. MarcusCicero (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
- Sarcasm perhaps? What sort of personality cult could be created around B/B?
Give examples of modern fascism - and the remark was not calling Dubya or Smarmy Tony fascists. (The use of negative/juvenile nicknames proves they are not fascists.)
[edit] 14 points of fascism
We don't have article? ħuman
03:35, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
- I mean, we should. ħuman
03:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Major Edit
I just drastically rewrote that textwall that began before the table of contents, and transferred a whole bunch of it into two new headlines. I hope my revisions are up to Rationalwiki standards. ConfusedLiberal (talk) 05:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
[edit] Is corporationism to the right of laissez-faire?
I know the fascists try to present themselves as "above" the left and right, but aren't their form of economics right-wing, just in a different way than laissez-faire is associated with the right? If "right" means an appeal to authority or inequality isn't protecting the elite class and corporations "right-wing", even if it's in a different way than we associate right-wing economics? At least with laissez-faire you could, theoretically speaking, get out of the lower classes, but fascists usually want the classes to basically accept their place in life, unlike the commies who wanted to unite them (though in practice we know it doesn't work that way). I just see this "we're not right or left" Third Positionism as a half-assed attempt to put themselves above the fray, kind of like when The New Black Panther Party says similar things yet lean to the far-left. Fascist "economics" seem quite similar to those utilized by right-wing monarchies for the "good the nation", so what makes the fascists think they're so special? ClothCoat (talk) 08:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- There are different forms of Corporatism that get placed (variously) on the left and the right. Left Wing Corporatism exists in modern Germany and is usually referred to as something to the effect of 'Social Capitalism' and is where the government takes a (theoretically) minimal role in the economy while labor unions and management groups negotiate compensation. We normally think of the Left as wanting heavy intervention into the economy, but that isn't really a Left Wing thing, it's simply a means to an end, in this case a means to the end of "more equality and oppertunity among different economic classes". Economies that adopt Left Wing Corporatism want that nice Left Wing goal, but don't want to fuck around in the economy too much. Right Wing Corporatism is what we more commonly associate with Fascism, and is where the government takes a direct role in the economy, forcing groups to work together and towards an ultimate goal of "what is best for the country/the government/the military". In practice this quickly breaks down to the government forcing labor groups to do what the management groups want, because Fascism is really just the mixture of the worst incarnation of capitalism, pseudo-Democracy, and nationalism gone awry.-- Token Conservative Feminist Thought Police 15:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's very well put. I'm wondering if we should make it more clear in the article that despite not being very pro-capitalist (or not being very good at capitalism) that it's usually a far-right ideology, due to attempts by some to pull a No true Scotsman or shove it to the other side of the spectrum (though obviously most people on the right of the spectrum are not fascists, I hate it when moonbats throw around the word). I see this "Third Positionism" stuff as usually a half-assed attempt for right and left wing extremist groups to try to make themselves out to be "above" the political spectrum, and I think we're giving them too much credit in the article. ClothCoat (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- So perhaps, then, "leftwing" and "rightwing" are not reliable markers of how authoritarian an ideology is. At least, that is the conclusion I make based on my personal definition of left and right. To me, left vs. right is defined as "equality vs hierarchy," with both having the potential to lead to totalitarianism. Then again, a lot of self-proclaimed "libertarians" get around this by defining left vs right as "collectivism vs individualism," so that their token pundit on Fox can call George W. Bush a leftist without irony, as well as pin all acts of government tyranny on leftists (and it helps that their own definition of freedom has never really existed on a national level). Wow, I went on a tangent there, didn't I? ConfusedLiberal (talk) 00:05, 15 September 2013 (UTC)