Socialists and Fascists Have Always Been Kissing Cousins
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In 1939, the same year the Germans and the Russians mutually consented to rape Poland, T.S. Eliot rather famously (or, I suppose for some, infamously) declared: “If you will not have God (and He is a jealous God), you should pay your respects to Hitler or Stalin.” Eliot, of course, could not have been more correct. In 1936, you had three choices: National Socialism, international socialism, or dignity.
In 2018, we find ourselves in similar circumstances, even if they aren’t quite as clear cut as they were in 1936.
Of all the disturbing developments in culture and ideas over the last several years—including violence against legitimate authority, violence against the average citizen, and violence against the very ideas that undergird the West—few have been more disturbing than the reemergence of communism and socialism.
Why is this happening now, as much of Western civilization lingers in its twilight state? Most likely, it has to do with three critical things. First, we scholars have failed to convince the public of just how wicked all forms of communism were and remain. Most historians have focused their research and teaching on how “liberated” every form of eccentricity has become and how—in terms of race and gender—victims remain victims. Almost all historians ignore the most salient fact of the 20th century: that governments murdered more than 200 million innocents, the largest massacre in the history of the world. Terror reigned in the killing fields, the Holocaust camps, and the gulags.
Second, an entire generation has grown up never knowing such things as the Soviet gulags or even the Berlin Wall. Indeed, it’s been more than a full generation since communism existentially threatened sustained violence on a global scale. With America currently at the height of her power (militarily and economically, not spiritually or ethically), we are the bad guys of the world, if for no other reason than we stand—for the most part—above and alone.
Third, the five nations that remain officially communist—Cuba, Laos, Vietnam, North Korea and mainland China—seem to be relentlessly backward, mad, or capitalist. No one thinks about the first three countries anymore. North Korea looks like a loony bin. China seems more bent on profit and power more than anything it might profess officially.
Equally disturbing is that most younger defenders of communism buy into the oldest propaganda line of the Left—that real communism has never been tried and fascism is the polar opposite of communism. That the Nazis were actually “National Socialists,” these apologists argue, was merely a cynical ploy on the part of Hitler to gain the support of the working and middle classes of Germany. The term “socialism” meant nothing to Hitler. He was really a supporter of controlled corporate capitalism, not of the beautiful and compelling idea of socialism. Many of these young communism supporters go so far as to argue that those who label the Nazis “National Socialists” are either ignorant or willfully smearing a good word. While these new supporters have yet to proclaim those who call Nazis socialists as racists, they are coming close. A quick look at the social media response to a British conservative’s recent claim that National Socialism was—surprise!—socialist should be proof enough that communism is hardly dead and gone.
The young communists are more than convinced of their intellectual as well as their moral superiority. With dread certainty, they bully anyone who believes differently than they do. In other words, the Left is back and in full force, up to the same deceptions and tricks as it was in the 1920s and after.
That the National Socialists embraced socialism is factually accurate. Though they did not nationalize to the extent the Leninists wanted, they did nationalize very vital industry in Germany, even if by outright intimidation rather than through the law. In his personal diaries, Joseph Goebbels wrote in late 1925: “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery under capitalism.” Only a few months later, he continued, “I think it is terrible that we and the Communists are bashing in each other’s heads.” Whatever the state of the rivalry between the two camps, Goebbels claimed, the two forces should ally and conquer. He even reached out to a communist in a personal letter: “We are not really enemies,” he offered.
Hitler admired Stalin, and the two willingly carved up Poland in 1939. One SS division named itself after Florian Geyer, a Marxist hero promoted by Frederick Engels in The Peasant War in Germany. Hitler actively recruited communists into the National Socialist movement, believing they were far more malleable than Christians.
The Italian fascists had even closer ties to the Marxists, with Mussolini having begun his career as a Marxist publicist and writer. A few Italian fascists even held positions in the Comintern. The only serious divide between the Italian fascists (or those who would become fascists) and Italian communists in the 1910s was their support, or not, of Italy’s participation in World War I.
In the West, one of the first to recognize these vital connections was none other than Friedrich Hayek, the Austrian turned Englishman. Nationalism is nothing “but a twin brother of socialism,” he proclaimed in a 1945 speech in Dublin.
In his profound work Reflections on a Ravaged Century, Robert Conquest labeled all forms of totalitarian socialism a type of “mindslaughter.” Fascism and communism share much in common, he argued. First, the two ideologies came from identical origins in 19th-century thought. Second, both celebrated the peasant revolts of the 1500s as foreshadowing 20th-century uprisings. Third, both claimed to speak in the name of “the people” and “the masses.” Fourth, both embraced a variety of social sciences and pseudosciences from the 19th century, though the Marxists did it with more finesse. Fifth, both claimed to be progressing humanity toward some end goal. And, finally, both accepted moral nihilism.
In his fascinating work The Faces of Janus, A. James Gregor convincingly argues that the rival claim for power in 1922 in Italy inaugurated a propaganda war between these two factions that lasted—at least rhetorically—to this day. “The enmities bred by the dispute,” Gregory writes, “ultimately reached such intensity that Marxists of whatever variety and nationality refused to acknowledge the heretical Marxist origins of the first Fascism.” From this point forward, Marxists began to write of fascists as “reactionary,” as “right-wing,” and as part of the last stages of capitalism. The debates among Marxists over fascism raged between 1922 and 1935 until the Communist International finally declared fascism to be the result of the economic downturn of the previous decade, “the sharp accentuation of the general crisis of capitalism.” As such, the communists officially defined fascism as “the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capitalism.”
Since 1935, of course, fascism has become such a catch-all term for anything evil that it’s now a hollow thing, full of fury but devoid of substance. In addition to Gregor and Conquest, scholars and writers such as Sheldon Richman and Robert Higgs have done their very best (and their best is extraordinary) to define fascism properly. In general, though, their appeals to intellect and understanding have failed, falling only as pearls among the passionate swine.
Just as T.S. Eliot saw in Hitler and Stalin two sides of the same coin, so too did his close friend and ally, Christopher Dawson. In one of Dawson’s finest pieces, written in the immediate aftermath of the World War II, “The Left-Right Fallacy” (published in The Catholic Mind), Dawson rightly noted that there is no left and no right; there is only man and anti-man. That is, the divide is not horizontal but vertical. “The tactics of totalitarianism,” he wrote, “are to weld every difference of opinion and tradition and every conflict of economic interests into an absolute ideological opposition which disintegrates society into hostile factions bent on destroying one another.” The so-called and false divisions between a left and right, then, are “a perfect god-send to the forces of destruction.” Such a sophomoric notion of left and right becomes a blunt weapon, used to beat any and all opposition, while in actuality separating the human person from the human person, clothing each not in glory but in wretched rags of chaos and deceit. The results, Dawson realized, could only be confusion, disintegration, degradation, violence, inhumanity, hatred, and suspicion, disgracing even “a tribe of cannibals.”
This brings us back to Eliot in the 1930s. Not only did he see Stalin and Hitler as intellectual allies, not enemies, he recognized how reliant communism and fascism were on traditional religion—at least in their very heretical perversions.From T.S. Eliot’s “The Rock”:
But it seems that something has happened that has never happened before:
though we know not just when, or why, or how, or where.
Men have left GOD not for other gods, they say, but for no god; and this has never happened before
That men both deny gods and worship gods, professing first Reason,
And then Money, and Power, and what they call Life, or Race, or Dialectic.
The Church disowned, the tower overthrown, the bells upturned, what have we to do
But stand with empty hands and palms turned upwards
In an age which advances progressively backwards?
Sadly, the age that advances progressively backwards has not halted. Indeed, over the last several years, it has advanced backwards rather quickly, suddenly, and, fearfully, without end.
Tags
Who is online
86 visitors
....When the tragedies of socialist regimes -- such as those in Venezuela, the USSR, China, Cuba and many others -- are pointed out to America's leftists, they hold up Sweden as their socialist role model. But they are absolutely wrong about Sweden. Johan Norberg points this out in his documentary "Sweden: Lessons for America?" Americans might be surprised to learn that Sweden's experiment with socialism was a relatively brief flirtation, lasting about 20 years and ending in disillusionment and reform. Reason magazine reports: "Sweden began rolling back government in the early 1990s, recapturing the entrepreneurial spirit that made it a wealthy country to begin with. High taxation and a generous array of government benefits are still around. But now it's also a nation of school vouchers, free trade, open immigration, light business regulation, and no minimum wage laws." School vouchers, light business regulation and no minimum wage laws are practices deeply offensive to America's leftists.
Our young people are not the first Americans to admire tyrants and cutthroats. W.E.B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian in 1953, said, "Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature." Walter Duranty called Stalin "the greatest living statesman" and "a quiet, unobtrusive man." There was even leftist admiration for Hitler and fellow fascist Benito Mussolini. When Hitler came to power in January 1933, George Bernard Shaw described him as "a very remarkable man, a very able man." President Franklin Roosevelt called Mussolini "admirable," and he was "deeply impressed by what he (had) accomplished." In 1972, John Kenneth Galbraith visited Communist China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. His Harvard University colleague John K. Fairbank believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, "Americans may find in China's collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one's neighbor that has a lesson for us all.".......https://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2018/12/05/miseducated-or-stupid-n2536867
The fact is, the US government, our constitution, our political parties both left and right, are nothing like the governments of the past. We have evolved into a different creature altogether, and while you can claim we have the same scaly feet as socialism and the torso of capitalism with shoulders of democracy and a head of constitutional Republic, the fact is we have taken the best parts from some bad governments and left the rest behind. To claim that because we have integrated some of these things means we're going to turn into either a Stalin style socialist nation or a Hitler style fascist State is simply ridiculous.
We aren't like any other nation on the face of the earth. We have a lot of good things but still have the vestiges of our troubled adolescence. And we can continue to work towards making this a more perfect union. But the last thing we need are more ideologue platitudes about how giving people free pre-school will suddenly turn us into 1920's Russia and 20 million people are going to die. We should be able to have reasoned discussions without claiming every decision we make is going to push us off either the left or right cliff. We do not live on a knifes edge, though you might think so by listening to some. Both sides just want reliable work for reasonable pay, safe schools, safe neighborhoods, affordable housing and affordable health care. We can work together to make those things happen, and have in many places, but we have a long way to go if we expect to make sure the American dream is available to every American regardless of race, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith or lack thereof.
I am going to respectfully ask that you DO NOT spread misinformation about Nazis and WWII in your quest to smear liberals. You have been corrected before about why you are wrong about socialism and fascism when you try to attack liberals. Just stop. You just did this about a week ago.
The article was scholarly and well researched.
You have no idea how well researched it was. It was not peer-reviewed. That is how one finds out the quality of research.
But it was smear-reviewed and that's all HA was looking for...
It is the left who is in denial about the marxist roots and ideology of fascism. History proves this out
LFOD,
Marxist is economic, fascism is governance and ideology. They are different terms and have different goals.
Not at all. Both Marx and Fascists believed in reordering society itself
Here is an example from Marx in the Communist Manifesto
The bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capital....
But you Communists would introduce community of women, screams the bourgeoisie in chorus.
The bourgeois sees his wife a mere instrument of production. He hears that the instruments of production are to be exploited in common, and, naturally, can come to no other conclusion that the lot of being common to all will likewise fall to the women.
He has not even a suspicion that the real point aimed at is to do away with the status of women as mere instruments of production.
For the rest, nothing is more ridiculous than the virtuous indignation of our bourgeois at the community of women which, they pretend, is to be openly and officially established by the Communists. The Communists have no need to introduce free love; it has existed almost from time immemorial.
Our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives. (Ah, those were the days!)
Bourgeois marriage is, in reality, a system of wives in common and thus, at the most, what the Communists might possibly be reproached with is that they desire to introduce, in substitution for a hypocritically concealed, an openly legalized system of free love. For the rest, it is self-evident that the abolition of the present system of production must bring with it the abolition of free love springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private.
A prime example of spreading nonsense. Worse, you have been called on this several times by as many people yet persist.
The above was Marx talking about the excesses of aristocracy (bourgeois family) and the abysmal conditions of working class families where wives were working and their children (child labor) were working.
Another contribution to 'Get Dumber Here'.
You talk about reordering society itself. Anyone who takes issue with the way things currently are and who calls for change is talking about reordering society itself.
Considering it has reflected everything about Mussolini's participation with the Italian Socialists up until he was kicked out and then formed the National Fascist Party; I think the article is fairly reliable. Peer-review of History is really how well does the paper meet up with actual resources that are available at the time. There are tons of resources about Benito Mussolini and the National Fascists in just the Wikipedia articles about Mussolini and Italian Fascism.
Just look at all the citations. 231 citations are in the Mussolini article along with 205 citations in the article about Italian Fascism. Heck, there is over 30 extra books recommended about Mussolini before you even get to his own writings!
Indeed it does!
Different branches of the same tree.
Exactly right. Undeniably true.
Why on earth would anyone ever want to spread misinformation like this?
What specifically was wrong, and what is correct?
The better question is what is specifically right?
All of it.
Ummm.. no.
Indeed!
balderdash.
TS Elliot was probably the most conservative person in England. There wasn't a party conservative enough for him.
This opinion writer takes Elliot's words out of context and tries to identify him with Stalin & Hitler as a "leftist".
Good grief man...the writer conflates words and ideologies like a card shark shuffles the deck.
A really woeful article.
But on the 27th he ( Birzer) wrote a really very good ( if not totally unnecessary ) article about Batman, the history, the comics, TV series, films and actors.
a much better read...
Equally disturbing is that most younger defenders of communism buy into the oldest propaganda line of the Left—that real communism has never been tried and fascism is the polar opposite of communism. That the Nazis were actually “National Socialists,” these apologists argue, was merely a cynical ploy on the part of Hitler to gain the support of the working and middle classes of Germany. The term “socialism” meant nothing to Hitler. He was really a supporter of controlled corporate capitalism, not of the beautiful and compelling idea of socialism. Many of these young communism supporters go so far as to argue that those who label the Nazis “National Socialists” are either ignorant or willfully smearing a good word. While these new supporters have yet to proclaim those who call Nazis socialists as racists, they are coming close. A quick look at the social media response to a British conservative’s recent claim that National Socialism was—surprise!—socialist should be proof enough that communism is hardly dead and gone.
The young communists are more than convinced of their intellectual as well as their moral superiority. With dread certainty, they bully anyone who believes differently than they do. In other words, the Left is back and in full force, up to the same deceptions and tricks as it was in the 1920s and after.
That the National Socialists embraced socialism is factually accurate. Though they did not nationalize to the extent the Leninists wanted, they did nationalize very vital industry in Germany, even if by outright intimidation rather than through the law. In his personal diaries, Joseph Goebbels wrote in late 1925: “It would be better for us to end our existence under Bolshevism than to endure slavery under capitalism.” Only a few months later, he continued, “I think it is terrible that we and the Communists are bashing in each other’s heads.” Whatever the state of the rivalry between the two camps, Goebbels claimed, the two forces should ally and conquer. He even reached out to a communist in a personal letter: “We are not really enemies,” he offered.
Hitler admired Stalin, and the two willingly carved up Poland in 1939. One SS division named itself after Florian Geyer, a Marxist hero promoted by Frederick Engels in The Peasant War in Germany. Hitler actively recruited communists into the National Socialist movement, believing they were far more malleable than Christians. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/birzer/socialists-and-fascists-have-always-been-kissing-cousins/?utm_source=Intercollegiate+Studies+Institute+Subscribers&utm_campaign=a07f76a9e5-Intercollegiate+Review+November+15+2018&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3ab42370fb-a07f76a9e5-93105237&goal=0_3ab42370fb-a07f76a9e5-93105237&mc_cid=a07f76a9e5&mc_eid=a5b9912f9f
Goebbels was not Hitler and in 1925, the Nazi movement hardly existed. Your idea that the Nazis wanted any affiliation with the communist is totally wrong.
As for Hitler, here is one of his kinder comments about Stalin:
So no. Hitler didn't admire Stalin in the way you suggest.
“Bradley J. Birzer is The American Conservative’s scholar-at-large. He also holds the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in History at Hillsdale College and is the author, most recently, of Russell Kirk: American Conservative.
Hillsdale College is a private college in Hillsdale, Michigan . Founded in 1844, the college claims that its liberal arts curriculum is based on the Western heritage as a product of both the Greco-Roman culture and the Judeo-Christian tradition. [4] Hillsdale requires every student, regardless of major , to complete a core curriculum that includes courses on the Great Books , U.S. Constitution , biology, chemistry, and physics. [5]
Since the late 20th century, the college became one of several in the U.S. that decline to accept federal financial support, instead depending entirely on private donations. [6] [7] The college has worked to establish ties to the conservative political establishment, including the Donald Trump administration. [8]
In Hillsdale College, a ‘Shining City on a Hill’ for Conservatives
Hardly unbiased.
An excellent and glorious institution of higher education. I’ve been a subscriber of their IMPRIMIS publication monthly since 1989. Their core curriculum is awesome.
These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Notes: The American Conservative (TAC) is a bi-monthly journal of opinion published by the American Ideas Institute. It has argued against American interventionism, against a debt-based fiscal policy, and against the intrusions on Americans’ private lives by the institutions and mores that exist and the wisdom that underlies them. The American Conservative is a very well written source with a libertarian perspective. All information is sourced to credible media outlets, therefore we rate them High for factual reporting and Right-Center biased. (7/19/2016) (Updated 7/4/2017)
Source:
UC Berkley is an amazing school, but one can hardly call it not biased in its education. It's left biased as Hilldale is right biased.
Really? Roman Catholic influences in The Hobbit and subsequent Tolkien books.
That's just amazing........... /S
He seems to be hung up on Catholic Dogma...
Wait... So you flag anyone that ever dares use MBFC to prove your articles as biased, but when you use it yourself to support your article....it's ok? Besides, I thought MBFC is all, "hate and bigotry"?
Next time you post an article and someone uses MBFC to show it's bias? I wouldn't flag it if I were you.
I did in fact venture into the sewer to get that. Since that hate filled scum bucket of a site is reality here for now, I will now use it as a weapon against its proponents when the opportunity presents itself. Personally more often than not the worse he rates a site into the right bias category the more likely I am to seed from it. With some of the stuff I found, you will wish I was still using The Stream and Breitbart.
OK here is the problem with this article. It uses terms fast and furiously as if they are interchangeable, but they are not. Socialism, communism, national socialism, fascism, Leninist and Marxist all have specific meanings. This article blurs them and thus takes away the very important differences. Some of these terms have economic meanings, while others have social structure and governance meanings. Playing fast with these terms is just as dangerous as what the article is concerned about, which is that our youth doesn't understand the past. Apparently, neither do the adults in the room.
as each word is designed to have. Unfortunately we as a culture don't seem to put too much importance in that these days.
Words have power, when not used correctly they can have dire consequences. Unfortunately we now have a leader who doesn't seem to understand nor care about the fact that words and facts do really matter it's not just what you do but what you say and how you do it as well.
Professional writers should certainly know this, again these days some don't care so much, making a point to advance agendas some times takes precedence.
Someone once told me, Don't believe everything you hear or read. Man is that good advice !!
That is very true. Goebbels said repeat a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. That is why I am taking umbrage with these terms. It is to push an agenda.
Damn good advice!
Yeah mistake happen, But when people use improper wording to misrepresent a point, Its actually a form of dishonesty.
IMO: If a person needs to be dishonest their position is probably flawed.
Opinions may be formed about but we should only discuss the actual comments and point out their flaws.
I'm talking about life in its whole not just on here.
When I hear someone using words outside of their normal meaning I investigate whats behind it. Sometimes its a simple mistake some times it's done on purpose to mislead. Sometimes just because they really dont know WTF the word really means. lol
Mistakes I forgive, Misleading statements piss me off...lol and Ignorance can be corrected. (If willing)
But, I dont like being lied to. Reality I can deal with, non reality I can't. Well I can but not by choice.
..................................
I went thru a really weird period in my life, about age 18 I discovered words have power. I had read a book that really pointed it out to me , I almost stopped talking for days till I had time to process it, Then I was So careful of every word I said I finally realized to live normal I had to just believe that "If I had good intentions in life I could talk more normal" and not worry about every damn word. Weird I know, but true.
Missed the edit time, But I wanted to add this, To this day I still carefully select my words.
(Most of the time)...LOL
Is this the sort of content that you want this site to be known for?
This is just misinformation. We must wonder what motivates this.
Hi jbb,
Yes, I agree that this is misinformation. I can never guess at people's motivations are. That was why I made my post. AndI can only read the words and make my own judgments, but....
It's is not an accident that the tagline to this site is "Speak your mind", and while I disagree with the content in this article, I don't believe in hiding from content that I don't agree with. The site should be known for debates and discussions. If you feel that an article misrepresents itself, bring your "A" game and disprove it.
If there is any take away from this last election that I think that liberals should acknowledge, is that hiding from what is going on out there doesn't help. Dealing head-on, does.
So my question to you, is are you going to bring your A game?
You did a good job of debunking this op/ed piece.
Why do you think the far right is constantly trying to falsely redefine or rather misdefine Fascism as a liberal political philosophy? I think it is some real life modern day Orwellian bullshit that would make Nazi Propaganda ChiefJoseph Goebbels blush. It is a dumb counterintuitive argument that flies in the face of history, word meanings and reality...
Imagine an assemblage of The Proud Boys, The Aryan Nation and The Ku Klux Klan chanting, "WE ARE NOT FASCISTS. LIBERALS ARE FASCISTS!" It is an example of what Goebbels called THE BIG LIE...
Call it "Axis Annie Approve". Did they hang her? Tokyo Rose? Bagdad Bob?
My question to you is, why are you and I who agree arguing about it?
This so called article is not an example of an honest opinion piece. This is straight up misinformation. Pardon me for feeling the way I do but, am I wrong for not wanting to be associated with sites that propagate misinformation and propaganda crafted to obscure important truths?
It is your front page. You have editorial control over our content Yes, you have acquitted yourself well here. You stood up to THE BIG LIE. "BRAVA"! How many times must we waste our time disputing the continual bombardment of the same damnable lies? Why is the propagation of willful misinformation allowed on a "News Site"?
So that it can be publicly challenged by comments ... discussion and debate.
I think it is important for people to not only see that something is wrong but to understand why it is wrong. The ensuing discussion and debate provides this.
We could all just ignore and then it would slither down to the nether regions and nobody would see it
Why are people so angry and feelings so inflamed? Because this is here...
I pass on plenty of bullshit with no comment but this is Pure-D Propaganda.
What concerns me is the normalization of fake news and misinformation...
And it should be a concern, the real problem, is the propaganda is spread from both sides....
Propaganda, take a small truth and expand it by assumption and outright lies into something you are trying to convince someone of....
Both sides practice it right here on this site.... (neither side is particularly good at it)
In fact the denials and exclamations of "The other sides propaganda" is a denial of ones own propaganda.....
So the claim is propagandist in itself.....
Hate begets hate, propaganda is the tool used to spread hate.....
And in that truth both sides are more than guilty....
What you are calling misinformation is everywhere. It is pervasive. Either we show we can use our critical thinking skills and discuss it, or people will just buy it when they come across it. That is the purpose of this discussion.
It is the progressive left that bald face lies about fascism having anything at all in anyway whatsoever with American conservative ideas and ideals. Those lies will no longer be tolerated on the right. We are on the other hand aware of the love affair between early 20th century American and U.K. secular progressives and Adolf Hitler.
The bottom line is that none of them have any thing at all in any way whatsoever with free markets, constitutional republics, capitalism, or conservatives. I found the author and his research to be factually correct in my opinion.
Again a list of words that may or may not have meaning with the above. For instance, Europe has constitutional governments that have socialism in them and free markets. And as recent as the 80's Margrette Thatcher lead a government that was conservative, had socialism and free markets. Even Teresa May is a Tory, which means she is a conservative.
You know Jeff,the real issue here is an inability to separate ones opinions from another's. You would get a lot farther if you were able to comment on any specific subject from a personal perspective and formulate ideals that have real meanings rather then finding an ideal from somewhere else and claiming that is what you believe.
In my day it is called having knowledge without understanding, now that isn't meant as an insult so don't take it as one.....
What it is meant as posting links and then pointing a finger at it and exclaiming "This is what I believe" adds nothing to the dichotomy. (it also tends to frustrate people)
There are a lot of us out here that agree with a lot of your perspectives, but we are hamstrung in defending those precepts by the unique way of scattershooting them that you use. It's virtually impossible to defend anything....
WORDS MEAN THINGS!
WORDS STRUNG TOGETHER ARE MEANT TO COMMUNICATE THINGS!
Boards such as this are meant to communicate understanding from one to another....
Understanding is not gained by mere repetition of others statements.... ie you cannot usurp others beliefs and make them your own, especially if you do not understand them. By doing such, you draw the criticizisms of the original author and add more such to yourself. I'm sure you have a long list of principles you believe in and philosophies you adhere to, but please express them as yourself, do not use what someone else represents themselves as for your representation of yourself.
You come across as phony that way and your persistence belies phony.... most of us would just like to know what YOU believe, not what someone else says as a representation of what YOU believe...
This is not an insult my friend, just an attempt to explain the contempt to almost everything you post, and show the way out of it....
In England yes. not so much anywhere else....
An English Tory and an American Tory are two completely different animals....
I realize that NWM. Our Tories are long gone, and both Thatcher and May are Tories in England and that is their conservative movement. Their liberal party makes our look conservative, so apples to apples.
Well my personal opinion is that American Tories are very much alive and well, they just go by a different name today but their principles live on and always will.
And yeah those complaining about rampant liberalism here need to take a good long look at the english version, no doubt about that.....
TS Elliot was too conservative to be a Tory.
True enough!
Amen to that!
This is where you went wrong.
The UKIP is the current best party in the U.K. Long live Brexit!
I'm not afraid of people with different ideas and beliefs even if I disagree with them, but I am afraid of people who support the use of violence and intimidation to silence those they disagree with. I would rather be offended by someone else's Free Speech everyday of my life than to have my own speech censored even once in my lifetime.
Well, I can't disagree with that.
You have it exactly right. And I got the article from one of the most moderate sites I will ever seed here from.
Well, maybe what you would seed, but the American Conservative, by its very name, is NOT a moderate site. It is a conservative site.
See post 3.3.3 which quotes the holy grail here.
Where these 2 polar extremes are similar are in their methods.
Neither will hesitate to slander and demonize groups they consider enemies of the state, for whatever reason under the sun.
Nor just walk right into their demonized enemies of the states homes and kill them, just to make a statement or just for the hell of it.
Where these 2 polar extremes are similar are in their methods.
Which would those be? The reason I am asking is that my whole gripe about this article is the misuse of terms, and I am not sure which terms you are addressing here (other than guessing).
I'm looking at the examples of Stalin and Hitler representing their opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Hitler representing his form of fascism.
The image of Stalin representing his form of socialism, which, really had similar blood thirsty methods as Lenin and also, regardless of any textbook, and significantly after WWII continued with the push for worldwide revolution. This characteristic sounds like communism to me.
Often the same word or term can mean different things or similar things but not exactly the same. Like Fascist/fascism, in 1940's historical terms it means the Nazi's and the right wing European Axis powers but from the 60's up till fairly recently it had a more general meaning - extreme authoritarian, oppressive, or forcefully intolerant of different views or practices but not necessarily right or left wing. Recently as the Extreme Left has become more forcefully intolerant they have tried to change the meaning of Fascist again making a right wing ideology a central principal of Fascism so they can use it as a slur and weapon without it being applied to them. In my opinion the general meaning of Fascism isn't right wing or left wing and it's central principal isn't even hate or intolerant views, it's the willingness to use Force against those you disagree with to silence, punish, oppress, or eliminate them. I don't care if someone hates a group of people, they have a right to their personal feelings and the right to speak openly about them. I don't like it but I accept the fact that some people hate Christians, Jews, Atheists, Blacks, Whites, Gays, Men, Women, Liberals, or Conservatives in my opinion that doesn't make them Fascist's, feelings are just feelings and talk is just talk. But if someone uses or advocates the use or threat of force against others because of who they are and/or what they believe or say then they are Fascist's whether it be the use or threat of physical force, the use or threat of the force of Law, or Disfranchisement or the threat thereof. This is why any type of Government or Group can become Fascist because it's less about what they believe ideologically and more about how they treat their opposition.
Okay, that description helps with some of my questions regarding how some terms are used by some.
I tend to go back to more classic definitions.
Sometimes I don't think we have correct gauge, measurement, metric, whatever you want to call it, describing forms of government.
For example, up above I spoke Hitler and Stalin as political polar opposites.
In reality, they were very close in many ways.
The twin axis political compass kind of shows us that. On the Y axis, they are not very far apart at all. On the X axis, there is more distance there and on opposite sides of the Y axis, but that gap gives no indication of a WWII type of opposite polarities.
I almost think, at times, at the bare minimum we need a Z axis, which, I think could possibly be difficult to label. But let's take a simple scenario.
I can see how some may consider this an interpretation of the Y axis, but in my opinion if something needs an interpretation of what it initially is meant to be, Then it is,in fact something different.
So what do I think this Z axis could be (realizing further delineation on each axis may be needed)?
Really, I think ruthlessness on one end and the opposite of ruthlessness on the other.
Just thinking about it, why does being a communist, socialist or fascist mean you have to ostracize, demonize and kill the "enemies of the state" and necessarily force war on nations all around you?
Why?
Well, you are either ruthless and determined it's "my way or the highway" or or you are not...or some gradient in between.
All I know is, I have family where these types of extremists forced life and death situations. I am not a fan of those mentalities, whichever side of the Y axis they stand. A lot of folks mistakenly label that "appeasing". They couldn't be further from the truth.
Likewise, all of the examples you listed could be considered enemies of the state and face the wrath of the state given whatever circumstances.
P.S. i think this phrase applies to both Stalin and Hitler, and of course any would be attempt at political intimidation:
Dave, think of the "Z" axis as left to right;
On the absolute left end is Fascism, on the absolute right end is Libertarianism.
And again for the "Y" axis;
At the top end is absolute anarchy, no government or societal rules at all, at the bottom is absolute monarchy, one all powerful supreme leader who's single word is the absolute law of the land. At the top of the scale anyone can do anything they want without repercussions and the bottom represents no one can do anything without royal permission.
The up and down scale is what you want your society to be, the left to right is the method used to attain such.....
Nazism, Stalinism and Maoism and all such associated isms live in the lower left quadrant of the spectrum created by the lines.
Democracy lives in the upper half somewhere along the middle, Kings and queens reside in the lower half along the middle somewhere.
True constitutional republics reside on the right side of the scale as do most constitutional monarchies.
This type of chart doesn't answer anything, but it is an illustrative way to get (and keep) your bearings when all the ism's get to flying around....
It's not that communists or socialists have to become fascists or any of the rest it's just any time you give all that power to a few or one person you get extreme corruption. I think Hitler and Stalin were very much the same type of people (and both more than a little crazy) and that's why the way they ruled is very similar. Lots of Kings in Europe were just as brutal to their subjects but for the most part only the church and the ruling class were literate so that's the viewpoint that written history comes from. I also don't think that communists or socialists start more wars than any other type government and the ones they did seem to start in the 50's 60's and 70's usually were indigenous peoples backed by communists who were fighting to free themselves from colonial rule so I wouldn't say the communists started the war it's more the fault of the colonial governments who had no right to rule those countries in the first place.
that's very similar to the position that Ho Chi Min took for Vietnam after WWII. history teaches us that it would have been best to leave them alone. Allow them to self determine their own future. but no, we had to support the French and their ideals of ownership and dominion over the land and of course their demands for reparations of rights from the people.....
Sometimes not getting involved is the best course.....
Lessons learned and having to repetitively be re-learned....
There were many countries we didn't get involved in and the ones we did we seemed to pick the wrong side. The Communists were always willing to help and we lost a lot of the developing world to communists because we refused to help. Many of these countries looked to the USA for help first in their fight for freedom but we wouldn't go against our allies in Europe so they turned to the Communists. The Cuban Revolutionaries didn't want Communism but with the US backing Batista they took the only backing they could get. The real sad thing is our government hasn't learned a thing.
Finally back. One phone call after another...and I am not a phone person.
To help establish common ground, my perspective more closely aligns with Political Compass, except they are missing the Z axis.
This is direct from the Political Compass web page:
If I understood you correctly the Y axis is flipped compared to my view. This puts the socialist governments as we see them manifested in the world and the communistic governments in the upper left.
Hitlers fascist government in the upper right.
In my mind a hypothetical Z axis could come in to play with regard to how ruthless, or....compassionate(?) someone about maintaining their particular point on the graph, wherever it may be. So now we have a 3 dimensional grid of infinite possible shapes when representing societies in whole, with both positive and negative values.
With further thought I am sure we could come up with finer angularities along X1, Y1, Z1, etc, etc, etc. Let;s just leave it at X, Y and Z for now.
So back to Stalin and Hitler. The Political Compass gives us something not terribly different from what Zuksam described. The far end of the authoritarian end of the Y axis moving towards Fascism and the opposite Libertarian end as Anarchism.
We see how close Stalin and Hitler are on Y axis. If there was a Z axis I would guess they would be close there too. They both were bloodthirsty, ruthless, murderers. So in my thoughts, close doesn't always mean good things will happen.
Two other folks with similar X and Y ratings but with Z rating at much lower levels, may have been best buds.
This graph also gives some interesting points for discussion about fascism. I think I have been careful to refer to "Hitlers fascism" and "Stalins Socialism" (which in my mind looks a lot like communism) in this discussion.
I hope this clarifies my current perspective.
Yes, we often made a mess of things during the cold war. That didn't help much.
Much of what I recall relates to prior to WWII, starting with the various Russian revolutions in 1917 and then nazi recruiting efforts going on here in America prior to America's involvement in WWII.
Vicious times, and the voice of the charismatic revolutionaries leading the downtrodden like the pied piper as they were worked up into frenzies which made murder on innocent people seem acceptable and good.
I can't think strictly about the cold war period without thinking about the path followed to get there.
I like the way that they illustrate it at The Political Compass.
The label socialism (even more so than fascism) always gets in the way of intellectual discussion because the term is overloaded with so many varied and conflicting meanings - in colloquial usage it is meaningless.
Stalin was a brutal dictator - arguably the most murderous of all time. Hitler was a brutal dictator arguably the most evil of all time. The two men were not buddies but they did have similar bloody methods and ethics. Both exploited people under their control in pursuit of their ambitions of power. Both used inhumane tactics. And, quite importantly, both used the oppressive, military power of their respective totalitarian States to effect their plans.
Sprinkling in the -isms (while totally ignoring the well planned propaganda at play during this time) with superficial meaning (no attempt to actually discuss these concepts) produces a confused mess. Both Hitler and Stalin hid behind the label 'socialism' and both did the polar opposite of socialism in actual practice. That is, in both cases the people did not have anything remotely close to democratic control over their economy. In both cases the economies were controlled by the State. Yet people naively claim that these brutal dictators produced 'socialism' simply because these dictators said what they were doing was 'socialism'.
Hitler and Stalin did nothing to achieve the objectives of socialism (economic control by the people). It is 2018 and information (real information) is at our fingertips. Time to stop parroting labels and engage in critical thinking.
Thinking back to your other discussion on this topic, unfortunately, given the human condition, I seriously doubt true socialism will ever exist outside of theoretical discussions.
Our socio-economic/political system will continue to evolve. Hopefully, it will evolve in a manner that is best for all. But what evolves is largely out of our hands as we will likely not see much material change in our lifetimes.
That established, my interest in these topics is truth. This seed is an affront on truth. It actually sickens me to observe those like the author purposely push absolute nonsense. Thus I would encourage everyone to challenge crap like this in favor of what actually happened historically and to challenge those who continue to redefine operative labels in our language in support of an agenda.
This seed should have the byline: 'Get dumber here'
I understand your frustration.
Give it a chance.
What is the 'it' in your sentence?
The discussion. Not that I think anyone will sway and change opinions of anyone else with firm, fixed positions on any of the topics. Yet, others reading along might either be swayed or realize other thoughts on the matter.
I agree ... see @4.2.5
I dunno. I learned a lot from TiG on the last discussion we had on socialism.
I didn't mean to imply it wasn't educational.
Rather the human condition, as it now exists, is an impenetrable barrier for the achievement of true socialism.
I know you didn't. I was trying to say in my own clumsy way that I think some can have their opinions changed.
I am confident that people can change their opinions. Those with whom you are debating will almost certainly NOT change their opinion during the debate, but readers might. That, to me, is the value of dialectic.
Such is the nature of politics my friend. The technique is designed to create and foster animus and play to the baser emotions of humans while seeking conflict to enjoin the masses....
Creating myriad labels and pigeon-holing people into absolute divisions allows the evil to perpetuate itself. the resolution is in accepting everyone's right to be and finding the common ground.
Sadly the evil drives to eliminate common ground.....
The nation was founded on the principle of E pluribus unum, out of many one. Yet we hear of the ideals of "They are not like us", "they are deplorable", "when they go low we go lower"
All designed to make enemies of our brethren.
Socialism in it's base form requires everyone to be brothers, one is not more special than any other, all are important and valuable.
A very laudable precept, but as you have stated many times, Man is not ready to put away his emotions long enough to gain the needed trust of his fellow man.
And probably will not be in our lifetimes, if ever....
But that does not prevent the bearers and purveyors of evil from glomming onto people and inciting them to evil in the name of brotherhood......
Identifying the evil is easy, just look at those that incite one over another, it is readily discernible in today's society...
Agreed.
That is my position too, but I am more hopeful our system will eventually evolve for the better. Regardless, my response to this seed is not really about the net confusion regarding the label 'socialism' (and 'fascism') but rather the intentional dumbing down of the readers in support of an agenda. That is, I view this seed the same way I view the Young Earth Creationist nonsense spewed by Ken Ham and AiG in general. Their nonsense is an affront on science while this is an affront on socio-economic/political systems (political science).
The only dumbing down and denial of fact is coming from our leftist friends who believe the revisionist history perpetuated following WWII
Fascism has always been a leftist ideology. Fascists separated themselves from the Communists over Statism.
Marx wrote that socialism should be the transition from capitalism to communism. Communism is ultimately according to marx a form of anarchy (absence of government) where the workers are an entity unto themselves and no government is needed.
The Fascists agreed with much of Marx's views on socialism but being Statists, believed that they could instead control capitalism to support a dominant central government that redistributed the wealth which in turn would continue to give them the populist support to rule.
THE AMERICAN ROOTS OF FASCISM
The American "Progressives" were the first Fascists of the 20th century
By John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.)
On May 7, 1933, just two months after the inauguration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the New York Times reporter Anne O’Hare McCormick wrote that the atmosphere in Washington was “strangely reminiscent of Rome in the first weeks after the march of the Blackshirts, of Moscow at the beginning of the Five-Year Plan.… America today literally asks for orders.” The Roosevelt administration, she added, “envisages a federation of industry, labor and government after the fashion of the corporative State as it exists in Italy.”
As early as 1912, FDR himself praised the Prussian-German model: “They passed beyond the liberty of the individual to do as he pleased with his own property and found it necessary to check this liberty for the benefit of the freedom of the whole people,” he said in an address to the People’s Forum of Troy, New York.
Roosevelt himself called Mussolini “admirable” and professed that he was “deeply impressed by what he has accomplished.” The admiration was mutual. In a laudatory review of Roosevelt’s 1933 book Looking Forward, Mussolini wrote, “Reminiscent of Fascism is the principle that the state no longer leaves the economy to its own devices.… Without question, the mood accompanying this sea change resembles that of Fascism.” The chief Nazi newspaper, Volkischer Beobachter , repeatedly praised “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies” and “the development toward an authoritarian state” based on the “demand that collective good be put before individual self-interest.”
FDR adviser Rexford Guy Tugwell said of Italian fascism: “It’s the cleanest, neatest, most efficiently operating piece of social machinery I’ve ever seen. It makes me envious,” adding that, “I find Italy doing many of the things which seem to me necessary … Mussolini certainly has the same people opposed to him as FDR has.”
NAACP co-founder W. E. B. DuBois viewed the Nazi rise positively, saying that Hitler’s dictatorship had been “absolutely necessary to get the state in order.” In 1937, DuBois stated: “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.”
New Republic editor George Soule, who avidly supported FDR, noted approvingly that the Roosevelt administration was “trying out the economics of fascism.” Now, New Republic pages are full of outright defamation accusing Trump of being a fascist.
Irony at its best.
Thank you for putting that here. It is greatly appreciated and a very valuable contribution to the discussion.
Stalinism was not communism- It was socialist fascism which is why Hitler admired Stalin
Fascism is the ideology of the left and always has been
What socialism, fascism and other ideologies of the left have in common is an assumption that some very wise people -- like themselves -- need to take decisions out of the hands of lesser people, like the rest of us, and impose those decisions by government fiat.
The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."
That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.
The self-flattery of the vision of the left also gives its true believers a huge ego stake in that vision, which means that mere facts are unlikely to make them reconsider, regardless of what evidence piles up against the vision of the left, and regardless of its disastrous consequences.
Only our own awareness of the huge stakes involved can save us from the rampaging presumptions of our betters, whether they are called socialists or fascists. So long as we buy their heady rhetoric, we are selling our birthright of freedom.
And let us look to Hitler himself on the matter:
Fascism and the American Left
In 1919, Alceste De Ambris and Futurist movement leader Filippo Tommaso Marinetti created The Manifesto of the Italian Fasci of Combat (a.k.a. the Fascist Manifesto ). [68] The Manifesto was presented on June 6, 1919 in the Fascist newspaper Il Popolo d'Italia . The Manifesto supported the creation of universal suffrage for both men and women (the latter being realized only partly in late 1925, with all opposition parties banned or disbanded [69] ); proportional representation on a regional basis; government representation through a corporatist system of "National Councils" of experts, selected from professionals and tradespeople, elected to represent and hold legislative power over their respective areas, including labour, industry, transportation, public health, communications, etc.; and the abolition of the Italian Senate . [70] The Manifesto supported the creation of an eight-hour work day for all workers, a minimum wage , worker representation in industrial management, equal confidence in labour unions as in industrial executives and public servants, reorganization of the transportation sector, revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance, reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55, a strong progressive tax on capital, confiscation of the property of religious institutions and abolishment of bishoprics, and revision of military contracts to allow the government to seize 85% of their[ who? ] profits. [71] It also called for the creation of a short-service national militia to serve defensive duties, nationalization of the armaments industry, and a foreign policy designed to be peaceful but also competitive. [72]
In 1933 Hitler decreed the banning of all private charity organizations in Germany, ordering NSV chairman Erich Hilgenfeldt to “see to the disbanding of all private welfare institutions,” which provided the National Socialists the means to engage in the social engineering of society through the selection of who could receive government benefits. [2] Hitler had essentially nationalized local municipalities, German federal states and private delivery structures that had provided welfare services to the public. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front . [3]
With 17 million Germans receiving assistance under the auspices of National Socialist People’s Welfare (NSV) by 1939, the agency “projected a powerful image of caring and support.” [4] The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.” [5]
The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance, which was not decreed mandatory until 1941. [6] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.” [7] The Office of Youth Relief, which had 30,000 branch offices by 1941, took the job of supervising “social workers, corrective training, mediation assistance,” and dealing with judicial authorities to prevent juvenile delinquency. [8]
One of the NSV's premier activities was Winter Relief of the German People , which coordinated an annual drive to collect charity for the poor under the slogan: “None shall starve or freeze.” These social welfare programs represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens.
Socialism and Fascism: A Political-Economic Spectrum Analysis | Walter Block
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism is Totalitarian | George Reisman
Stalinism was Fascism, not Communism
LFOD,
Your information is wrong.
Hitler only admired the brutalism he used to rule. Nothing else, or did you forget how many Nazis died on the eastern front? Or that he killed thousands of Germans who he claimed were communist? Or the burning of the Reichstag?
As for Stalinism not being communism, again wrong. It had all the aspects of communism plus the added totalitarianism. One is economic ( communism) and the other is governance (totalitarianism). Stop mixing up the meaning of these words. It is a purposeful misrepresentation of what they mean.
Wrong again. Fascism:
Fascism ( / ˈ f æ ʃ ɪ z əm / ) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism , [1] [2] [3] [4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, [5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. [6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries . [6] Opposed to liberalism , Marxism and anarchism , fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum . [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
And now you are off to the races with the Constitutional argument that somehow it is just a left belief that the Constitution is a living document. Well, you would have to take that up with our founding fathers who must have been all leftist since they left a way of amending the Constitution.
One last point about the people you are citing:
Walter Block is an anarcho-capitalist theorist who actually believes that people should have the legal right to sell themselves into slavery, or to buy and keep slaves, in a libertarian legal order. He also asserted that blacks and women were paid less than whites because they are "less productive". So I am not impressed.
George Reisman is an objectionsit, which means he is from the Ayn Rand school of thought. He would have his own anti communist beliefs, which is fine, but not nearly as offensive as Block.
The rest of the post is opinion and propaganda. I don't reply to that.
Yep. Not to mention he promoted class conflict, using the state to forcibly remove/destroy all "bourgeoise" from the USSR that Stalin viewed as threats to the communist revolution.
Yep, he was commie pinko red through and through ...
Swing and a miss...
Fascism ( / ˈ f æ ʃ ɪ z əm / ) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism , [1] [2] [3] [4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy, [5] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. [6] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries . [6] Opposed to liberalism , Marxism and anarchism , fascism is placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum . [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]
Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war. [12] [13] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens. [12] [13]
Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties. [14] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society. [14] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation. [15] [16] [17] [18] Fascists advocate a mixed economy , with the principal goal of achieving autarky (national economic self-sufficiency) through protectionist and interventionist economic policies. [19]
Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th-century fascist movements. [6] [20
Fascism was supported by the left in this country up until the invasion of Poland.
Liberal support for Hitler and Fascism
Heidegger supported the Nazis.
Ezra Pound not only supported but actually worked for the fascists in WW2.
P.G.Wodehouse supported the Nazis and worked for them.
The deconstructionist Paul de Man supported the Nazis in WW2, and called for the killing of the Jews.
Nobel Prize winning author Knut Hamsun supported the Nazis, and wrote a eulogy for Hitler in 1945.
G. K. Chesterton praised Mussolini .
Salvador Dali supported Hitler and Franco.
The New Statesman supported appeasment of Nazism. It supported Stalin. It now calls for appeasment of Islamic fascism.
Leni Riefenstahl made propaganda films for the Nazis, which encouraged many young Germans to enthusiastically join the growing Nazi genocide.
Sinn Fein / IRA supported the Nazis and worked for them .
The co-founder of Amnesty International Sean MacBride supported the Nazis and worked for them.
The writer Francis Stuart supported the Nazis and worked for them.
The poet Liam S. Gogan supported the Nazis and worked for them.
Dan Breen supported the Nazis and worked for them.
Sadly, it's not just writers, philosophers and nationalists. Some scientists too have supported fascism and communism:
Heisenberg tried hard to build atomic weapons for Hitler.
Alexis Carrel supported the Nazis and worked for the Vichy regime.
Wernher von Braun developed ballistic missiles for the Nazis.
Andrei Sakharov developed nuclear weapons for the Soviet Union.
John Desmond Bernal supported Stalin and the Soviet Union.
George Bernard Shaw despised democracy, supported Lenin, Stalin and the Soviet purges, and denied the Ukrainian Famine happened. He also supported Hitler, and denied the Holocaust happened.
See Shaw - and a lesson in evil (also here ) by Benedict Nightingale, The Times , August 29, 2000.
More on Shaw and the Webbs' praise for Stalin here .
When asked what Britons should do if the Nazis crossed the channel into Britain, Shaw replied, "Welcome them as tourists."
H.G. Wells did not exactly support Stalin, but, like many intellectuals, he had no understanding of what Stalin was. Wells on Stalin in 1934: "I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest, and it is to these qualities and to nothing occult and sinister, that he owes his tremendous undisputed ascendancy in Russia. ... I had thought before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraid of him, but I realize he owes his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everyone trusts him."
Journalist couple Lincoln Steffens and Ella Winter supported the Soviet Union.
The playwright Lillian Hellman was a Stalinist, and supported the Stalin terror.
Harold Laski supported the Stalin terror.
Britain's Labour leader Clement Attlee praised Stalin's Soviet Union in the 1930s.
In Ireland, Hanna Sheehy Skeffington supported the Soviet Union.
Novelist Eric Ambler supported the Soviet Union in the 1930s (but saw sense later).
Young Communist folk singer Pete Seeger sang protest songs against the US fighting the Nazis in WW2.
W.E.B. Du Bois supported Mao and Stalin .
Paul Robeson supported Stalin and the Soviet Union.
Graham Greene supported the Soviet Union.
First of all your citation material comes from a blogger. It is just one man's opinion and nothing more.
Second, I grew up in a town on Long Island that was the headquarters for The Bund. I know a thing or two about their beliefs since my classmates were raised by Nazi scum.
For those of you who want to see what that looked like in the USA check out this link:
As for membership, I would hardly call Charles Lindbergh a liberal and he was one of the main spokesmen for the Nazis here in America.
Here is a list of American Nazis. None of them were liberals. They believed in antisemitism , eugenics , racial hygiene , the concept of the master race , and Lebensraum
These concepts have nothing to do with liberalism.
One last thing, stop interchanging leftism and liberalism. They are not the same and are not interchangeable.
I agree that leftism and liberalism are not the same. The Democrats and those who support them are not liberals, they are leftists
Today’s conservatives are the modern link to classical liberals of the 18th century onward.
My dad is a Democrat. He gave almost his entire life in service to this country either in the service or with Grumman and national security. He fought in Korea and Vietnam because he believed in the "domino theory". That is not the actions of a leftist.
I know a lot of Dems like that.
How many wars have you given your life for, in the protection of this country?
If you want the ultimate definition of socialism, go to the controlling world organization
Socialist International
DECLARATION of PRINCIPLES
Adopted by the XVIII Congress, Stockholm, June 1989
The Nature of Socialism
23. Democratic socialists have arrived at the definition of these values in many different ways. They originate in the labour movement, popular liberation movements, cultural traditions of mutual assistance, and communal solidarity in many parts of the world. They have also gained from the various humanist traditions of the world.
But although there are differences in their cultures and ideologies, all socialists are united in their vision of a peaceful and democratic world society combining freedom, justice and solidarity.
24. The national struggles for democratic socialism in the years to come will show differences in policy and divergences on legislative provisions. These will reflect different histories and the pluralism of varied societies. Socialists do not claim to possess the blueprint for some final and fixed society which cannot be changed, reformed or further developed. In a movement committed to democratic self-determination there will always be room for creativity since each people and every generation must set its own goals.
25. In addition to the principles which guide all democratic socialists, there is a clear consensus among socialists on fundamental values. Despite all diversity, it is common ground that democracy and human rights are not simply political means to socialist ends but the very substance of those ends - a democratic economy and society.
26. Individual freedom and basic rights in society are the preconditions of human dignity for all. These rights cannot replace one another, nor can they be played off against each other. Socialists protect the inalienable right to life and to physical safety, to freedom of belief and free expression of opinion, to freedom of association and to protection from torture and degradation. Socialists are committed to achieve freedom from hunger and want, genuine social security, and the right to work.
Democratic socialism also means cultural democracy. There must be equal rights and opportunities for the different cultures within each society as well as equal access for everyone to the national and global cultural heritage.
59. Democratic socialism today is based on the same values on which it was founded. But they must be formulated critically, both assimilating past experience and looking ahead to the future. For instance, experience has shown that while nationalisation in some circumstances may be necessary, it is not by itself a sovereign remedy for social ills. Likewise, economic growth can often be destructive and divisive, especially where private interests evade their social and ecological responsibility. Neither private nor State ownership by themselves guarantee either economic efficiency or social justice.
60. The democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy. It is clear that the internationalisation of the economy and the global technological revolution make democratic control more important than ever. But social control of the economy is a goal that can be achieved through a wide range of economic means according to time and place, including:
- democratic, participative and decentralised production policies; public supervision of investment; protection of the public and social interest; and socialisation of the costs and benefits of economic change;
- worker participation and joint decision-making at company and workplace level as well as union involvement in the determination of national economic policy;
- self-managed cooperatives of workers and farmers;
- public enterprises, with democratic forms of control and decision-making where this is necessary to enable governments to realise social and economic priorities;
- democratisation of the institutions of the world financial and economic system to allow full participation by all countries;
- international control and monitoring of the activities of transnational corporations, including cross-frontier trade union rights within such corporations.
61. There is no single or fixed model for economic democracy and there is room for bold experimentation in different countries. But the underlying principle is clear - not simply formal, legal control by the State, but substantial involvement by workers themselves and by their communities in economic decision-making. This principle must apply both nationally and internationally.
Actually I want the definition of socialism from the person who is making statements about socialism.
There are many varied definitions of socialism. Dropping quotes is a meaningless exercise.
What is your definition? What do you mean when you use the word 'socialism'? See? That is the whole point.
I’ll take a pass on that. What a miserable existence living under that would be.
This is bad ???
From a fascists point of view? Absolutely.
What if your ideology is freedom? What if your culture encourages following your dreams? Those things are incompatible with fascism or socialism.
Depends on which of the many meaning of the term 'socialism' you have in your mind. Freedom is incompatible with the systems that have historically self-labeled as 'socialism' or 'communism'. Those systems were always authoritarian, centrally controlled and often driven by a brutal dictator.
To equate democratic socialism with these authoritarian regimes is to not understand anything about this socio-economic/political theory.
Simple test: if a system is based on authoritarian rule where the people are simply resources and not part of the decision making process then the system has violated the very foundation of socialism.
I see you performing this contortion all over this seed. Sounds like baloney to me. I think many people are trying to fudge the definition of a well known word so that it seems less evil than it has historically proven to be. The left loves to change the meanings of well known words, but any of these will do:
More and more we hear that socialism would work if people would just do it right. Or what we need is some special variety of socialism. Maybe if you slap the label "democratic" in front of it, all the troubles of socialism will just melt away.
I suggest that if you want to advocate for something else, then say what that is and we can talk about it. Maybe it will be a good idea, but this recent move by many to try to fudge what socialism is doesn't help anyone.
I wonder what drives people to insist on sticking with labels established by dictators and ignore all other material in the subject. To what end? Why shut down one's mind and literally refuse to comprehend anything about socialism other than authoritarian systems which self-label as such?
Using your first definition (and this is itself just skimming the surface):
You must have read these words before quoting them. Explain how this correlates with the USSR - a brutal authoritarian rule in which the economy was centrally planned and controlled while the people were merely oppressed resources with no control over their economic freedom. Where do you see any notion of the productive resources of the economy being regulated by the community as a whole?
I am not advocating; never have. It is not my position that any system of socialism is the ideal system - the ideal system might very well be a variant of capitalism or some future variant of socialism. Either way, not the point.
What I am doing is challenging those who insist that socialism is nothing more than the historical systems that have deemed themselves as such.
Neither system functions without crushing individual freedom. They won't work without totalitarian rule. Everywhere they have been tried, that's where they end up. It's always horrible.
Your statement is correct when dealing with the brutal authoritarian rule systems such as that in place in Nazi Germany, the USSR, et. al. What is incorrect is to blindly accept the labels and think that these systems implemented socialism.
But that seems to be where we inevitably end up.
Of course not! The dream is never realized for a very good reason. It can't be. It flies in the face of human nature. People set out to create socialist utopias but they always end up with a nightmare. That's the problem.
If one limits oneself to define socialism as only the authoritarian systems that have self-labeled as 'socialism' then all one will ever see are such systems. Merely labeling something as socialism does not make it so. If the only material on socialism in existence were the systems you have in your mind then socialism would be as you see it.
But that is not the case.
Do you truly believe that Lenin (much less Stalin) set out to create a socialist utopia? Note: Russia at the time of the Bolshevik revolution was pre-industrial. Marx describes socialism as transitioning from an established industrial society. Russia was nowhere capable of sustaining even the socialism Marx had in mind. Lenin was rolling his own form of authoritarian rule which he labeled 'socialism'. When Stalin took over he continued the label and produced a brutal, dysfunctional system that pretty much violated every principle of socialism. Yet in 2018 we have people with apparently no interest in poking under the covers, blindly thinking that the USSR is an exemplar for socialism.
Stalinism. That's what people should call it
And Lenin's form of governance should be called Leninism.
I assume that both Lenin and Stalin were educated men. They had to know that it would take a very long time (if ever) to achieve real socialism with what they had to work with. I know Stalin tried to get the Soviet Union industrialized in a very short time and managed to nearly destroy the agrarian society they had. Which is why millions starved to death
I agree Trout. And the labels authoritarian, state-control, single-party-rule, command economy, brutal etc. also apply without disagreement from most anyone. There are labels that can be assigned to things that are well-defined and verifiable as fact.
And then there are labels used for emotive reasons.
Lenin is said to have figured out very quickly that he had to roll his own system and he chose to grab authoritarian control and forego democratic participation by the people. Stalin went much further into areas of brutality that arguably make him the second worst mass murderer off all time - second (it would seem) only to Chairman Mao.