Bush,conservatives, and Fascism

[drippinhun]

eehhh ya *****. The Republicans had the majority before the 2006 election.

So did Hitler's party before '45.

 

[palerider]

Again, refer back to the first page of this thread...

I did. That just takes us back over ground that you have already failed to substantiate.

My arguments have been:

1. A standard Left/Right political spectrum is inadequate in describing many varying social and economic political philosophies. But it's simplicity and generalization give you comfort

2. Hitler was Right of Stalin. and in a 4 quadrant political spectrum that i prefer, Hitler would be slightly right of center economically.

You keep saying it but aren't able to substantiate it. Simply saying that fascism is right doesn't make it so. Fascism was socialism.

You know elitism was an aspect of Fascism too. You demonstrate it very well on these boards.

This comment from you: "But it's simplicity and generalization give you comfort" is a fine indication of your own elitism. When you make comments like that but are unable to substantiate them but expect that they shoud be believed anyway, that, my friend, is elitism. I don't say things that I can't back up.

Now can you demonstrate how hitler was right of stalin when they both did the same thing or not? I am betting on not.

 

[drippinhun]

You keep saying it but aren't able to substantiate it. Simply saying that fascism is right doesn't make it so. Fascism was socialism.

Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of economic systems would understand that socialism is a system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the greater good of the community.

Autocratic rule is that which the right wingers crave. It's not a great leap of mental energy to know that fascism was and is the providence of the right wing.

Defining fascism

 

[palerider]

Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of economic systems would understand that socialism is a system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the greater good of the community.

Autocratic rule is that which the right wingers crave. It's not a great leap of mental energy to know that fascism was and is the providence of the right wing.

Defining fascism

You don't have a clue. If you really wonder what sort of government "right wingers" crave, read your constitution. And suggesting that bush is a conservative demonstrates that you really don't know the first thing about conservativism.

And if that video is the extent of your knowledge of fascism, it is equally clear that you don't know any more about fascism than you do about conservativism. Review this thead. The "14 points" have already gone down in flames.

Now, can you demonstrate in any way that fascism isn't socialism or are you just talking to hear yourself talk?

 

[jb_1430]

Anyone with even an elementary knowledge of economic systems would understand that socialism is a system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community for the greater good of the community.

Autocratic rule is that which the right wingers crave. It's not a great leap of mental energy to know that fascism was and is the providence of the right wing.

Defining fascism

When you combine socialism with the autocratic rule of Hitler you get the Nazi party. The National Socialist German Workers Party. And Hitler is the one who gets to decide what serves the " greater good of the community". Not exactly "right wingers". Autocratic rule certainly isnt something "right wingers" in the US advocate. Neither is the economic system in place in Hitlers Germany.

 

[top gun]

Everybody always trying to go to Hitler... or the USSR... or some past established government as if that's the only type of government that could ever be considered Fascist... Socialist or whatever.

You can take a democracy and you can work to do these type things you are moving in a Fascist direction...

Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

You can push for religion to be entwined to intrude and interfere in your government and you can be moving in the direction of a theocracy...

Theocracy
A form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
A system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
A commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.

There are elements in the far right wing of the Republican Party that skirt very closely some of this dogma. KKK, John Burch Society, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition... etc., etc., etc.

 

[palerider]

Fascism
A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

You can push for religion to be entwined to intrude and interfere in your government and you can be moving in the direction of a theocracy...

Theocracy
A form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.
A system of government by priests claiming a divine commission.
A commonwealth or state under such a form or system of government.[/COLOR]

There are elements in the far right wing of the Republican Party that skirt very closely some of this dogma. KKK, John Burch Society, Moral Majority, Christian Coalition... etc., etc., etc.

I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate how the fascist governments were different from the governments of the great socialist tyrants. So far, there has been lots of double talk from the left, but the fact remains that fascism is socialism and no amount of spin is going to change it.

 

[drippinhun]

I am still waiting for someone to demonstrate how the fascist governments were different from the governments of the great socialist tyrants. So far, there has been lots of double talk from the left, but the fact remains that fascism is socialism and no amount of spin is going to change it.

And know you demonstrate your ignorance by citing so-called "socialist tyrants" as having anything to do with socialism. A true socialist system is run by and for the people. Tell me precisely how the corporation ownership of Nazi Germany was turned over to the workers. I will await your answer.

 

[vyo476]

And know you demonstrate your ignorance by citing so-called "socialist tyrants" as having anything to do with socialism. A true socialist system is run by and for the people. Tell me precisely how the corporation ownership of Nazi Germany was turned over to the workers. I will await your answer.

Socialism

Dictionary.com Unabridged
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

American Heritage Dictionary
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

WordNet
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]

Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy
An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.


I think you more than get the picture.

Let's take the Kernerman definition, as it most closely represents what you've written on the subject. Basically that definition boils down to this: socialism is the belief that the people as a whole ought to own the means of production. How does this belief work in real-world implementation? The state, which in a state founded purely on this socialistic belief represents "the people," is put in charge of controlling the means of production. In a fascist nation, the state also controls the means of production (albeit, not by owning them, but by coercion through threat of force).

In purely economic terms there is no difference between two systems where the state controls the means of production. In terms of ideology, sure, there's a difference between Kernerman's definition of socialist ideology and fascist ideology; however, the term "socialism," as demonstrated by the American Heritage Dictionary and WordNet above, can also simply apply to an economic system wherein control of the means of production lies with the government - and it is that socialism that is a component of fascism.

 

[drippinhun]

vyo476,

The difference is in who runs the system. The community of collective agreement amoungst all the people (or at least the majority), not the community coerced or dictated to by an autocrat is the determining factor. At the point that people no longer have the say, it is no longer socialism.

Under Hitler, factories were stilll privately owned.

 

[palerider]

And know you demonstrate your ignorance by citing so-called "socialist tyrants" as having anything to do with socialism. A true socialist system is run by and for the people. Tell me precisely how the corporation ownership of Nazi Germany was turned over to the workers. I will await your answer.

So are you saying that stalin and lenin weren't socialists? You are saying that mao wasn't socialist?

Tell me how the means of production was turned over to the people in the soviet union and china. A true socialist system looks just like the soviet union and china because socialism must be authoritarian in order to advance its agenda.

The difference is in who runs the system. The community of collective agreement amoungst all the people (or at least the majority), not the community coerced or dictated to by an autocrat is the determining factor. At the point that people no longer have the say, it is no longer socialism.

I doubt that anyone posessing enough intellectual wattage to be considered conscious would argue that the soviet union, or china were not socialists and in both nations, the state ran everything. It is the nature of modern liberalism. The goals can not be achieved without becoming authoritarian.

Your knowledge of socialism and fascism, seems to be limited to dictionary definitions and you have clearly never put much thought into the means by which the philosophy becomes political reality. The soviet union, china, the fascist states, cambodia, etc., represent the natural end of modern liberal thought.

I started a thread here:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1879

In which I describe exactly why modern liberal states must become authoritarian in order to achieve their political goals and exactly why modern liberals are destined to become the very thing they claim to hate. Feel free to step on over and try and prove me wrong.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

I did. That just takes us back over ground that you have already failed to substantiate.

You keep saying it but aren't able to substantiate it. Simply saying that fascism is right doesn't make it so. Fascism was socialism.
.

Actually i did substantiate it. You just can't accept a substantiated opinion that differs from yours. You parade every thread with the same catch phrases.

"You don't know anything about..."
"Very naive"
"Im still waiting for someone to substantiate...."

I substantiated the economic difference, as have others in this thread, of socialism and fascism... you told a story about a shoemaker. You want to generalize what i've said instead of listening. on the very first page i said fascism was not right wing ideology per say. i've made my points as to why your simplistic straight line/left-right political spectrum just doesnt work in todays world. you have not demonstrated why a simple left-right political spectrum can accurately describe many differing economic AND social philosophies.

You've developed a nice rhetorical bubble around your paleo-conservative politics, that don't actually exist in practice anymore. You pitch everything else as "liberalism", Left Wing, Socialist while refusing to acknowledge the grand differencies in philosophy. And of course you conveniently dodge anything that produces actually questioning of your stance with other simplcities like... "maybe for a relativist, I'm not a relativist."

"Refer to your constitution for what real conservative philosophy is"... except of course in time of war

 

[Irishone21]

The government watches people, even in their homes, in complete disregard of the debilitating effect it has on the victim. The government tries to portray themselves as omnipotent, to instil fear in its subject in order to prevent violation of the law, which in effect, causes people to live in fear, avoiding criminal behavior not because of values, but because of both the invisible and visible hand of the law. The government denounces liberalism and creates an illusion that flaunts of military capabilities, threats, and offensive action will be the only way to prevent terrorism from emerging, despite the possibility that out eagerness to expel terrorist organizations may escalate into a catastrophic war, which if a more democratic, socialist, or liberal philosophy had been applied, may have been prevented. The internet is designed in a way that floods recent information on controversial issues with disinformation, making the truth elusive, and brainwashing the researcher.

 

[9sublime]

Probably a fair bit of truth in that for once.

 

[palerider]

I substantiated the economic difference, as have others in this thread, of socialism and fascism... you told a story about a shoemaker. You want to generalize what i've said instead of listening. on the very first page i said fascism was not right wing ideology per say. i've made my points as to why your simplistic straight line/left-right political spectrum just doesnt work in todays world. you have not demonstrated why a simple left-right political spectrum can accurately describe many differing economic AND social philosophies.

No you didn't. You listed a few things, but were unable to differentiate between the reality of germany and the reality of the soviet union. Further, you made the claim that nazism was right of center economically while being unable to describe any actual difference between the economies of germany and the soviet union.