On 2002-03-21 08:11, Marc Lamb wrote:



Quote:
"I wondered at the time how much it would take before the people had enough, and a true reform movement developed. September 11th and Dubya's Honeymoon washed the disgust towards our government clean."


Uh, according to ABC NEWS there remains a little bit of dirt in the wash... :smile:

<table class='Wf' border=0 align='center' width='100%' cellspacing=0 cellpadding=3 nowrap> <tr><td><pre>

Trust the Government? Yes No
To handle national security 68% 30
To handle social issues 38 61
</pre></td></tr></table>

"This suggests that people haven't changed nearly as much as their frame of reference has changed. It seems likely that before Sept. 11 people assessed the government chiefly in terms of social policy, an area in which trust was low, and still is. Today, however, many more people are focused on national security, an area in which trust runs high."

Does look that way.

"If you want to disprove evolution, just take a look at the slippery-slope descent of American presidents from Washington to Dubya."

"The Bushes appear to be as dangerously inbred as British royalty."

Nice quotes from that article. :smile:

There is a succinct, detailed discussion of fascism at this link:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...8927#Post38927

It may have even been posted here a few months ago but it is still a must read for the many who have been brainwashed by our government/education system into believing that fascism cannot exist in the absence of uniforms and funny mustaches. We discuss points of commonality through parallel points of earlier saeculi here. This historical repetition should not be missed because it bears directly upon us in this country today...and few even realize it.

The Bushs ARE descendents of the British royalty. Kissing cousins.

The eyes, it's in the eyes.

On 2002-03-21 08:52, Stonewall Patton wrote:
There is a succinct, detailed discussion of fascism at this link:

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...8927#Post38927

It may have even been posted here a few months ago but it is still a must read for the many who have been brainwashed by our government/education system into believing that fascism cannot exist in the absence of uniforms and funny mustaches. We discuss points of commonality through parallel points of earlier saeculi here. This historical repetition should not be missed because it bears directly upon us in this country today...and few even realize it.

From this article, I can make the conclusion that fascism spans both the left and right in politics, and that classical liberalism also spans both sides.

The way things are looking, the Boomers were right in calling the GIs fascists.

Also, we can say that socialism and fascism are not opposites at all, but are rather very independent of each other. One can say that the prior 4T was both a fascist and socialist revolution.

Perhaps, we should distinguish between different forms of fascism. Mussolini sought to rebuild the post-republican Roman Empire. Maybe we can refer to his brand of fascism as classical fascism. Hojo's Japan during the same period advocated militaristic fascism. Militaristic fascism sounds redundant, but one can define it as a fascist state entirely ruled by the military. Then there is Hitler's brand of fascism, which is more about race, ethnicity, and culture than the nation. This brand of fascism can be called ethnic fascism, which is a form of fascism in which a class based society is built in such a certain ethnicity has practically infinite power over other ethnicities. In this form of fascism, the non-favored ethnicities normally serve the favored ethnicity somehow, and have very little in the way of rights in society. And then there is social fascism. Basically, this is leftist fascism. Basically, the rulers are liberals. They attempt to protect some basic rights, and promote some social justice using fascist governmental and economic means. This form of fascism lives and dies by politically correct laws. At the extreme end, this becomes a form of fascism by which draconian measures are used to control thought.

Any more to add to the list?

_________________
Robert Reed III (1982)
"Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings." -- Heinrich Heine
"The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren and to do good is my religion."-Thomas Paine

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: madscientist on 2002-03-21 09:38 ]</font>

Thus, one can say that the Scandinavian nations largely practice a brand of social fascism.

Hitler's Germany practiced militaristic fascism, ethnic fascism, and even a little bit of social fascism.

Mussolini's fascism was a classical fascism.

China today practices militaristic fascism.

The Southern US in the 1950s was an ethnic fascism. The Northern US practiced social fascism.

In the current saeculum, the dominant fascisms were militaristic fascism, which largely worked behind the scenes, and social fascism, which was in everyday life.

Perhaps, with the former Soviet Union, we can define holistic fascism. In this type of fascism, the state literally is a corporation, and vice versa. This one corporation has total control over society. This is fascism carried to the extreme since the entire society is run like one corporation. In this light, communism is only an extreme version of fascism.

On 2002-03-21 09:46, madscientist wrote:
Thus, one can say that the Scandinavian nations largely practice a brand of social fascism.

Hitler's Germany practiced militaristic fascism, ethnic fascism, and even a little bit of social fascism.

Mussolini's fascism was a classical fascism.

China today practices militaristic fascism.

The Southern US in the 1950s was an ethnic fascism. The Northern US practiced social fascism.

In the current saeculum, the dominant fascisms were militaristic fascism, which largely worked behind the scenes, and social fascism, which was in everyday life.

Perhaps, with the former Soviet Union, we can define holistic fascism. In this type of fascism, the state literally is a corporation, and vice versa. This one corporation has total control over society. This is fascism carried to the extreme since the entire society is run like one corporation. In this light, communism is only an extreme version of fascism.

OOPS! Methinks that by calling the former Soviet Union a fascist society (and also China), you just stepped on Sbarros' toes. Maybe Bob Butler54's, too. :grin: :lol:

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jds1958xg on 2002-03-21 10:00 ]</font>

Stonewall:


I read the article you linked, and I have several comments.


The word "fascism" has severely negative connotations. Its meaning includes a huge emotional impact, and not a pleasant one.


The reasons for this emotional impact are obvious; fascist states in recent history were responsible for crimes against humanity ranging from violation of free speech rights to genocide.


Fascist states also included economic policies. Those policies preserved private ownership of business but subjected business to strict regulations. Part of the reason for this was to direct the economy toward support of war, but part of it, due to the circumstances of the time, was also to restore prosperity. In both these directions, the policies worked, and were immitated in non-fascist states.


However, it is erroneous to conclude, as the article (and you) seem to wish, that these economic policies were the core of fascism, or that any state which adopts fascist-pioneered economic policies becomes fascist in the common sense of the term. If one defines the word "fascist" in terms of economic policy, then one suggests that the same loathing and fear which attach to fascist politics and foreign policy should attach to that economics, and this is not merely wrong, but dishonest. It is an attempt to divert opprobrium which is commonly directed at one thing, towards another thing which is accidentally associated with it, and which one personally opposes.


To get to the heart of the matter:

"The Fascist conception of life," Mussolini wrote, "stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with the State. It is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual."

Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: "The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature's plans." "If classical liberalism spells individualism," Mussolini continued, "Fascism spells government."

The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now?

Yes. I believe this is not what we have now. I think that is a gross exaggeration. I do not agree that we live in a fascist state. And if George W. Bush is taking us uncomfortably in that direction, he is not doing so because of the modern-liberal tradition of regulating the economy for the public good -- a tradition he opposes, in fact -- but for other reasons, and in the context of war, when such things are all too common.

In light of describing fascism, it makes sense to talk about its opposite, which is called libertarianism. Basically, libertarianism is very much against power structures and hierarchies. Normally, this has a very communal aspect to it.

One type is defined by Ayn Rand, which is called objectivism, but for the purposes of this discussion, and to conform with the conventions I established in the naming the various forms of an -ism, I will also refer to this as objectivist libertarianism. Basically, this is an extremely individualist ideology in which market-based capitalism is taken to the extreme, and socialism is regarded as an evil. This type of libertarianism is very anti-dogmatic, and very rationalistic and very atheistic. In the more extreme sects of objectivism, altruism is seen as an evil, and selfishness is seen as a good, and social darwinism is a respected and followed ideology.

At the opposite side is social libertarianism. Basically, this is a form of libertarian in which social justice is the center of the ideology. As a result, this is a very egalitarian society, and socialism in its purest form is practiced, and selfishness is seen as an evil, and altruism is seen as good.

And then there is communal libertarianism. The most important aspect of this form of libertarian is the community. Community norms are very strictly enforced. In this sort of society, shame is a punishment, and rules are enforced by the community instead of a state.

And then there is sportulary libertarianism. In this form of libertarian, your worth and status in society is defined by how much you contribute to it.

Geez. I hate to have to re-post everything I've ever said on this subject.

As Robert aptly demonstrates, accepting Stonewall's definition of "fascism", even if it was once partially correct, renders its meaning so broad as to be useless.

This, as opposed to the Webster's Dictionary definition, which is narrow enough to be useful, and has the added benefit of being the definition that most people use.

Furthermore, just because some FDR-era officials expressed approval of "corporatism" does not mean it is approved of by either of the U.S.'s major parties, nor by any minor U.S. party I am aware of. The near-death of both Enron and Arthur Andersen clearly demonstrates that a high degree of laissez faire still holds sway here. (So much for corporations being immortal!)

In fact, at least one of the major U.S. parties has, as a stated goal, to roll back the excesses of the New Deal.

On 2002-03-21 09:59, jds1958xg wrote:
OOPS! Methinks that by calling the former Soviet Union a fascist society (and also China), you just stepped on Sbarros' toes. Maybe Bob Butler54's, too. :grin: :lol:

Maybe so. But then again, ideas were made to be criticized until it is changed in a way to be acceptable by most people.

Yes, I did take a risk in proclaiming that Soviet communism is a form of fascism. But to me, it kinda makes sense because instead of forming very close relationships with industry, the government itself is the industry, and vice versa.

To put it another way, Robert demonstrates that, using Stonewall's definition, every nation-state in existance is "fascist".

Contrast that to the generally-held opinion of the current status of fascism.

Stonewall reminds me of people who want to "reclaim the swastika", to return it's meaning to what it supposedly was before the Nazis made use of it.

Sorry, that's not going to happen. The swastika is not going back to being a lucky charm.

Words and symbols have a lot in common. One of those things is that their meaning is stored in the brains of the population at large.

On 2002-03-21 10:18, madscientist wrote:

Yes, I did take a risk in proclaiming that Soviet communism is a form of fascism. But to me, it kinda makes sense because instead of forming very close relationships with industry, the government itself is the industry, and vice versa.

Obviously fascism and communism are very close in what they produce for a society. The old hostility of fascism towards communism (and vice versa)is perhaps explicable only when the two sides are looking at each other in theoretical terms. In practice you end up with similar states: lack of basic freedoms, mass murder, etc.

Stonewall reminds me of people who want to "reclaim the swastika", to return it's meaning to what it supposedly was before the Nazis made use of it.

Sorry, that's not going to happen. The swastika is not going back to being a lucky charm.

Actually this is an example of your inaccurate thinking, as usual Mr. Firemind. :smile: The swastika is often used a a sacred symbol even today, but you should notice that it is turned backwards from the symbol used by the Nazis. Their distorted use of the symbol was in fact disclosed by the fact that they turned the original symbol backwards.

Those are good definitions of fascism that Robert posted. However, I think it is too extreme to call anyone who institutes liberal social policies as fascist (such as the Northern USA or Scandinavia). If the nation is democratic it is not fascist. Also, the Soviet Union's fascism would be better defined as the "social fascism" Robert referred to.

The brand Stonewall refers to should be added as well, corporate fascism. This is when business enterprises are allowed to operate, but in practice become so intertwined with government operations as to be almost indistinguishable, and when the two become dominant in most of the economy and other affairs as well. We may disagree with Stonewall that the current USA has reached this extreme, while recognizing that it exhibits tendencies in that direction (and has for decades in fact). We can also recognize this form of fascism as having existed before in Germany before World War I, and that tendencies in this direction also existed in the USA in that period and since.

It could be distinguished from Mussolini's classical fascism in that in corporate fascism the corporations are more independent, at least nominally; while in classical fascism it is openly stated that the state is the only corporation. I see little difference here between the classical fascism of Mussolini and the "holistic fascism" that Robert proposed; perhaps a difference in the degree of practice only.

_________________
Keep the Spirit Alive,
Eric Meece

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Eric A Meece on 2002-03-21 12:48 ]</font>

On 2002-03-21 12:36, Eric A Meece wrote:
Actually this is an example of your inaccurate thinking, as usual Mr. Firemind.

Jeez, Eric, don't feel you have to go out of your way to disagree with me whenever possible. My thinking was quite accurate. Your information is inaccurate.

The swastika is often used a a sacred symbol even today,but you should notice that it is turned backwards from the symbol used by the Nazis.

The only place where the swastika is "often" used today is the Far East, like Korea, Japan, Taiwan, etc., where it (in its "backwards" form) is used as a religious symbol, for example, to identify Buddhist temples on Seoul road maps. DUHH. I'm not talking about the Far East.

Their distorted use of the symbol was in fact disclosed by the fact that they turned the original symbol backwards.

Wrong, Eric.

The swatstika was present in both its "backwards" and "forwards" forms in the West before the Nazis. The people who would like to bring the symbol back have spread the historically incorrect myth that the Nazis reversed the symbol. You have apparently been taken in by this myth.

The fact is, the symbol already existed in both forms, and the Nazis simply chose one of the forms.

All of this is irrelvant, however, to my point: the swastika means what people think it means. Would you be comfortable in public wearing the swastika in either form?

My point was, the meanings of symbols change, and the meaning of words change. The meanings attached to words and symbols are subjective and subject to change. The word "gay" used to mean something else. That's what I'm saying.

Those are good definitions of fascism that Robert posted. However, I think it is too extreme to call anyone who institutes liberal social policies as fascist (such as the Norhtern USA or Scandinavia). If the nation is democratic it is not fascist.

Here, Eric is agreeing with me. Today, the word "fascist" implies many things, and one of them is the absence of democracy.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-21 13:41 ]</font>

For the last word on swastikas, I refer you to The Straight Dope:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_156.html

Excerpt:

"Dear Cecil:

You were wrong! I refer to the question concerning the historical roots of the swastika. You informed us that it was an ancient Indian symbol. In reality, however, the Indian symbol was not the Nazi swastika but rather a mirror-image symbol called the Wheel of Life. The Wheel of Life turns in a clockwise ("deosil") direction. Hitler, who was fascinated by the occult, deliberately reversed the ancient symbol of power so that it turned counterclockwise, or "widdershins." Traditionally this is supposed to give the symbol a "black magic" sort of power. Please, try not to be wrong again--I can't handle the disillusionment. --West M., Atlanta

Cecil replies:

Time to lay off the airplane glue, West. As a glance at a history book would show, the Nazi symbol was oriented in a clockwise direction. So, as often as not, was the ancient good luck/sun symbol sometimes known as the Wheel of Life. It's true that swastikas come in both clockwise and counterclockwise versions, and some scholars maintain that they represent opposing principles--e.g., yin/yang, male/female, and presumably good/evil. On occasion, as you correctly note, the counterclockwise swastika, more properly known as the sauvastika, has had black-magical significance, symbolizing night and/or the terrifying goddess Kali. But you can find examples of both types of swastikas being used in what are clearly benign contexts. In any case, the wicked sauvastika was not the Nazi symbol. You got anything else you want cleared up, just let me know."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: firemind on 2002-03-21 13:26 ]</font>

I live in the Four Corners area of the US. The swastika image was often (clockwise and counter-clock-wise) carved in the red sandstone cliffs and rocks by the ancient natives. The Anasazi Indians ( from about A.D. 100) carved these petroglyphs so long ago that no one knows what they mean.

Thanks for that info, Firemind and cbailey.


Unfortunately, the Neopagan and (even more so) New Age communities circulate a lot of misinformation. I always advise people within those communities to check factual statements against info from outside them. (Opinion statements are another matter.)


I think probably the most remarkable such blooper occurred in a book about so-called "Irish Wicca" in which the author actually claimed that the potato was a religious symbol or motif in pre-Christian Ireland.


(The potato, of course, is a New World plant and was not introduced into Ireland until the 17th century.)


The swastika is an ancient and valuable symbol. Regrettably, Firemind is probably right and the Nazis have corrupted it for the foreseeable future.

About the swastika/Wheel of Life: probably so firemind; however I have to admit that in folk tradition or occult contexts, I usually see the symbol written in reverse direction from the Nazi version. I'll keep my eye and mind open; not enough to have it consumed by fire as in your case...:smile:

It's no big deal; I could have used the Golden Arches as an example. Did you know that back in the 21st century, this symbol of evil corporatism merely stood for a fast food restaurant chain?

Oh, wait, I'm back in the 21st century right now. Right. Nevermind, then. Must be my brain catching fire again. Must find water...

On 2002-03-21 10:12, madscientist wrote:
In light of describing fascism, it makes sense to talk about its opposite, which is called libertarianism

I'm going to pick a nit here. The actual opposite of fascism (government's influence/control ineverything) is anarchism (government's influence/control in nothing). The distinction is a critical one that I fear many libertarians do not see.

Justin, I'm going to disagree with you there, for the simple reason that anarchists are advocating an impossible social order, while fascists are advocating a workable (if disagreeable) one. Anarchy cannot be implemented. Human society requires order and governance, and if they are lacking demands and creates them -- usually in unpleasant forms.


In my own system, fascism is a political philosophy which subordinates the individual to the state, completely or nearly so, for the purpose of advancing national greatness and power. Its opposite is liberalism, which holds that the purpose of government is to protect the rights of individuals, and national greatness and power are important only insofar as they lead to increased freedom and well-being for people.


Libertarianism is a subset of liberalism which holds to the liberal core value, but claims (in disagreement with other liberals) that a laissez-faire capitalist economic model serves those values.

Firemind:

I do not know why you insist upon attributing all these extraneous things to me and, if I am not mistaken, we have had this very same conversation before. I define fascism precisely as Mussolini defined it:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

--Benito Mussolini. (from Encyclopedia Italiana, Giovanni Gentile, editor).

If you disagree with something in the article, how about demonstrating how the article is wrong rather than attacking me when I did not even write the thing? If you disagree with something Robert stated, how about taking it up with him and not with me when I did not even make the statement? If you disagree with Mussolini's definition of fascism, which I share, then, by all means, take it up with me.


Robert:

With too broad a definition of fascism, anything can be considered fascist. So some of the earlier criticism of your analysis has merit. Stalin, for example, easily appears as a fascist and I have been there myself in considering him one. But it really is inaccurate to call him one and this error results from a dilution of fascism's meaning to the point of meaninglessness.

Let us outline how fascism came about historically to understand the difference between fascism and socialism:

1) During and immediately after WW I, a subset of socialists seized upon an alternate means of elevating the working class. The new method worked within national boundaries, thereby abandoning the necessity of world revolution, and did not require overthrow of the existing political and social class structures. This new philosophy was fascism and a body of fascist theory had amassed through the WW I era. Fascism was a compromise proposal which afforded a greater opportunity to achieve socialist goals in the real world.

2) The abandonment of the call for world revolution by this subset of socialists resulted in a schism within socialists ranks and the fascists went their separate way. But this was not a minor squabble. Socialists and fascists genuinely hated each other to the point of rioting. Socialists were religious about the need for world revolution and an overthrow of the upper class. Fascists, who were really just more concerned with power, laughed and walked away. Fascism provided the path of least resistance to absolute power and that is all that mattered to fascists.

3) Socialists, with their call for world revolution, remained global in outlook and thus were international socialists. Fascists became national in outlook and, accordingly, called themselves national socialists. It is no accident that Hitler referred to national socialism because that is what he favored. Socialist goals would be achieved by working within the system within the nation-state.

4) Fascism was indeed the path of least resistance to absolute power in the state and the upper class recognized a good thing when they saw it. There had been mounting fear of socialist revolution which would deprive the upper class of their property, status, and power. Fascism held no such designs on them and operated as an effective bulwark against socialist revolution. Its consolidation of all power in the state and complete elimination of liberal concepts such as rights gave the upper class all they needed to subdue the socialist threat. Despite being devised by working class-conscious socialists, fascism was custom made for the existing establishment to guarantee their control in perpetuity, and they fully embraced fascism.


Here we come to the major difference between socialism/communism and fascism/corporatism. Ask Cui Bono?. And answer the question in terms of Marxian class structure. Socialism ostensibly benefits the working class and fascism ultimately benefits the upper class. Despite how similar socialism and fascism may appear in operation, there is a difference and it is a very big difference.

Socialism offers wealth redistribution at the expense of the upper and middle classes to elevate the lower class in pursuit of economic equality. Fascism offers wealth redistribution at the expense of the middle class alone to keep the lower class from revolting against the upper class. Socialism offers redistributed wealth designed to elevate and empower. Fascism offers "bread and circuses" designed to buy off and control.

In the final analysis, socialism is attractive to the lower class and fascism is attractive to the upper class. And so our "mixed economies" of the post-war era have in fact been nothing more than soft fascism, called anything but fascism, of course. The upper classes in Western democracies have retained and consolidated power by buying off the lower classes with just enough "bread and circuses" to console -- and control -- them. The ruling classes have pursued, not socialist equality, but fascist control. This was not at all obvious for decades. It has only become so in the past 10-15 years, in my opinion, with the rapid advance of the "free" trade agenda.

So, yes, Stalin could have been Hitler's twin brother. But, no, Stalin was not a fascist. Stalin's program still pursued equality ostensibly and there were no superior classes, possibly excepting high party officials. However, given that authoritarian communism seems doomed to fail in the real world, it is natural that the growing class of party officials would eventually look back to capitalism to salvage things while refusing to give up control. In other words, it seems natural that communism would morph into fascism once the bottom is hit. This is precisely what has happened in Red China and Russia.

In the meantime, look at the world around you paying particular attention to the actions of the Bush administration and the "free" trade agenda. Kooks have told us for years to fear global communism. Wrong! It is global fascism that we have to fear and it is manifesting before our very eyes. National socialism becomes global when the world becomes one nation. And this is where the Bush crowd has been and is so clearly taking us. Forget about capitalism and competition. If you wish to advance, you will have to meet with the approval of those who rule over you. And if you should appear to them as a threat to their power, woe to you. This "free" trade business needs to be stopped dead in tracks. Any other issue is a distraction.

Libertarianism in its various forms is very individualistic. In Libertarianism the individual is far more important than the community. Also Libertarianism is very much opposed to nationalism, militarism and authoritarianism.

Fascism is nationalist, militarist and authoritarian, it bevelies that the individual is just another part of the ordered national community and the individual must service the ideal of the state, the 'furher' or 'volk?'in Hitler talk.

Corporatism is a feature of fascist systems. However it is not a necessary part of a fascist system.

Libertarianism is opposite of fascism in these respects.

Liberalism on the other hand takes in the best aspects of both ideologies. At the same time not taking in the worst aspects of both libertarianism and fascism.

_________________
One man's terrorist is an another man's freedom fighter.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Tristan Jones on 2002-03-21 19:06 ]</font>

Tristan, men are both evil and good. A methodology, a system, an ideology that accounts soberly, as in "kool-aid," for both is worthy of respect and attention.

Mr. Marx, Mr. Rush, Mr. Patton, Mr. Butler, Mr. Chomsky, Mr. Reed have no use for such notions of "evil and good," because they see themselves and society in an entirely different light. They see it merely in terms of power: Who has it and who don't. Thus this is the game they play.

For them, it is all about who has the power, the power to mold society as they see fit.

Only problem is, Tristan, FREEDOM, FREEDOM, and more FREEDOM! We can't shut them up! For to do so would be to bind ourselves, to endorse a certain kind of slavery, of which we abhor in the first place!

No, let them speak, let them curse this or that, let them lie, let them even steal...

Because freedom has a price, a price bought in effort, in debate, in ceaseless committment to the very cause... of freedom. :smile: