Politics – The expansion of democracy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries intensified the antidemocratic reaction of conservative authoritarianism. Starting first in Italy as an antidemocratic and antisocialist movement after WWI, fascism is in essence the twentieth century version of age old tendencies in politics.
Not a member? Sign-up today!
sterlingburt19681962
elliotthicks1965
daviant701973
rylandl831968
nopatacious
romeohoover1968
adamhowe1980
soulkeeper009
dokkyou08
maneetion
hatukabu
pyuuuke
darwinm701977
daviannewton651975
asolious
getbackerzoo
leeharris1969
rhettdejesus1975
2jojoyo
adrielh791966
TGrass3001
sarmatt
Raiderwall
MaryLynn_
stwor
followme
webbmster19899
BusinessDude
qilla
trnscndr
HektorofTroy
rimbaud
0gramstransfat
Progressive Bum
Truzseeker
Donnaich
ework
uncogito
y_soitenly
Shadowolf
NavArmy
property
695)
This article basically shows how we are losing our democracy through th new Fascism in our administration.
That was the Bush plan in 2000, and if the truth was known, it may have been the plan of Bush Sr, but he didn't get a second chance.
--The only redistribution of income that has occurred during the Bush years has been to give the ultra-rich even more.
--The major change in health care that has occurred during the Bush administration has medicare part-D, the plan designed to greatly increase phamaceutical company profits while slightly improving health care for some of the elderly.
your name fits
Does yours?
Facism is neither left nor right wing. It is not a political ideology, rather it is a method of control that can be applied to all ideologies and it centers around the ultimate power of the state, as well as an authoritarian leader that isn't to be challenged or questioned. Any challenge to the leader is viewed as a challenge to the state and that cannot be tolerated -- THAT is the definition of facism. Mussolini was the first true fascist but it can be applied in varying degrees to Stalin, Hitler, GW Bush or any leadership who thinks that they have surpreme rights and control. This is a great explanation of fascism and what it means:
http://people.howstuffworks.com/fascism.htm
All the ignorant right-wingers and left-wingers in here can benefit from reading it.
Here's something from sources a little more intellectual and sophisticated than How Stuff Works.
"Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy."
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefArtic...
"Philosophy of government that stresses the primacy and glory of the state, unquestioning obedience to its leader, subordination of the individual will to the state's authority, and harsh suppression of dissent."
http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9364238
Trying to say fascism could be left wing is ridiculous.
Even Mussolini says it is right-wing:
"Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, A CENTURY TENDING TO THE 'RIGHT', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State."
http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Readin...
TYPICAL LIBERAL "FACT-BASED" SPIN!
As opposed to spin without facts
Given George Bush used many facts? to take us
to war does that make him a typical right-wing
fact-wit?
Did you major in Ridulous in College?
Hey c'mon guys, it was a joke
dissent: "Trying to say fascism could be left wing is ridiculous."
If you had said that to say fascism could be liberalism, then I would agree. However, the definition you quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica fits very nicely to the communist dictatorships of Eastern Europe in the 1950s and, as far as I know, they were considered left-wing.
In the post after it I went on to quote Mussolini, the freakin' founding father of fascism himself (sorry, got carried away with the alliteration there), and you'll see that I went to the effort of putting into capitals the statement he made that counters this belief that Fascism can be left or right. A CENTURY TENDING TO THE RIGHT. There's that word again. Eastern Europe was more communist in name than in principle. Its countries were authoritarian which may explain why they are confused with fascism.
Mussolini said fascism more correctly should be called corporatism. You know how left leaning corporations in league with the government are..... 0%
Someone will come on and say Hitler's party was called the Socialist Workers party. His 1st act was to outlaw labor unions. No he used anyone and everyone to claw his way to power. His agenda was of course right wing.
You mean that Busch is going to round up anybody dissenting from his view? You liberal hate mongers better run for the hills.
Hey, you're quick. Just figured out what the thread is about. The hate thing is your specialty. That's why you love war so much.
"You mean that Busch is going to round up anybody dissenting from his view? You liberal hate mongers better run for the hills."
Sir, they're ALREADY doing this. They have stuffed the Justice Department with neo-con, religiously-rooted ideologues who are interpreting the law the way the White House sees fit and then going after people based on that. They've been routinely violating civil rights and First Amendment rights of thousands of people, using the two big neo-con rationales that can't (politcally, anyway) be argued with:
1) We're doing this to protect America.
2) We're doing this to protect the children.
Those two excuses are used by this administration to conduct all kinds of rights violations that are guaranteed by the Constitution. And no one can or will fight against it, because no one wants to be portrayed as a person who wants to harm America or harm the children. Thus these rights continue to be violated.
In communism it is against the law (counter-revolutionary) to have religion.
In fascism it is against the law (degenerate) to NOT have religion.
Stalin, liberals, the left can apply their system with "a fascistic fervor," but can never be truly described (by definition) as fascist.
In fascism you worship the "leader's" God, then woship the leader himself like God, and ultimately, AS God.
In communism you ultimately worship the State as God.
False. In Communism you worship the leader, just as in fascism. Stalin, Mao, Ceausescu, Kim the father and Kim the son were and still are worshiped no less but even more than Hitler and Mussolini.
How do you figure, Stalin or Mao were less worshipped than Hitler and Mussolini?
Worshipping the leaders isn't exclusive to communism nor fascism. It is to do with the leader wielding so much power he becomes a despote, or a divine incarnation. The political system type can be anything (yes, even democracy). The power of the leader can be political, religious, economical or just respect that goes to extreme lengths.
> How do you figure, Stalin or Mao were less worshipped than Hitler and Mussolini?
First, I've said that the Communist God-like leaders were worshiped MORE (not LESS) than Hitler and Mussolini. Second, I usually know what I'm talking about. Third, you could figure it out, too, by considering that in Germany and Italy there was room for religion and God while in the Communist states their god-like leaders and Communist ideology REPLACED all religions and all Gods.
My error: I meant so MORE, not LESS.
There was no room for religion in communist countries?? The practice of religion was in some countries not tolerated or was restricted (at certain periods). However, this did not erase religions by any means. The people of former Soviet Union for example remained quite religious. In China during Cultural Revolution practising religions was banned, but that view ended with CR.
Communist countries usually favor atheism. Atheism is lack of religion, and has nothing to do with worshipping people or any isms.
Vandee,
This cannot be applied to an American President. Really, half-smart people like you are dangerous. This President is exercising his Executive Branch powers. He is not exceeding them, he is not breaking the Constitution. He is not in control of Congress, nor is the Republican Party. The news media and entertainment industry clearly shill for the Left and attempt to indoctrinate us on a daily basis.
Examine the facts, and keep to facts. Don't slide George Bush into the Fascist category because you don't like his politics. I can't stand the lying people like you spread under the guise of educating others. STOP THE LIES.
check out www.jihadchat.com, www.frontpagemag.com, www.terrorismawareness.org, www.honestreporting.com
Wrong answer. Fascism is distinctly right-wing. Authoritarianism and totalitarianism may be either right or left wing. Fascism is authoritarian capitalism.
Well as he told facts, I guess 'quackpot' means truth teller. Is that something new out of the CON dictionary?
The redistribution of wealth in this country has quit effectively been done by the corporatists. When one CEO gets 700 million as compensation for a stock sale you have a lot of chutspah to be talking about socialism being bad. When 50 million people in this country don't have health care and the other 270 million are going broke trying to pay for it your value system deserves quite a bit of criticism.
Bush has instituted a corporatist system with no checks and balances on it. That my friend is FASCISM. Millions of Americans fought and died in WWII to stop this idealogy.
Very true.
What comic book did you get this information from? And would you pass a sobriety test right now?
When Kennedy, Kerry, the Clinton, Corzine, and the rest of the leftist wealthy stop pontificating and actually give up their OWN fortunes for the betterment of the downtrodden, then we can talk. Until then, all it is about is taking what we earn and giving it to those who are (for the most part) too lazy or stupid to earn it themselves.
"Clearly he doesn't have a clue."
Of course the idiot author hasn't a clue. Mussolini was a SOCIALIST. Hitler was a National SOCIALIST. Franco was a SOCIALIST. The former Soviet Union was the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republic.
But, per usual, many of the Netscape "learned" are all too willing to buy into historical revisionism and pure propaganda.
Oh my. Do you know how foolish you sound when you say somebody doesn't have a clue, and you then call Mussolini and Franco socialists? I can tell that you're surely not one of the "Netscape learned" if that's what you think.
Quick lesson for you, Mr. Funny. Both Mussolini's and Hitler's governments were made specifically to counter the "socialist threat" that was sweeping Europe (and to a lesser extent the US) after the Russian Revolution. Oh, and Francisco's Falange Party was Far-Right, not quite the same as Far-Left socialism. How do you manage to speak such ignorance?
Oh and please, I beg you to prove me wrong before you give me a negative remark. Anybody who wants to, go ahead. To do that though, you'll have to look it up, and when you do, you'll see that I'm right.
Woh there Tex, slow your roll!
First things first. Please find where I said that the Nazi party isn't socialist, because I do believe I said "you then call Mussolini and Franco socialists?" That doesn't include Hitler, and last I checked Hitler was never leader of Spain or Italy. (The nations that didn't have "socialist" in their party titles, just in case you didn't know)
Despite having socialist in the name of the party, Nazism was very much a reaction to socialism to prevent a revolution like the one in Russia. Watch who you're calling ignorant there buddy, because you certainly come off as such. I can tell you know very little on the subject you're talking about though, so I won't press you on your mistake.
LOL LOL LOL. The fascist doctrine was derived from disaffected socialist intellectuals, spearheaded by Il Duce himself, who was the darling of the socialists prior to WW1. It was the "third path" to the corporate state, an alternative to socialism and communism.
If you truly want to see a proto-fascist state, turn your attention to China, not the United States.
History not the strong suit here I see. No wonder you vote for fascists. I won't even bother to point out the difference between communism and fascism as you certainly should use a dictionary and not take my word for it..
Totalitarians can be either,Stalin was a totalitarian as was Hitler. Hitler infiltrated the Socialists Workers Party as a spy originally for a right wingnut German political group. He gained their confidence and rose to power within the organization using that power to amass and concentrate political power for himself. As stated earlier his first action was to outlaw labor unions. (Some socialist huh?) Then he proceeded to imprison all the liberals who might oppose him. He imported cheap foriegn labor, eventually using slaves to emasculate the middle class into submission. What kind of "socialist" does that? He was a socialist the same way Ted Haggard is a Christian.
LOL LOL LOL Oh, RFE, you are indeed a wonder. When you can't address the argument, throw some stuff out there, eh?
Here, read this article:
http://www.la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm
Did YOU really read the article? Obviously not, since you failed to notice that Mussolini's fascist party turned away from the socialist ideology, as did Mussolini himself transform from a marxist to a fascist.
'The democratic and liberal elements in Fascist preaching rapidly diminished and in 1922 Mussolini declared that "The world is turning to the right."'
LOL LOL oh my goodness, it's a barrel of laughs. Yes, the fascist doctrine is distinct from socialism...hey, maybe that's why they called it something different? Do you think?
Maybe you should read my comment more carefully. I said that the fascist doctrine was derived from disaffected socialists, which is exactly what the article stated. And, I previously stated that fascism was the "third path" to the corporate state, which is again supported by the article I linked.
I believe the facts show that fascism is rooted in the "Left", for lack of a better term. Leftist doctrine is generally "collectivism", meaning that the individual is subsumed to the state.
It is interesting that all three of the modern political ideologies derived by the "Left" (communism, socialism, and fascism) were so susceptible to totalitarian dictators. Well, maybe not socialism so much, depending on how you classify Tito.
So, keep reading...
Using your own words: LOL LOL oh my goodness!
Fascism has as much to do with socialism, as socialism has to do with capitalism. Was Marx born as a socialist? Nope, he became one. Was Mussolini born as a fascist? Nope, he became one.
Fascism was born BOTH from socialistic and capitalistic views, as is also stated in your precious article. If you think there is any value fascism is derived from socialism, then equally socialism is derived from capitalism. However, they each developped to their distinctive systems.
Fascism developped as an antagonist to socialism, and so did Mussolini.
Communism was very popular in Germany at the same time that the Nazi part was gaining influence.
So was Christianity. What's your point?
Yes, but it was in opposition to the Nazis...bad times foster extremism on both left and right.
You are correct, and the Nazi party was a reaction against the popularity of communism. The Nazi fascists were also antiliberal, anti homosexual, and anti-Jew.
> The Nazi fascists were also antiliberal, anti homosexual, and anti-Jew.
Interestingly enough so were the Communists.
You come up with that all by yourself?
Please look up socialism and and fascism. You are not making any sense.
> ...Nazism was very much a reaction to socialism to prevent a revolution like the one in Russia.
The National-Socialist "revolution" of 1933 in Germany was very similar to the "Socialist" revolution of 1917 in Russia. In both cases, all political parties except one were suppressed. In both cases, this one party and its leader were declared to be the one and only infallible leadership of the people and the country. In both cases, real and imaginary political opponents were incarcerated and physically eliminated. In both cases, they were put in camps. In both cases, these camps were called "concentration camps". In both cases, the official goal was world hegemony.
The similarities, however, did not preclude but rather promoted a deadly war between these two regimes.
stfu,
Just because the Nazis claimed to be "socialists" in naming their party doesn't mean that they were.
A famous poem by a German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemoller, states the dangers of Nazi totalitarianism thus:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out -
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.
Several variations of this poem exist, but this is the most widely known. This is the danger of NOT speaking up for those in society that don't fit in your own. That's the real danger - to keep silent against fearmongering and propaganda.
The enemy IS bushCo, and how about watching the .mov file again, and...
...MAYBE THE SO-CALLED LIBERALS ARE WINNING BECAUSE YOU, IN FACT, ARE AMONG A TINY MINORITY. WHEN WILL YOU ADMIT THAT BEING IN THE 2% OF WORLD POPULATION THAT SUPPORTS bush MEANS YOU ARE WRONG??? AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO ADMIT THAT NUMBERS MEAN SOMETHING.