Posted on 05/13/2009 12:17:08 PM PDT by Welcome2thejungle
One term that is quite freely bandied about in political discussion without evidently much thought is fascism. While fascism is related to socialism, they should be thought of as cousins, not twins. Both ideologies originated in Europe and both ideologies advocate an all-powerful centralized government. But there are significant differences.
Socialists generally speaking are internationalists who work with eachother across the globe. Fascists are ardent nationalists.
Socialists favor government ownership of the means of production, whereas fascists have no problem with private ownership so long as corporations are compliant with government objectives.
Socialists are ardent secularists and generally disdain organized religion. Fascists often seek and receive the support of the Church and encourage religious participation.
Socialists love social engineering, collective farms and kibbutzes. Fascists are generally socially conservative, support the military, law and order, and traditional family structures.
The archetype fascist, IMHO, was Spain's General Francisco Franco. He was socially conservative, supported the private sector, the military, and the Church.
Is BHO a fascist? In a word, no. He does favor government ownership of the means of production. How many shares of AIG, Citigroup, GM, Chrysler, etc. does the federal government now own? He clearly wants to take over what's left of our private health care system and other industries as well including the automative and energy industries. He hates America and cannot be considered a nationalist in way shape or form and has nothing but contempt for the traditional Church. He also detests the military and is weak on law and order issues as well. He can in no way be described as a social conservative. BHO is clearly a socialist, not a fascist.
While I am not an advocate of fascism, from a conservative point of view it is far more benign than socialism. The late Ambassador, Dr.Jeane Kirkpatrick, found this to be true as well.
Given the choice between Franco and BHO, for me, I would pick General Franco any day over the week over the Marxist radical currently occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
I disagree with the comment that obama is not a nationalist. I think that he is; the nation is just not America.
Obama is a black nationalist, IMO.
Fascism predates Franco.
ping
It is quite false to portray fascists as "traditional", "religious", or "socially conservative". Fascism is a left-wing phenomenon.
I do think you are correct about the national/international divide. Stalin was an International Socialist, and Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco were National Socialists.
Another mistake: Equating Right-Wing Authorianism (Militarism/Nationalism) with Fascism.
Franco was not really Fascist. Pinochet wasn’t Fascist. Pilsudski wasn’t Fascist. A whole lot of right-wing authoritarians are labelled “fascist” without much thought.
Franco was a Nationalist Authoritarian... not a Fascist.
Fascism is a variety of socialism where there is ostensibly private ownership of business, but the state has total control over it.
I disagree that fascists encourage participation in the Church (at least, the Christian church) or that they favor the traditional family structure. Hitler’s Germany was rigidly secular (although they did sort of allow the Church to function, as long as it kept a low profile). Also, it discouraged the traditional family structure by training children to view the State as their “parent” and the proper recipient of love and honor. Children were encouraged to turn in parents who resisted the State.
Socialism+Facism+USA=Progressivism
It is a very interesting issue, indeed.
I disagree. General Franco wasn’t a Fascist, he was simply an authoritarian ruler. His model of rule was simply military: Spain constitued a big military camp.
When a tactic did not work, he simply changed it, as a flexible and intelligent fighter. He abandoned his economical autarchic system in 1959, and tried a more classic liberal one which made Spain the second most growing economy among the developed countries during the 1960’s, just after Japan.
He supported the Spanish Second Republic, he suffocated a rebellion of the Asturian miners in 1934 against it. Only when it was clear that the 1936 left wing government was taking the steps towards a Socialist revolution, he acted.
He used a Fascist party, Falange, as political wing to fill his regime, but he did not create Falange. He used in the same manner the Catholic church: in the Spanish territories in Northern Africa there was full freedom of religion for Muslims, Jews and Christians.
General Franco, economically, was a true Socialist. He defended the average Spaniard against big banks and companies. Under his rule, an average Spaniard could afford two homes: one in the city and one in the beach (today: none). He limited the profits of the traditional Spanish oligarchies and transfered that money to the people. This is the reason, IMHO, of the bad press against him: big fishes (who own the media) do not forgive him that.
Fascism was a kind of collectivist movement developed by oligarchies as a response to Socialism. It was born in Italy, where the big fishes such as Pirelli and Agnelli (FIAT) among other characters such as former aristocrats, propelled Mussolini into power and in some cases, such as Pirelli, were his ministers.
Socialism was truly a popular movement that allowed the establishment of a dictatorship in order to carry out a plan of consecution or redistribution of wealth. Both Lenin and Hitler were Socialist, however, Lenin ruled a simple economy, therefore he did it directly (with terrible results). Hitler could not affor that: Germany’s productive tissue was very complicated. He did in fact own the means of production, when Hitler wanted a popular car, a Volkswagen; engineer Ferdinand Porsche designed it and it began to be produced in a state plant at Wolfsburg, but Hitler preferred to leave the management of the business to the previous owners.
The property of the means of production means nothing in a dictatorship: in the end you have to do what the ruler wants.
I don’t think Obama is a Socialist, at least a true Socialist. IMHO, his links with oligarchies, such as the renewable energies ones and involvement in supporting some big companies make him fall in the other side of your classification.
Sarah Palin, confronting big oil companies in Alaska, IMHO is in the opposite side of Fascism and Socialism: she is a true freedom fighter, a person that will defend the weak before the almighty.
However, such people are rare this days.
I think that you are mis-stating a factor of fascism. In fascism the “people” don’t own anything. It is privately owned and state controlled. It is a kind of symbiotic relationship between the state and elite group of citizens and industries. The people are just serfs. This is where Obamism differs from fascism, under Obamism there is no private ownership or even stockholders or creditors of regulated industries.
Obama’s fascism is really a new form of feudal system. The government are the nobles and the academics take the place of the state run church. The industrialists are like the overseers who manage the private interests at the direction of the elites and union serfs.
We are experiencing economic Fascism, and it is fair to call 0 and our Democrat Congress Fascist. You can go loopy trying to figure out whether of not we fit the Fascist or the Communist mold. The only thing certain is that we are entering new territory. The real confusion in using the terminology of Fascism and Socialism in trying to define our tyrannical oligarchy, comes from the American concept of conservatism and liberalism, right and left. Because American Socialism can be associated with international Communism, the left has always tried to hang the Fascist label around the neck of conservatives, even though American conservatism has nothing to do with Fascism. Fascism is Socialism, which is why 0 and the Socialist Democrats have no reservations in using Fascism to move their agenda, which will eventually give way to international Communism. Our Capitalist system is being usurped by Fascist economics. Call it a step in the Socialist revolution. A case can also be made that the destruction of our culture, liberties and individualism is nothing more than an assault of PC Fascism. Our leftist leaders are as Nazi-like as they come, without firing up the concentration camps, and we will see reeducation camps before they are done. Can we accuse 0 of being Hitleresque while calling him a Marxist? Of course we can, and we are correct in doing so.
Concur. Fascist governments took control of education and encouraged children to give up tradition, and to go against their parents. A new way was on the horizon. The church was coerced to promote the State over God. In fact, the State eventually replaced God in the Fascist states.
I Really think there needs to be a new term for what Obama is doing. We could call it Obamaism.
Where Socialism is the means of achieving Communism, you could see Obamaism as a means of achieving Socialism.
Where Facsism is socially “right-wing” and supports private ownership that is strictly controlled by the govt, you could see Obamaism as “left-wing” Fascism that uses govt regulations to make privately owned owned business die and creates the opportunity to nationalize everything. then voila, Socialism.
Also, i could see Obamaism as militarily inclined, when BO finally has his private army up and ready to “keep the people safe”, if you know what i mean. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.