Posted on 01/12/2008 7:00:04 PM PST by Monitor
If you are a conservative, you believe in minimal government intervention into the free market. If you are a fascist, you most certainly do *not* believe that. So as far as economics is concerned, you cannot be both conservative and fascist. But you can certainly be both “liberal” (modern sense) and fascist. It’s really about as simple as that.No you can't. Modern "liberals" fundamentally *cannot* be fascist. Just as conservatism can't be fascist because it doesn't believe in state intervention, liberals don't believe in fetishizing the past, an necessary condition for fascism. How many times do we have to go over this?
“Modern “liberals” fundamentally *cannot* be fascist.”
Baloney. Look at how willing so-called “liberals” are to take away your children and put them in foster care if you do not conform to their standards for raising children.
Look at how willing “liberals” are to confiscate your land if a puddle forms on it!
Hell, they just outlawed incandescent bulbs, for crying out loud. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to use the kind of bulb I want? Free market, my ass. (I actually use CFLs, but it’s the principle here.)
Sorry, but your statement displays an astounding level of ignorance. What are you doing here on FR?
Baloney. Look at how willing so-called “liberals” are to take away your children and put them in foster care if you do not conform to their standards for raising children.Sigh... can you use words with any degree of precision at all? It's rather amusing that you can have the temerity to call anyone else ignorant. You don't even know what fascism *is* do you? I'll give you a little hint, learn the difference between fascism and totalitarianism. Another wise move might be reading some Hannah Arendt.
Look at how willing “liberals” are to confiscate your land if a puddle forms on it!
Hell, they just outlawed incandescent bulbs, for crying out loud. Why shouldn’t I be allowed to use the kind of bulb I want? Free market, my ass. (I actually use CFLs, but it’s the principle here.)
Sorry, but your statement displays an astounding level of ignorance. What are you doing here on FR?
“You don’t even know what fascism *is* do you?”
I’m starting to figure out what’s going on here. I’m arguing with an arrogant liberal. I shouldn’t be wasting my time, but I’ll try to educate you on the basics.
In a nutshell, fascism is a political system in which the government allows private industry to operate and make a profit, but is very heavy-handed in meddling in their operations and practices. Fascists tend to be very hard on smaller businesses. And modern liberalism obviously has a lot in common with fascism.
I’m starting to figure out what’s going on here. I’m arguing with an arrogant liberal. I shouldn’t be wasting my time, but I’ll try to educate you on the basics.Uuuuum... no. You don't understand fascism *at all*. Do you always spout off on things you're desperately ignorant of? Do you even know what a "fasces" is? Or where the term "fascism" came from?
In a nutshell, fascism is a political system in which the government allows private industry to operate and make a profit, but is very heavy-handed in meddling in their operations and practices. Fascists tend to be very hard on smaller businesses. And modern liberalism obviously has a lot in common with fascism.
I disagree.
If one defines fascism as the State controlling the actions of its citizens, then Liberalism and Fascism are the same phenomenon (just advanced to different levels).
You are in error. Fascism at its heart is an economic system. The State lets you own private property; it just tells you what you can do with it.
There is nothing inherent about fascism that "fetishizes" the past.
It would be good for you to give the definition of fascism that you are using. The word has been so misused, it’s meaning is no longer clear.
[Jonah Goldberg explores the political theories of fascism and contends that there are several colloaries between the politics of the left and fascist ideology.]
He is right about that.
[Anyway, as I pointed out in my first post, fascism and liberalism are inherently opposite.]
Political correctness looks, acts, and destroys others rights and opinons and is therefore facism. Note also, that political correctness and nazism are both grounded in socialism, the desire to get along at the cost of free thinking that the conservative mind rejects.
PC is facism, a wolf in sheeps clothing.
You are in error. Fascism at its heart is an economic system. The State lets you own private property; it just tells you what you can do with it.Fascism is first and foremost and *ideology*. The term comes from the Roman fasces, an axe surrounded by a bundle of sticks, meant to suggest unity and an attempt to reestablish an imperial past. German fascism is very similar, the Nazi's goal was to reestablish the "pure" land inhabited by the German "volk".
There is nothing inherent about fascism that "fetishizes" the past.
As far as German Fascism is concerned, you are correct wrt exaltation of one race or ethnic group over all others.
I have found reading Peikoff's book "The Ominous Parallels" quite instructive. Well worth the read.
Liberalism is also concerned with race and ethnicity. It is all about exaltation of all other races and genders over one(white males).
I view them as very similar in tactics and ideology. BTW, I've read Mussolini's famous paper on fascism. I am familiar w/ the definition you reference.
I would agree with others that the economic system put in place by the fascists is the essential part of fascism.
I also agree that nationalism was an ingredient of fascism.
Liberalism is also concerned with race and ethnicity. It is all about exaltation of all other races and genders over one(white males).Liberals don't care about race per se. They care about victimhood. Liberalism identifies obsessively with whoever they think is the "underdog". Hence the support for all of the supposedly "oppressed" sections of society(women, minorities, gays etc...). Race only matters as a method of defining victimhood.
Oh contrare, my FRiend. I work in an organization where the color of one's skin enhances your chances for promotion and plum positions. It's no longer about "victims." Quite a few of the "women and minorities" being advanced are being advanced b/c they are "women and minorities", not "victims."
Oh, Lordy. Now were into pedantic word derivations. At one time I knew all about the derivation of the word “fascism,” but I forgot it, and it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the current discussion.
“Liberalism and fascism *are* similar, but fundamentally comparing the two is an apples and oranges analogy.”
Liberals (modern sense) tend to be socialists. The original Italian and German fascists *were* socialists by every meaningful measure. So liberals and fascists have a lot in common.
Your problem is that you don’t even recognize that the Nazis were socialists, despite the fact that they called themselves socialists and were democratically elected on a socialist platform. So you are in denial of basic reality. Discussions with people like you are very unlikely to be fruitful.
Goldberg’s main thesis is that fascism is a Leftist ideology, and he documents that thesis abundantly and overwhelmingly. The reason fascism is considered “right wing” is because good ol’ Uncle Joe Stalin started that myth to help discredit the fascists. We don’t need to be burdened any longer with Stalinist myths.
One more point about Stalin. I’m not sure if he actually called fascism “right wing,” but he emphatically claimed that it was an abomination and was opposed to communism. So the Western commies assumed that fascism must be a “right wing” ideology because “right” is opposite of “left.” That’s like hearing the leader of the Crips cursing the Bloods — and concluding that the Bloods must therefore be working for the police.
Liberals (modern sense) tend to be socialists. The original Italian and German fascists *were* socialists by every meaningful measure. So liberals and fascists have a lot in common.Uuuum... no. You still don't know what socialism is either. You're stuck on the newspeak definitions which tend to mean "anything I don't like". I'm willing to bet your definition of socialism will be as laughably bad as your definition of fascism.
Your problem is that you don’t even recognize that the Nazis were socialists, despite the fact that they called themselves socialists and were democratically elected on a socialist platform. So you are in denial of basic reality. Discussions with people like you are very unlikely to be fruitful.
Goldberg’s main thesis is that fascism is a Leftist ideology, and he documents that thesis abundantly and overwhelmingly. The reason fascism is considered “right wing” is because good ol’ Uncle Joe Stalin started that myth to help discredit the fascists. We don’t need to be burdened any longer with Stalinist myths.
Oh, Lordy. Now were into pedantic word derivations. At one time I knew all about the derivation of the word “fascism,” but I forgot it, and it is completely and utterly irrelevant to the current discussion.Are you really this ignorant? Is anyone?
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.