Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fascism and Socialism: Still Not Opposites
National Review Online ^ | FEBRUARY 22, 2014 | Jonah Goldberg

Posted on 02/22/2014 2:49:10 PM PST by Sherman Logan

The Eurasian movement of Putin and his allies draws from both Nazism and Stalinism.

Dear Reader (Including the trenchcoat-wearing FCC minister with breath like he’s been sucking a urinal cake looking over my shoulder, tapping his BIC pen on his glass eye, and sighing every time I write something he doesn’t like),

I’ve got to bang out this “news”letter pretty quickly. I’m sitting in a too-small fake wicker chair at the coffee shop at the Broadmoor (one of my favorite hotels, btw). The time difference here puts me two hours behind at six in the morning. Plus, I don’t want the housekeeping staff to find the body in my room. If I didn’t need coffee so badly I would have taken care of that already. But one must prioritize. I think the high altitude here is making my brain itch.

FASCISM, AGAIN

Timothy Snyder has written the best piece I’ve seen on what’s going on in Kiev. It’s worth reading just as a primer. But it’s also interesting in other ways. I had not read a lot about the “Eurasian Union,” a proposed counterweight to the European Union, in much the same way the Legion of Doom is a counterweight to the Justice League. Putin and a band of avowed “National Bolshevik” intellectuals are in effect trying to put the band back together. Snyder writers:

The Eurasian Union is the enemy of the European Union, not just in strategy but in ideology. The European Union is based on a historical lesson: that the wars of the twentieth century were based on false and dangerous ideas, National Socialism and Stalinism, which must be rejected and indeed overcome in a system guaranteeing free markets, free movement of people, and the welfare state. Eurasianism, by contrast, is presented by its advocates as the opposite of liberal democracy.

The Eurasian ideology draws an entirely different lesson from the twentieth century. Founded around 2001 by the Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin, it proposes the realization of National Bolshevism. Rather than rejecting totalitarian ideologies, Eurasianism calls upon politicians of the twenty-first century to draw what is useful from both fascism and Stalinism. Dugin’s major work, The Foundations of Geopolitics, published in 1997, follows closely the ideas of Carl Schmitt, the leading Nazi political theorist. Eurasianism is not only the ideological source of the Eurasian Union, it is also the creed of a number of people in the Putin administration, and the moving force of a rather active far-right Russian youth movement. For years Dugin has openly supported the division and colonization of Ukraine.

The point man for Eurasian and Ukrainian policy in the Kremlin is Sergei Glazyev, an economist who like Dugin tends to combine radical nationalism with nostalgia for Bolshevism. He was a member of the Communist Party and a Communist deputy in the Russian parliament before cofounding a far-right party called Rodina, or Motherland. In 2005 some of its deputies signed a petition to the Russian prosecutor general asking that all Jewish organizations be banned from Russia.

Some of this was news to me. I was familiar with the National Bolshevism of the early Nazi years. Thinkers like the Ukrainian Bolshevik Karl Radek and the Nazi Otto Strasser dabbled with the idea of merging Bolshevik and Nazi ideology. After all, if you’re already a National Socialist it’s not that long a trip to being a National Bolshevik, now is it? Some left-wing members of the Nazi military described themselves as National Bolsheviks as well. But ultimately, National Bolshevism as an intellectual movement died in the crib. Or so I thought.

What I did not know is that National Bolshevism is making such a comeback. And while, it’s evil and a national-security threat and all that, I can’t help but smile.

THE OPPOSITE OF OPPOSITES

National Bolshevism must strike some on the left as quite perplexing. After all, Bolshevism and Nazism — like fascism and socialism — are opposites, right?

If you read my book, you’d know I consider this the greatest myth and/or lie of the 20th century (coming in a distant second: the idea that there is a difference between good flan and bad flan).

Funny enough, the Eurasianists are counting on this myth for their propaganda campaign. They insist that the protesters in Kiev are trying to stage a “brown revolution” or fascist coup. In other words the de facto fascists are calling the anti-fascists “fascists.” And apparently lots of folks are falling for it. Snyder again:

Why exactly do people with such views think they can call other people fascists? And why does anyone on the Western left take them seriously? One line of reasoning seems to run like this: the Russians won World War II, and therefore can be trusted to spot Nazis. Much is wrong with this. . . .

The other source of purported Eurasian moral legitimacy seems to be this: since the representatives of the Putin regime only very selectively distanced themselves from Stalinism, they are therefore reliable inheritors of Soviet history, and should be seen as the automatic opposite of Nazis, and therefore to be trusted to oppose the far right.

Again, much is wrong about this. . . .

Snyder’s rebuttals are good (I’ve trimmed them mostly for space). But they don’t cut to the heart of it.

First, let’s clear some underbrush. The idea that Communism and Nazism are opposites is more of a utilitarian idea than a core conviction for the Left. It is a rationalization that allows the Left to cut around the historical tumor of Nazism and fascism and say, That has nothing to do with us.

But the simple fact is that the hard Left has always endorsed or at least sympathized with national-socialist countries. What do you think Cuba is? It’s nationalistic and it’s socialistic. Venezuela under Chávez and now Maduro is nationalist and socialist. Nicaragua in the 1980s, etc., etc. Read a speech by any socialist dictator and swap out the word “socialize” for “nationalize”: The meaning of the sentences doesn’t change one iota. Nationalized health care is socialized medicine. Even Obama’s weak-tea socialistic rhetoric is usually dolled up in the rhetoric of nationalism, even militaristic nationalism. Let’s all be like SEAL Team Six! Let’s make this a “Sputnik Moment.”

Most of the Left in the U.S. didn’t really hate the German national-socialists until Stalin told them to. That the useful idiots thought Stalin’s command to turn on his one-time Nazi ally was rooted in deep ideological conviction just proves the depths of their idiocy.

After all, it’s not like the Left suddenly turned on Stalin when he embraced nationalism wholeheartedly and talked of fighting the Nazis as part of the “Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.” But, hey, maybe I’m missing the deep Marxist themes in the phrase “Great Patriotic War for Mother Russia.”

NORTH KOREA BY ANOTHER NAME

If you think this is all semantic faculty-lounge argy-bargy, consider the fact that North Korea is in many ways as “Nazi” as the Nazis were. It’s a nationalist country that subscribes to eugenic theories that it uses to justify the industrial torture and slaughter of its own citizens. In fact, North Korea’s eugenics is crazier than Nazi Germany’s was. I’m not trying to minimize the evil of the Holocaust, but “Jew” is a real category of human being and eugenics generally weren’t discredited in the 1930s. Eighty years later, North Korea believes that the political views of people are genetically heritable for generations. So you can get sent to a death camp if your great uncle said something nice about America or if your second cousin lives in South Korea.

But because of the emotional and political investment in the idea that Nazism has nothing to do with Communism, North Korea is put in a category of lesser evil. If the Kims just described themselves as Nazis — but kept all of the same policies — it would be vastly easier to rally public opinion against their decades of murder. But when you talk about the evil of Communist regimes, a lot of people idiotically roll their eyes. Everyone is a brave anti-Nazi now that they’re all gone, but many are afraid to devote a fraction of that passion when it comes to the heirs, imitators, and competitors of Nazism.

HERESIES OF HERESIES

Richard Pipes had the best pithy summation of the difference between Nazism and Bolshevism. They aren’t opposites, he argued, they’re both “heresies of socialism.”

I agree with this entirely, but step back from that a bit. Socialism itself is a heresy — a heresy of tribalism. Socialism is simply an attempt to gussy up ancient tribal tendencies in modern garb. Nazism was tribalism of one race. Communism is tribalism of one class. Italian fascism was tribalism of one nation.

There are of course, better and worse forms of tribalism. And, I would argue that a little tribalism, like a little nationalism, is a healthy thing, insofar as communities aren’t held together by reason alone. They’re held together by a complex set of sentiments, and a politics that doesn’t take account of that will necessarily fail. As Edmund Burke writes, “politics ought to be adjusted not to human reasonings but to human nature, of which the reason is but a part, and by no means the greatest part.”

But here is the important point. Looking back on the long history of humanity, tribalism — simple or complex — was the norm for 99 percent of our time on Earth. It wasn’t until 200-300 years ago that a different path emerged. (Yes, Christianity was a big leap forward in advancing a universal conception of humanity, in principle. But in practice it was often coopted by tribalism in one form or another. We can talk about that more another time.) The different path emerged largely in England and spread from there. This different path recognized the sovereignty of the individual, the necessity of the rule of law, democratic legitimacy, and private property, and the inherent dignity of bourgeois labor.

As I’ve written before, what makes America special is that we took England’s culture of liberty and broadened it out into a virtual tribe of liberty. I say virtual because we took the ethnic and racial components out of it (and, no, we didn’t do it overnight). You can be a progressive or a liberal or a social democrat and still believe in all of the things that define the tribe of liberty. You can also be a nationalist, a patriot, or a traditionalist and believe in all of these things. But go too far in either direction and you can fall off the path. Perhaps path is the wrong word. Bridge might make more sense. After all there’s a left side and a right side of the road. But if you fall off a bridge, all you do is fall down.

Seen from this perspective the differences between Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, Italian Fascism, North Korean Juche, et al may be interesting or meaningful (the differences between football and rugby are interesting and meaningful, but at the end of the day they’re both just games). But seen from the broadest perspective, they’re simply different ways to fall off the bridge and back into the wilderness below.

VARIOUS AND SUNDRY

My apologies if this “news”letter was lacking in verve and panache this week. Maybe it’s the fact the Couch couldn’t make it out West this week.

Also, if you want to unsubscribe from this “news”letter, by all means do so. But in the spirit of William F. Buckley, let me ask you that you cancel your own damn subscription. I have asked the suits to put in or restore the unsubscribe button (I could’ve sworn there used to be one).

Quick Zoë update. As I’ve said before, we’re pretty sure that Zoë is a Carolina dog, and not a German Shepherd mix. She may be a mix of all sorts of stuff, of course. Though readers who think she’s a Shiba Inu are probably giving a bit too much credit to the stock of stray dogs in rural South Carolina. Anyway, healthwise she seems to be thriving. But behaviorally she is a major handful. Obsessed with tracking down “treats” in the dirt and the snow, she’s not much interested in listening to her humans. The other day, Zoë found a rabbit’s head under the snow and ran off with it. She wouldn’t drop it for anything, much to my wife’s dismay. She’s also turning into a dirt eater, which is bad enough outside. But inside is a real problem, which is why we’re going to put cayenne pepper in our potted plants. On the upside, she remains improbably cute and her commitment to squirrel chasing is total.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Russia
KEYWORDS: europeanunion; fascism; jonahgoldberg; nazis; nazism; russia; socialism; stalin; stalinism; ukraine; viktoryanukovich
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last
Long one. Also this is one of Jonah's G-Files, so it's pretty informal.

I think this is one of the best descriptions I've seen of modern statist ideologies:

Socialism is simply an attempt to gussy up ancient tribal tendencies in modern garb. Nazism was tribalism of one race. Communism is tribalism of one class. Italian fascism was tribalism of one nation. ...

You can be a progressive or a liberal or a social democrat and still believe in all of the things that define the tribe of liberty. You can also be a nationalist, a patriot, or a traditionalist and believe in all of these things. But go too far in either direction and you can fall off the path. Perhaps path is the wrong word. Bridge might make more sense. After all there’s a left side and a right side of the road. But if you fall off a bridge, all you do is fall down.

Seen from this perspective the differences between Bolshevism, Nazism, Maoism, Italian Fascism, North Korean Juche, et al may be interesting or meaningful (the differences between football and rugby are interesting and meaningful, but at the end of the day they’re both just games). But seen from the broadest perspective, they’re simply different ways to fall off the bridge and back into the wilderness below.

1 posted on 02/22/2014 2:49:10 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Fascism and Socialism are brother and sister


2 posted on 02/22/2014 2:50:30 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
Hayek covers Communism, Fascism, and Socialism nicely in two paragraphs.

Although our modern socialists' promise of greater freedom is genuine and sincere, in recent years observer after observer has been impressed by the unforeseen consequences of socialism, the extraordinary similarity in many respects of the conditions under "communism" and "fascism." As the writer Peter Drucker expressed it in 1939, "the complete collapse of the belief in the attainability of freedom and equality through Marxism has forced Russia to travel the same road toward a totalitarian society of un-freedom and inequality which Germany has been following. Not that communism and fascism are essentially the same. Fascism is the stage reached after communism has proved an illusion, and it has proved as much an illusion in Russia as in pre-Hitler Germany."

No less significant is the intellectual outlook of the rank and file in the communist and fascist movements in Germany before 1933. The relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa was well known, best of all to the propagandists of the two parties. The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related. To both, the real enemy, the man with whom they had nothing in common, was the liberal of the old type. While to the Nazi the communist and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits made of the right timber, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom.

-- F.A. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom

3 posted on 02/22/2014 2:53:32 PM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Any socialist nation is intrinsically fascistic in character.

It has to be, in order to function.


4 posted on 02/22/2014 2:53:42 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

not much difference between Fascism and Socialism, except F is honest enough not to lie to you all the time trying to tell you that your oppression is for your own good


5 posted on 02/22/2014 2:55:32 PM PST by faithhopecharity (" ur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Just a subspecies of each other which easily interbreed.

Workers of all lands, unite - to smash the rule of English capitalism! You young upward-striving nations of the earth, combine to annihilate the old English dragon who blocks the treasures of the earth and withholds from you the riches of the world.

-Robert Ley, German Labor Front leader under Hitler. (Hitler's pet trumpka) He'd be right at home with the Occupy Wall street morons.
6 posted on 02/22/2014 2:57:32 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Yes, a lot of the rhetoric was identical too


7 posted on 02/22/2014 2:59:20 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: faithhopecharity
F is honest enough not to lie to you all the time trying to tell you that your oppression is for your own good

I'm not so sure this is accurate.

As JG says, Nazism says it is good for members of the chosen race, Communism says it's good for members of the chosen class, and Italian fascism always said it was good for Italians.

8 posted on 02/22/2014 2:59:37 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Yes, we do see examples of that from time to time.

Why Play Cold War Games in Ukraine?
Copyright 2014 Creators.com The American Conservative ^ | February 21, 2014, 12:00 AM | Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3125498/posts

Communism, fascism—the same, in effect, as seen from descendants of many generations of Americans.


9 posted on 02/22/2014 3:01:16 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of corruption smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

bttt


10 posted on 02/22/2014 3:01:24 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

>>Fascism and Socialism are brother and sister<<

The parent is Totalitarianism.

I am sick of the left saying when we note that obozo is both a fascist and a communist that traditional labels mean these are opposites.

They are the same and we have been laboring under them both for the last 5 years.


11 posted on 02/22/2014 3:03:23 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Fight Tapinophobia in all its forms! Do not submit to arduus privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

EU is fascist as well


12 posted on 02/22/2014 3:04:46 PM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

The Nazi party planks were virtually identical to the OWS list of demands.


13 posted on 02/22/2014 3:06:47 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Balint Vazsonyi, author of “America’s 30 Years War,” said it better and in fewer words: Nazism and Communism are the ultimate Marxist competitors.


14 posted on 02/22/2014 3:07:06 PM PST by sergeantdave (Chase the worm to bottom of the Tequila bottle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

maybe right.

(still, Communism does tend to shout a lot more, I think, than fascism about how “good” it is for you...it seems anyway.

and Naziism was just the German version of Communism/socialism


15 posted on 02/22/2014 3:10:39 PM PST by faithhopecharity (" ur)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

That is really hyperbolic.

Depending on definition, all modern political systems are fascistic to varying degrees.

But there’s a huge difference between 10% fascist and 90% fascist.

IMO, referring to EU or USA as fascist in the same sense that N. Korea, China or Russia are is hyperbolic.


16 posted on 02/22/2014 3:11:36 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 4rcane

The EU is certainly socialistic which is leading to its inevitable collapse. Its when they collapse that things get nasty.


17 posted on 02/22/2014 3:15:27 PM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Here is a definition of Fascism .....

“dictatorial movement: any movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism”

Change extreme nationalism to blind party loyalty and you pretty well much have it.

Just remember, ‘centralized control of private enterprise’ means they pick their ideological friends to control the manufacturing and commerce of the people.


18 posted on 02/22/2014 3:19:04 PM PST by Usagi_yo (Standardization is an Evolutionary dead end.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan


19 posted on 02/22/2014 3:23:41 PM PST by Iron Munro ("Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime." - Lavrentiy Beria (& Eric Holder))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
The Eurasian movement of Putin and his allies draws from both Nazism and Stalinism.

So does Obama and the Democrats. Same deal, different century.

The end results will be the same as it is when all Utopian Statists achieve the levels of power that they have:

Genocide and suffering of millions.

20 posted on 02/22/2014 3:26:22 PM PST by INVAR ("Fart for liberty, fart for freedom and fart proudly!" - Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave
Nazism and Communism are the ultimate Marxist competitors.

Sorry, but I can't buy that one.

Nazism was anti-Marxist in the extreme.

Americans, for some obscure reason, have a tendency to think of Marxism and socialism as synonyms.

In actual fact, of course, Marxism is merely one branch of the socialist tree.

Marxism is international socialism, all the workers are to gang up on their oppressors.

Nazism, as its name says, is national socialism. All Germans, and by racist extension all Aryans, are to gang up on people of all other "races."

IOW, Marxism organizes the workers of the world horizontally, Nazism organizes the Aryans of the world vertically.

They cut across each other and are therefore deadly enemies. They are both socialists, but Nazism is not Marxist.

That is why, as others have noted, a young German of the 30s could switch so easily. Just begin thinking of himself as German Aryan first, rather than an internationalist socialist worker, and voila!

21 posted on 02/22/2014 3:31:04 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I always recall reading a speech of Herman Goering’s from the mid 30s. To paraphrase it, in fascism you must have nationalism AND socialism because one without the other will not meet the needs of the people.


22 posted on 02/22/2014 3:39:25 PM PST by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

In the case of russia/china theres very little political freedom, but they have a lot more economic freedom than US.

Do US have political freedom or just an illusion of political freedom when both major party believe the same thing?


23 posted on 02/22/2014 3:41:08 PM PST by 4rcane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

bump


24 posted on 02/22/2014 3:41:18 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
More like cousins. Fascism gives the pretense of private ownership. Yes you can own your factory but we(the state) control the production process.Yes you can own your own home but we're going to tell you how to live in it. What you can set your thermostat at. What kind of light bulbs you will use and what kind of(low flush) toilet you will have and what kind of health insurance you must buy. (sound familiar?) Socialism, which to me is out and out communism makes no pretense of private ownership at all. Everything belongs ''to the people''(the state). What all three, if you will, have in common, besides being totalitarian systems, is no private ownership of your thoughts, your speech or writings. I hate all three of them and anyone who believes in them. My kid brother is an Obama supporter, big time. He and I haven't spoken to each other since my mothers funeral eight years ago. I could give a rip where he is or what he's doing quite honestly.
25 posted on 02/22/2014 3:44:11 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

bump


26 posted on 02/22/2014 3:48:55 PM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

National Socialism and International Socialism are just two different denominations in the same “church”.

The fight between them is of the same order as that which once existed between the Protestants and the Roman Catholic Church. Both obeyed the same deity, but were torn apart on doctrinal differences. Of course, the schism between the two branches never, ever, was as bloody as the confrontation between Josef Stalin and Adolf Hitler. But it went on for a lot longer.

Likewise with the Nazis (Fascists) and the Soviets. Vladimir Putin is just the person who has formed an amalgamation, and a “ecumenical” reconciliation of the factions.

That does not make the existential threat of socialism any less deadly.


27 posted on 02/22/2014 3:50:12 PM PST by alloysteel (Obamacare - Death and Taxes now available online. One-stop shopping at its best!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alloysteel

The danger is that fascism is always the softer sell than communism. See my post above.


28 posted on 02/22/2014 3:52:46 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Fascism and Socialism are brother and sister

I prefer to think of them as Al Capone vs Bugs Moran -- both vicious criminals who will kill anyone, with no remorse, that happens to get in their way.

29 posted on 02/22/2014 4:16:46 PM PST by Ditto
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

I respect your opinion, but you’re off base.

The tenets of both communism and Nazism are dipped from the same Marxist river.

I’m not about to go through the whole sphere of Marxist thought to convince you that communism and Nazism are integral branches of the Marxism tree.

On the surface, I think that you’re embracing the incorrect European communist definition of Nazism, a conscious effort by the Euro-commies to separate themselves from their philosophical Marxist Nazi brothers.

Best wishes, FRiend


30 posted on 02/22/2014 4:22:44 PM PST by sergeantdave (Chase the worm to bottom of the Tequila bottle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

I am stealing that poster! Thanks, FRiend! ;-)


31 posted on 02/22/2014 4:45:01 PM PST by RebelBanker (May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Capitalism: two people come together to agree on a price.

Socialism: two people come together to agree the other one is going to do it.

Fascism: the state agrees the other person needs supervision.

Communism: the state agrees the other person works for it.


32 posted on 02/22/2014 4:46:19 PM PST by depressed in 06 (America conceived in liberty, dies in slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

Obviously I disagree. But thanks for being polite about it.


33 posted on 02/22/2014 5:00:22 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

I hate toubled times.


34 posted on 02/22/2014 5:03:51 PM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan
That the useful idiots thought Stalin’s command to turn on his one-time Nazi ally was rooted in deep ideological conviction just proves the depths of their idiocy.

Stalin only turned against Hitler when his non-aggression buddy broke his word and invaded him. Really unusual for Jonah to forget this.

Nationalism, like socialism, is collectivistic. National identity and patriotism are, after all, collective identities. The European right are far more focused on the traditional "organic" national collective than the American right is. As I have often pointed out on this forum, it was not a Communist but a French right winger who said "the individual is nothing; society is everything."

Nationalism was also originally a left-wing ideology aimed at the traditional complex and interlocking European aristocratic system. After the French Revolution various nationalities began to agitate for a state of their own rather than be ruled as subject peoples of emperors and kings of various kinds. One of the earliest of these romantic left wing nationalist movements was in Greece, where Lord Byron romantically died of some disease while hoping to romantically restore ancient Athens. Then you had the Irish, Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Serbs, Finns, Lithuanians, Albanians, Armenians, and just about every other group you can think of. The nationalism of the Irish (and of the other Celtic peoples) is still this Jacobin-influenced French Revolutionary variety.

It was only in the later nineteenth century that nationalism migrated to the right side of the spectrum with the celebration of localism and traditionalism as opposed to the universalism and rationalism of the early leftist nationalists.

Marxism has always been a form of left wing nationalism simply because it has always advocated (or claimed to advocate) "self-determination," which is essentially the same thing as the "planet of peoples" the European right wants so badly to create. And then after World War II the anti-colonialism movement began and nationalism rather than Communism began the selling point for the USSR and the International Left. Even "indigenous" religions are celebrated by the formerly atheist left in such organizations as the American Indian Movement.

Individualism is also an exceedingly complex ideology, and is present in both the left and the right. Some on the American right overestimate the importance of individualism in their own ideology IMHO.

35 posted on 02/22/2014 5:12:54 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Political Science bump for later.....


36 posted on 02/22/2014 5:15:43 PM PST by indthkr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; sergeantdave; Sherman Logan; wideawake; All
More like cousins. Fascism gives the pretense of private ownership. Yes you can own your factory but we(the state) control the production process.Yes you can own your own home but we're going to tell you how to live in it. What you can set your thermostat at. What kind of light bulbs you will use and what kind of(low flush) toilet you will have and what kind of health insurance you must buy. (sound familiar?) Socialism, which to me is out and out communism makes no pretense of private ownership at all. Everything belongs ''to the people''(the state). What all three, if you will, have in common, besides being totalitarian systems, is no private ownership of your thoughts, your speech or writings. I hate all three of them and anyone who believes in them. My kid brother is an Obama supporter, big time. He and I haven't spoken to each other since my mothers funeral eight years ago. I could give a rip where he is or what he's doing quite honestly.

There is one major component of Fascism--especially the Catholic, Mediterranean, non-nordic Fascism practiced in greater or lesser degree by Fascist Italy, Franco Spain, Salazar Portugal, Vargas Brazil, Dollfuss Austria, and perhaps Peronist Argentina (though I'm not sure about this last one) that most Americans completely miss noticing because it is so radically different from anything they are used to. And that is the abolition of an ideological/partisan parliament in favor of a legislative body made up of various occupational groups (in Italy this was called the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations). The goal was to replace representation by ideology with representation by the various functions of society (Fascist "corporatism"). In Spain and Portugal, political parties as such did not exist at all, because they were considered unnecessary and undesirable. The whole point was a population wholly "organically" united by societal function like a living body, which was the original meaning of "totalitarianism" as advocated by Mussolini.

Of course, Nazism's racial obsessions have become the prime definition of "fascism," especially on the left. Because of America's unique racial situation (a situation older than the country itself), Americans naturally are drawn to this issue. The original Fascist corporatist concept, so essential to capital-F Fascism, is scarcely noticed by any American politician or philosopher of politics.

I note that at least two of the regimes enumerated above (Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal) are held in high regard by even conventional American conservatives. How familiar those admirers are of the corporatist ideology I do not know.

37 posted on 02/22/2014 5:36:23 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

The Nazis could hardly be called Marxist since unlike the Communists in Russia they didn’t abolish private property, didn’t abolish the Church, in fact they invented their own church, The Reich Church with Ludwig Muller as its bishop.


38 posted on 02/22/2014 5:39:41 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

I see your point regarding the Mediterranean variety .Mussolini’s Italy and Franco’s Spain were not the kind of industrial societies that Germany was so it’s natural for the various sectors of these societies(tradesmen, farmers, students, etc) to be the major representatives of this form of fascism. Another glaring and deliberate tactic of the Left is to call fascism and fascists ‘’right wing’’. Fascism is and always will be a creation of the Left.


39 posted on 02/22/2014 5:51:59 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
The corporatism of Mediterranean fascism was based on its predecessor movement that competed with Communism: anarchosyndicalism.

Mussolini was a syndicalist, and most of these movements looked up to socialist theorist Georges Sorel as an alternative to orthodox Marxism.

Sorel's Reflections sur la Violence

was a textbook.

The Nazism-skeptical German right wing jurist, Carl Schmitt, wrote an excellent book about the anarchosyndicalist emphasis on myth and culture versus the orthodox Marxist emphasis on "science" and "historicism."

40 posted on 02/22/2014 5:58:35 PM PST by wideawake
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
“If the Fuhrer wants it two and two make five!''.-- Hermann Goering.
41 posted on 02/22/2014 6:00:18 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa
Fascism is and always will be a creation of the Left.

::Sigh:: By continuing to confuse the American and European concept of rightism, you show you paid no attention to what I said.

In Europe this organic collectivism is right wing. American-style individualism is not.

42 posted on 02/22/2014 6:02:41 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator

Look dude, Fascism is a leftist ideology, period. You aren’t paying attention bozo.


43 posted on 02/22/2014 6:04:27 PM PST by jmacusa ("Chasing God out of the classroom didn't usher in The Age of Reason''.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Try reading Balint Vazsonyi. It might change your mind. He was a brilliant pianist who lived under both Nazism and then communism. He concluded that there was no difference between the two. His writings are mind-opening.

Cheers.


44 posted on 02/22/2014 6:04:41 PM PST by sergeantdave (Chase the worm to bottom of the Tequila bottle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
Thank you for your contributions on this subject. As always, you know more about this subject than all the rest of us put together.

But I must ask one non-hostile question: do you see any connection between this syndicalist/fascist corporatism and the ideology of the Catholic Middle Ages or of Rerum Novarum?

45 posted on 02/22/2014 6:05:49 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
-- Benito Mussolini

It sounds sort of left-wing to me.

But your write-up on Corporatism is very good. Most Americans, I think, are not familiar with the concept.

46 posted on 02/22/2014 6:07:51 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa

“The Nazis could hardly be called Marxist since unlike the Communists in Russia they didn’t abolish private property, didn’t abolish the Church, in fact they invented their own church...”

Marxism is not about abolishing private property. That’s communism. Marxism is about controlling private property. With communism, you abolish private property to control it. With fascism, you control private property via the bureaucracy. Both communism and fascism attain the same goal - giving government control of private property, whether through government control or abolishment.

It’s nuanced, for sure. But either way - through communism or fascism - individuals have no property rights.

Take care, jmacusa.


47 posted on 02/22/2014 6:23:29 PM PST by sergeantdave (Chase the worm to bottom of the Tequila bottle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.
-- Benito Mussolini

It sounds sort of left-wing to me.

To an American it sounds "left wing." The European left was at one point very anti-state and anarchistic.

There are left and right wing statists, left and right wing anarchists.

48 posted on 02/22/2014 6:35:33 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator (The Left: speaking power to truth since Shevirat HaKelim.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: jmacusa; Zionist Conspirator; wideawake
Fascism is a leftist ideology, period.

You really need to go beyond Jonah Goldberg's sound bites and learn some history.

The very definitions of "Left" and "Right" go back to the French Revolution, when the radical anti-monarchists with their mantra of liberte, egalite, fraternite sat on the Left aisles of the National Assembly while the conservative monarchists sat in the Right aisles. From then on, "Left" and "Right" were not defined in terms of the size of government, but by whether the political movements worked to overthrow the traditional hierarchy of the aristocracy, the Church, and the landowner classes vs. upholding them in some form. By this and any reasonable historical definition, fascists were reactionary right-wing movements while Communists and Socialists were radical left-wing movements.

The first thing Bolsheviks and other Communists did when they came to power is line up aristocrats, military officers, and clergymen in front of firing squads. In contrast, fascists presented themselves as defenders of the aristocracy, the Churches, the military officers, as well as the bankers and industrialists.

If, as you and Goldberg argue, Communism and Fascism are "the same," perhaps you could explain why it is that when Fascists came to power, the first thing they did was crack down on labor unions and restore property to landowners and noblemen, while the first thing Communists did was to seize the property of aristocrats and landowners and give them to "worker's communes."

Now, as to the counterargument that Fascism and Communism are both anti-individualistic and authoritarian, the response is that this has nothing to do with Left or Right-wing ideology. The military in general and the Marine Corps in particular are profoundly anti-individualistic. Does that make the USMC a "Left Wing" institution? Theocratic governments and absolute monarchies from the 17th and 18th centuries were authoritarian, but I've yet to hear Louis XIV or Frederick the Great called "left-wing radicals." I doubt they'd have much in common with Karl Marx.

49 posted on 02/22/2014 6:44:46 PM PST by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Zionist Conspirator
To an American it sounds "left wing." The European left was at one point very anti-state and anarchistic.

There are left and right wing statists, left and right wing anarchists.

That's right. Anarchism was historically considered a Left Wing movement, because it sought to overthrow the aristocracy, the clergy, and the landowners/industrialists. Nobody of sound mind considered Mikhail Bakunin a reactionary or a conservative because he was anti-government, because he and other radicals saw the government of their times as tools of the hated upper classes. Come to think of it, didn't Marx and Engels write that the state would "wither away" once independent worker's communes were established? Does this make them "conservatives"?

50 posted on 02/22/2014 6:52:49 PM PST by ek_hornbeck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-99 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson