Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What is Fascism?
Couples Company ^

Posted on 01/30/2003 7:00:27 PM PST by John Lenin

click here to read article

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 next last
To: Tallguy
China's government will not be toppled by the rural mob. The PLA officier corps is completely loyal to the memory of Deng Xiaoping( a very unfairly maligned guy on FR, he was a good cold war ally and he really turned China around) and will back whoever they consider his legitimate heir. The unemployed will not be able to topple the Government under such a circumstance, if there is an attempted revolt for every unit which joins with the rebels there will be 4 or 5 which remain loyal.
101 posted on 01/31/2003 7:51:19 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: sneakypete
Hey, thanks for the excellent clarification. You paint a gloomy picture of the future, but one that sounds all too true.

As an aside, one day a few years ago I asked a friend of mine who is from China what holidays they celebrated. His answer was..."all the UN holidays". That really reveals something, doesn't it?

102 posted on 01/31/2003 7:53:26 AM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: weikel
I'm not suggesting that the rural chinese are opposed to the current regime in China, quite the opposite. It was not Beijing-based army units that put down the Tienanmen Square demonstration. The Chinese politburo has got to ride that particular Tiger (the unemployed rural migrants) or they will be adopted by a rival political movement. I think that this is the reason for the crackdown on the Faulong Gong movement.
103 posted on 01/31/2003 8:05:06 AM PST by Tallguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Tallguy
The paranoia about the Falun Gong( I heard they're real whackjobs from a friend from China its not your typical Eastern sect, and im a fan of Buddhism/Taoism myself) has to do with other cults in Chinese history which gained a following and either overthrew the government( Ming Dynasty came about by a guy who rid a cult to power) or were only put down after a long and bloody civil war( Yellow Turban Rebellion, Taiping Rebellion, lesser extent the Boxer Rebellion). The persecution of Christians from what I hear is largely confined to the Catholic church or any other churches the gov thinks are ecumenial and aligned with Rome indirectly, don't blame them for not trusting the RCC but I won't elaborate on my views there for fear of banning.
104 posted on 01/31/2003 8:15:18 AM PST by weikel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Straight from the horses mouth.

Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State.

Sounds like just another way to say socialism/communism. True communism has never been practised because there were always a few men in the government who owned/controlled the factories. Thats why socialism is really communism, it just hides behind the facade that the factories are owned by the state.
105 posted on 01/31/2003 8:16:19 AM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
it just hides behind the facade that the factories are owned by the state.

Make that that the factories work for the benefit of the people and the state.
106 posted on 01/31/2003 8:21:26 AM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: weikel; Sparta
In regards to the knowledge of the German population and the members of the Wehrmarcht about the holocaust, I think most people were either ignorant or willfully ignorant about it


Hitler in fact refused a lot of foreign volunteers, including the entire Russian and Ukranian population( which he stupidly abused to the point they turned on the Germans).

Agreed. What is often overlooked is that the Russians and Ukranians looked upon the Germans as liberators. The Wehrmacht left them alone. It was Himmlers boys that came in afterwards and abused the native population to the point that Stalin was able to coax them to fight for their motherland. This is an often overooked turning point in the war as the Germans divert troops to watch their supply lines.

Franco did send a division of volunteers to the Eastern Front).

Yup. the famed Blue Division. Hard core fanatical anti-communists. When the Bulgarians, Romanians, and Italians fled in droves the Blue Division dug in and killed commies by the busload.

Pinochet was an unblemished hero.

Absolutely. While South America plunges into the abyss Chile kicks ass. In fact they make us look like socialists.

107 posted on 01/31/2003 8:28:18 AM PST by MattinNJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: marron
Fascism is right-wing socialism, which is to say, nationalist socialism, as opposed to left-wing socialism, which is to say, internationalist socialism (communism).


dude, 'marron' is misspelled...put the pipe down and try again...

108 posted on 01/31/2003 9:29:47 AM PST by martin gibson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
The "third way" was exactly the phrase that the Nazis would try to use to convince Americans to join them instead of the evil communists or evil capitalists.
109 posted on 01/31/2003 9:35:51 AM PST by techcor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x
"Nice Couple Poll to Freep"

Have you ever experienced an orgasm with a man inside?

With a man inside what? The house? :) Notice that only 55 people have responded to the poll. I'd say you need at least 150 - 200 votes to acquire an adequate represenation.

110 posted on 01/31/2003 9:37:20 AM PST by tuna_battle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tuna_battle
If by "ideology" you mean "a view of the way that other people should run their lives, that . . . you (( link )) - - - are justified in imposing on them by force", then the truth of the claim that ideology is irreversibly evil is obvious on the face of it.

4 posted on 01/22/2003 5:01 PM PST by jdege

111 posted on 01/31/2003 12:16:02 PM PST by f.Christian (Orcs of the world: Take note and beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
Fascism: Some General Ideological Features

by Matthew N. Lyons

I am skeptical of efforts to produce a "definition" of fascism. As a dynamic historical current, fascism has taken many different forms, and has evolved dramatically in some ways. To understand what fascism has encompassed as a movement and a system of rule, we have to look at its historical context and development--as a form of counter-revolutionary politics that first arose in early twentieth-century Europe in response to rapid social upheaval, the devastation of World War I, and the Bolshevik Revolution. The following paragraphs are intented as an initial, open-ended sketch.

Fascism is a form of extreme right-wing ideology that celebrates the nation or the race as an organic community transcending all other loyalties. It emphasizes a myth of national or racial rebirth after a period of decline or destruction. To this end, fascism calls for a "spiritual revolution" against signs of moral decay such as individualism and materialism, and seeks to purge "alien" forces and groups that threaten the organic community. Fascism tends to celebrate masculinity, youth, mystical unity, and the regenerative power of violence. Often, but not always, it promotes racial superiority doctrines, ethnic persecution, imperialist expansion, and genocide. At the same time, fascists may embrace a form of internationalism based on either racial or ideological solidarity across national boundaries. Usually fascism espouses open male supremacy, though sometimes it may also promote female solidarity and new opportunities for women of the privileged nation or race.

Fascism's approach to politics is both populist--in that it seeks to activate "the people" as a whole against perceived oppressors or enemies--and elitist--in that it treats the people's will as embodied in a select group, or often one supreme leader, from whom authority proceeds downward. Fascism seeks to organize a cadre-led mass movement in a drive to seize state power. It seeks to forcibly subordinate all spheres of society to its ideological vision of organic community, usually through a totalitarian state. Both as a movement and a regime, fascism uses mass organizations as a system of integration and control, and uses organized violence to suppress opposition, although the scale of violence varies widely.

Fascism is hostile to Marxism, liberalism, and conservatism, yet it borrows concepts and practices from all three. Fascism rejects the principles of class struggle and workers' internationalism as threats to national or racial unity, yet it often exploits real grievances against capitalists and landowners through ethnic scapegoating or radical-sounding conspiracy theories. Fascism rejects the liberal doctrines of individual autonomy and rights, political pluralism, and representative government, yet it advocates broad popular participation in politics and may use parliamentary channels in its drive to power. Its vision of a "new order" clashes with the conservative attachment to tradition-based institutions and hierarchies, yet fascism often romanticizes the past as inspiration for national rebirth.

Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes.


Matthew N. Lyons is an independent scholar and freelance writer who studies reactionary and supremacist movements. His articles have appeared in the Progressive and other periodicals. These paragraphs are adapted from working papers for Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort by Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons, New York: Guilford Publications, 2000.

© 1995, Matthew N. Lyons.

112 posted on 01/31/2003 1:39:21 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Frank; John Lenin
Bogus Post.
Fascism merely means that the state reserves unto itself the right to own all, or some, or any part of the means of production. The record of the Fascist States in regard to what we Americans regard as our basic rights, is far from praiseworthy. However, in the overwhelming majority of Fascist countries, race played very little part in determining who had rights and who did not.

Fascism=Corporate State. In the classic Fascist State, Italy of the 1920's-1940's, the State owned a significant part of the major industries, (Steel, Fuel, Electricity, Manufacturing). However, majority ownership of many industrial sectors, including very large ones, remained in private hands and competed with these state-owned enterprises. Agriculture remained in private hands.

A Fascist State may even be more or less democratic: Throughout its Fascist Decades, Italy had a King and elected parliament. It was, make no mistake about it, a very repressive one-party government and maintained by force, but for an individual citizen probably not much worse than 1930's Mexico under the PRI, and certainly a lot better than Cuba under Castro (who is great admirer of Fascism and Mussolini) Most of the Fascist states had (and have) no racial qualification. The left is all together too fast to name Nazi Germany as a Fascist state. Technically, Germany was not a Fascist country in that the means of production overwhelming stayed in private hands throughout the NAZI regime. It also irks the Left to no end that many of the policies they espouse are identical to those put in place by Nazi Germany!

Fascist Italy (A Monarchical Republic, with one-party rule and a Dictator), Argentina, (A republic with a Military Regime in charge and the appearance at least, of representative government)) Ataturk's (Same) Turkey, Portugal under Salazar, Spain under Franco. In general, these states sharply curtailed rights, but did not interfere with religion, or make race a qualification for full citizenship.

In fact, for a while during the 20's, 30's, and 40's, Fascism was regarded by many economists, including Americans, as the most efficient form of governance for a poor country, and the fastest way to encourage economic development. The price was the loss of basic liberties. This is not to defend Italian, or any other kind of Fascism. None of these countries were benevolent places for dissenting citizens. In any of them, you could get yourself shot without too much trouble.

But what we have in this post is the classic Marxist interpretation of Fascism, and therefore the classic interpretation offered by the American Left. Before you buy it, stop to consider that no (that was NO) Fascist Country was ever as unrelentingly cruel and harsh to its citizens as the Soviet Union was to theirs. Nazi Germany was not a Fascist Country, per se, but even it killed fewer of its citizens, by a factor of several hundred, than did the Soviet Union in its 80-year reign of terror.

113 posted on 01/31/2003 3:08:56 PM PST by Kenny Bunk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: eshu
Chuck Morse has an excellent rebuttal to this theory of Fascism you posted as proposed by Marxist, Berlet and Lyons

The Left-Wing Big Lie

In their new book, Right-Wing Populism in America; too close for comfort, authors Chip Berlet and Matthew N. Lyons continue the old malevolent hate campaign, launched around the turn of the last century, against conservatives, libertarians, religious Christians, and anyone else who doesn 't genuflect to the authoritarian left-wing. This book, a smear against the non-left, follows in the tradition of V.I.Lennin and his "Letter to the American Worker and Franz Fanon, author of "The Wretched of the Earth.

The tactic employed, then, and now, by Berlet and Lyons, is to lump anyone who is non-left in with the KKK, Aryan Nations, Neonazis, and other fringe groups. The propaganda is that those who oppose the left are to be viewed as racist and anti-Semitic. The smear has expanded, in recent decades, to include such accusations as sexist, homophobic, and other such labels. These lies are drummed into the subconscious of the average citizen with an incessant drumbeat of media support.

Lenin, in 1919, identified the Achilles heal of the US. He would order his minions to exploit this weakness as a means of creating revolution, an overthrough of capitalism, and victory toward a Soviet world. That weakness was racism. The left would begin to agitate for race conflict and war as a means of collapsing the American edifice. They first advocated black separatism and the creation of a "Negro Soviet Republic" carved out of what was called the "black belt", an area in the South heavily populated by African-Americans. This never caught on amongst the overwhelmingly patriotic and conservative African-American population. Later, the communists would shift gears and champion race riots as they instigated the burning of American cities in the 1960's.

Left-wing intellectual Franz Fanon, in the early twentieth century, influenced the left to incorporate, in addition to the classic Marxist idea of creating class conflict and war, the idea of race war. Fanon saw the exploitation of race consciousness and racial differences as fertile ground for violence. He invented dialectic of race that has been employed in this country with a degree of success. Fanon understood that conflict and war was necessary to trigger the birth pangs that would bring about Socialism. Creating and exploiting collective hatred was the key. The color red, the symbol of Socialism, stands for the human blood that would be shed to affect their goal.

Berlet and Lyons go to great lengths to link non-leftists to racism etc. While they carp about "conspiracism", and preposterously lump those who speculate about political conspiracy under the heading "right-wing", they themselves are actually guilty of weaving one of the oldest and ugliest conspiracy theories. Their theory is that the non-left is secretly racist, anti-Semitic etc., and that they conspire to oppress African-Americans, Jews, Gays, etc. They see a racist under every bed.

In this country, the consequence of the hate filled propaganda of Berlet, Lyons, and the long and infamous list of the like-minded, has been the development of a prejudice, bigotry, provincialism, and sheer ignorance that typifies the average "liberal" today. As a resident of a "liberal suburb" of Boston, I can speak to this personally.

In my community, by virtue of the fact that I host a local cable TV show, a syndicated radio talk show, and am an author, I am a high profile conservative. The response has often been hateful glares form liberals in the neighborhood and, sadly, in my synagogue. My wife is concerned over whether or not some of this hatred and intolerance will affect our young daughter who is starting pre-school at the synagogue this fall. She has wondered if we might be better off if I hid my views. I refuse, however, to be a "marrano" like the Jews who kept their faith secret during the Spanish Inquisition. In the few conversations I have been able to strike up with those who are demonstrating this hatefulness toward me, I have been spoken to as if I were a racist or something in that realm.

People who don't know me assume that I must be evil because I'm non-left. Generally, those who dare to be different evoke a certain degree of fear and loathing in those who have a great deal invested in fitting in and conforming. But the hostility I'm seeing transcends this normal tendency toward intolerance. There is an ignorance of the nature of conservatism. They have been conditioned to accept the left-wing big lie.

In short, Berlet and Lyons, both Marxist, are full of balderdash. Hitler was to the right of the Stalinist, but still far to the left of the Weimar Republic. The Marxist hates Fascism because it is a step away from total Communism, and a step towards Feudalism(in the form of Nationalism) and Capitalism.
114 posted on 01/31/2003 3:23:41 PM PST by PeaceBeWithYou (De Oppresso Liber!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: John Lenin
"Obscurantism (n): 1. The principles or practice of delivering vague truths and hiding key facts. 2. A policy of withholding information from the public. 3. The act of lying through selective omission "

That's this screed in a nutshell.

Here's fascism:

"fascism \fa-shi-zem also fa-si-\ noun [It fascismo, fr. fascio bundle, fasces, group, fr. L fascis bundle & fasces fasces] (1921)

1 often cap : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

fascist \-shist also -sist\ noun or adjective often cap
fascistic \fa-shis-tik also -sis-\ adjective often cap
fascistically \-ti-k(e-)le\ adverb often cap

(C) 1996 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated"

I'll add that fascism is always socialistic and Freedom is not tolerated.

115 posted on 01/31/2003 3:37:26 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou
It's a shame that Mr. Morse feels like a Jew during the Spanish Inquisition because he hosts a tv talk show in liberal Boston, and it may be true by the Lyons book is flawed (I haven't read it), but I still think his definition of fascism is a good one (see paragraphs 2-4 - note that Lyons' is rhetoric functional and neutral, particularly compared to Morse's overheated emotionalism, eg, "malevolent hate campaign," "sheer ignorance," etc.)

Unfortunately Chuck does not address the particulars of this definition (at least not in the review you posted) but instead tries to say what fascism is not. His motivation here seems to be that he feels as though he is being smeared by association.

That's fine, but it doesn't contribute much an understanding of the idea, since I really don't care if Chuck Morse is a fascist or not.

116 posted on 01/31/2003 4:22:42 PM PST by eshu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: The Duke
That really reveals something, doesn't it?

Yup,they clearly understand the UN is a tool to be used.

117 posted on 01/31/2003 5:07:53 PM PST by sneakypete
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: PeaceBeWithYou

The end result of
Communism, Socialism, Fascism
118 posted on 01/31/2003 5:51:54 PM PST by John Lenin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: All
One of the most devastating articles about the American style of fascism is 'Economic Fascism', by Dr.Thomas DiLorenzo.
I'll just post the conclusion:


Virtually all of the specific economic policies advocated by the Italian and German fascists of the 1930s have also been adopted in the United States in some form, and continue to be adopted to this day.
Sixty years ago, those who adopted these interventionist policies in Italy and Germany did so because they wanted to destroy economic liberty, free enterprise, and individualism. Only if these institutions were abolished could they hope to achieve the kind of totalitarian state they had in mind.

Many American politicians who have advocated more or less total government control over economic activity have been more devious in their approach. They have advocated and adopted many of the same policies, but they have always recognized that direct attacks on private property, free enterprise, self-government, and individual freedom are not politically palatable to the majority of the American electorate.
Thus, they have enacted a great many tax, regulatory, and income-transfer policies that achieve the ends of economic fascism, but which are sugar-coated with deceptive rhetoric about their alleged desire only to "save" capitalism.

American politicians have long taken their cue in this regard from Franklin D. Roosevelt, who sold his National Recovery Administration (which was eventually ruled unconstitutional) on the grounds that "government restrictions henceforth must be accepted not to hamper individualism but to protect it." In a classic example of Orwellian doublespeak, Roosevelt thus argued that individualism must be destroyed in order to save it.

Now that socialism has collapsed and survives nowhere but in Cuba, China, Vietnam, and on American university campuses, the biggest threat to economic liberty and individual freedom lies in the new economic fascism.
While the former Communist countries are trying to privatize as many industries as possible as fast as they can, they are still plagued by governmental controls, leaving them with essentially fascist economies: private property and private enterprise are permitted, but are heavily controlled and regulated by government.

As most of the rest of the world struggles to privatize industry and encourage free enterprise, we in the United States are seriously debating whether or not we should adopt 1930s-era economic fascism as the organizational principle of our entire health care system, which comprises 14 percent of the GNP.
We are also contemplating business-government "partnerships" in the automobile, airlines, and communications industries, among others, and are adopting government-managed trade policies, also in the spirit of the European corporatist schemes of the 1930s.

The state and its academic apologists are so skilled at generating propaganda in support of such schemes that Americans are mostly unaware of the dire threat they pose for the future of freedom.
The road to serfdom is littered with road signs pointing toward "the information superhighway, health security, national service, managed trade," and "industrial policy."

Dr. DiLorenzo is Professor of Economics at Loyola College, Baltimore, Maryland, and guest editor for The Freeman.
The Freeman is the monthly publication of The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., 30 South Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, NY 10533. FEE, established in 1946 by Leonard E. Read, is a non- political, educational champion of private property, the free market and limited government.

119 posted on 01/31/2003 8:18:39 PM PST by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

Economic Fascism
120 posted on 01/31/2003 8:26:43 PM PST by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-139 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
Topics · Post Article

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