To: John Lenin
Simply stated, a fascist government always has one class of citizens that is considered superior (good) to another (bad) based upon race, creed or origin.
Not necessarily questioning this, I'm just wondering what this class of citizens was for Mussolini's Italy, exactly.
In general, much of this "definition" of fascism is unintelligible to me. The author employs terms and operates from assumptions which are unfamiliar and probably do not apply in the United States (I wonder if the author is an American). For example, a sentence like
Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution;
reduces to complete gibberish in America, because those terms have no meaning or resonance here. Another way to say this is to observe that according to the author's definitions of "bourgeoisie" and "proletariat", one must conclude that in America either there is no "bourgeoisie", or the "bourgeoisie" is the same thing as the "proletariat" (because basically all of the "middle" class work, which means they are "members of the working class", which is the definition of "proletariat").
Such terms may have made sense to people living in the 19th Century in feudal countries like Germany and Russia. They make little sense in 21st century America. The author seems to carry a bit of Marxist baggage.
To: Dr. Frank
You bring up some good points but the article makes some sense to me. I was always under the impression that fascism was a worker movement against the CEO/business class.
Looking at the American situation I think the left is being hoodwinked by the multinational corporations who have found a vehicle to rid themselves of competition through various extremist left-wing movements like the animal rights and environmental movements
When you trace the money back to the owner most of the activism money is coming from billionaires through organizations like the Pew Foundation and many others. Liberals are an easy target, they can be swayed on emotion and thats what all these activist rights movements are about. The sky is always falling in their little worlds.
posted on 01/30/2003 7:30:07 PM PST
by John Lenin
(Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in !)
To: Dr. Frank
>>Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution<<
In plain English, one could say that the Germans hated and feared the Soviets and thought Hitler would be a good way of preventing a Communist/Socialist takeover of Germany.
To: Dr. Frank
You noticed many of the things I noticed about the definitions of fascism presented here. For "facist governments" we have as examples Mussolini's Italy and Spain's Falangist government under Francisco Franco. Neither government had a class of peoplepersecuted based upon a superficial characteristic. Borh employed socialist systems of governmentwith private ownership of the means of production. The classic definition of fascism is a totalitarian socialist state where the ownership of private property is allowed with state control of that property.
posted on 01/30/2003 9:00:02 PM PST
(Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
To: Dr. Frank
Though they've never been a part of my everyday vocabulary, I learned those terms in world history.
posted on 01/30/2003 10:55:31 PM PST
To: Dr. Frank
(I wonder if the author is an American). For example, a sentence like
"Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution;"
He is just another commie,who most likely thinks that any system other than Marxism is Fascism.
To: Dr. Frank
I would also disagree with the author's claim that fascism is a reaction of the "bourgeoisie" to contain or control the proletariat. In both Germany and Italy, the fascists came to power on the back of the dissatisfied proletariat class. Hitler's Black Shirts and Mussolini's Brown Shirts were not middle class salarymen. They were laborers and farmers of the lower class.
posted on 01/31/2003 7:30:30 AM PST
To: Dr. Frank; John Lenin
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.
To: Dr. Frank
Interesting. I've never been considered a Marxist or a socialist. Libertarian, but never a Marxist.
The article on Fascism on Couples Company came into being when I was researching current events in the Middle East. The definition comes from the Library of Congress and it is it heady with big words, which is why I also include the definitions.
Like many, though I am a member of the media, I no longer trust the US Media to report accurately and unbiased on Middle East issues, especially when they include Israel. I've seen what happens in the newsrooms and what happens to reporters whom question the trend.
Most people don't realize that the US News from Israel goes through two sensors: that of their American public relations arm and that of their military before we can report it. We get one story. The rest of the world gets another. I tend to trust what the Israeli's themselves say in publications like Ha'aratz and world media out of Germany, England and other countries. Last summer, Ha'aratz mentioned that Israel was in fact succumbing to fascism, that the persecuted were becoming the persecutors. Like many I thought this meant Nazism, so I found the comment strange. The statement is accurate when you take into account what is happening in the Occupied Territories. Again, what is reported in the United States isn't what the rest of the world hears and sees. This is one of many reasons why the rest of the world isn't behind us on our current pet project.
My objective with the article was to get people talking, debating and questioning realities and what we are told. It appears you all are. Thank you. We need to question, research and seek out the truth. Forums like this provide that opportunity. It really doesn't matter if you agree with the definition or not. What matters is you're talking about it.
Thank you again.
posted on 02/06/2003 9:40:11 AM PST
by couples company
(From the Couples Company Author)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson