The Radical Socialist Roots of Fascism

El American ^ | March 27 2021 | Emmanuel Rincón

[euram]

Fascism is a form of socialism. As such, it does not engage in a fight between left and right, but between different leftists ideologies.

[Truthoverpower]

I think the nature of the modern human being ; once they have a reasonable amount of knowledge of the world

Just want to be free do their own thing and not be bothered

To be able to have a gainful profession ; be able to fraternize with whoever they want ; to have fun and be good to other people

and be a good listener

Versus the movement - whatever it is - whoever is behind it

to try to tell other people what to do

and force other people to hear diatribes about This or that evil

feelings about historical wrongs etc.

Pretty quickly ; in the modern digital age , those people are going to be seen as immature and people are not going to want to listen to them

Just to summarize right now I see were in a period where the communist front is desperately trying to enact whatever they can - swinging from idea to idea.

But are they really trying to capture the imagination of the general public with these protestations?

I don’t think they’re really smart enough to even think about it that way

In other words

we’re going to use brute force

we’re not gonna try to use persuasion at all

I’m sorry but I don’t think that’s a winner

And we know what our great and wonderful president Donald J Trump has had to say about winning

[joelt]

Good primer; thanks.

[hank ernade]

It’s that language thingy again.

“Leftwing”,”Rightwing”, “capitalist”, “socialist”, “conservative” and “liberal” are European terms that don’t really apply in the US.

In Europe a conservative is a monarchist - the complete opposite of a Jefferson, Franklin, Hancock or Washington.
In fact they fought against British conservatives.

In Europe they would be Liberals - antimonarchist, capitalist, but not “rightwing” which is a European conservative.

Modern Europe grew out of feudalism, which has nobility or peasantry - “socialists” would arise from the peasantry - the hammers and sickles of feudal society.

What would become the Liberals arose from the entrepreneurs, who are neither hammer or sickle, but free to market any good or service they can produce - the guiding principle of US capitalism. The Founders were original Liberals.

The bogus term “liberal” used in the US today in fact applies to socialists masquerading as capitalists.

Fascism aka “national socialism” arose out of syndicalist socialism, a french philosophy that asserts socialism must be instituted by armed force - in opposition to the Marxist theory that socialism must be spread by the general strike of workers.

Mussolini, Hitler and Lenin were the major proponents of armed socialism, what would be called “war communism” in Russia.

Under Stalin the so called “international socialism” of Marx became the full-on national socialism of Mussolini and Hitler.

It’s that dang language thingy.

[jmacusa]

Doesn’t help that their always changing the wordage.

“Liberal’’. “Democrat Socialist’’. “Progressive’’. (progressing towards what? total control?)

[hank ernade]

One of my uncles was “German-American” and would rant about being a true blue conservative, anti-communist, spit at the mention of liberal, DEMOCRAT.

However the things he believed in politically would qualify him as a Social Democrat in Europe.

The same as the confused “liberals” we have here, who are actually Euro-centric Social Democrat leftists.

If you adhere to the principles of the Founders you are neither “leftwing” or “rightwing”.

[jmacusa]

True indeed. “Left’’, ‘’Right’’ are really French imports to determine parliamentarian seating arrangements and a metaphor to label one faction as favoring ‘’collective government’’ and those who embrace individual liberty and personal responsibility.