Posted on 12/14/2017 12:09:23 PM PST by Oldpuppymax
“He’s a fascist!”
For decades, this has been a favorite smear of the left, aimed at those on the right. Every Republican president—for that matter, virtually every Republican—since the 1970’s has been called a fascist; now, more than ever.
This label is based on the idea that fascism is a phenomenon of the political right. The left says it is, and some self-styled white supremacists and neo-Nazis embrace the label.
But are they correct?
To answer this question, we have to ask what fascism really means: What is its underlying ideology? Where does it even come from?
These are not easy questions to answer. We know the name of the philosopher of capitalism: Adam Smith. We know the name of the philosopher of Marxism: Karl Marx. But who’s the philosopher of fascism?
Yes—exactly. You don’t know. Don’t feel bad. Almost no one knows. This is not because he doesn’t exist, but because historians, most of whom are on the political left, had to erase him from history in order to avoid confronting fascism’s actual beliefs. So, let me introduce him to you. His name is Giovanni Gentile.
Born in 1875, he was one of the world’s most influential philosophers in the first half of the twentieth century. Gentile believed that there were two “diametrically opposed” types of democracy. One is liberal democracy, such as that of the United States, which Gentile dismisses as individualistic—too centered on liberty and personal rights—and therefore selfish. The other, the one Gentile recommends, is “true democracy,” in which individuals willingly subordinate themselves to the state.
Like his philosophical mentor, Karl Marx, Gentile wanted to create a community that resembles the family, a community where we are “all in this together.” It’s easy to see the attraction of this idea. Indeed, it remains a common rhetorical...
(Excerpt) Read more at thecoachsteam.com ...
Is the right for or against limited government?
"...While the socialism of Marx mobilizes people on the basis of class, fascism mobilizes people by appealing to their national identity as well as their class. Fascists are socialists with a national identity..."
I have always looked somewhat at Fascism from an economic perspective (government directed industry; fascism, government owned industry; socialism) so this description above makes more sense to me.
I’m no political science guy, but the way I always understood it, is used as a term for a political ideology or ethos, fascism can be used by any political ideology. Fascism can be employed by the right, the left, or any group to increase the powers of the state over the populous.
It is the Leftiest of Leftist movements.....sory about the misssspellingsss ;-)
Which appears to be what Dinesh D’Souza states...well, this is a good thing.
I have been called a fascist by liberal protesters a number of times, perhaps I can formulate something very concise out of this to throw back at them that is accurate and to the point!
Left and right are just slurs competing Totalitarians use against each other.
The real dichotomy is between Totalitarianism and Individual Freedom.
And Communism is international socialism, and the two hate each other because they are fighting for the same audience.
I just tell them;
Neneer Neneer,,,
Left. Ask me a hard one.
What you stated there is exactly what the Left wants you to think, that the right is simply a mirror image of the left, and I have never thought that to be true.
I have thought the political spectrum is TOTAL government on the Left, and NO government on the Right, but having never taken a political science class, I go on things like this I have read or watched over the years: The Political Spectrum Easily Explained: Basic Forms of Government
But I have heard criticisms of this as well.
From MW:
“1) a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such 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 “
So it is neither.
There are examples of both left wing and right wing fascists.
The Nazis were left wing.
The fascist governments in south america (now long gone) were right wing.
Probably the biggest tragedy for the right over the last half of the 20th century is that we allowed the left to embed this lie (Nazism and racist history included) into the mainstream line of thought.
The Bolsheviks, who mainstreamed ‘fascist’ as a term for anything they opposed, were so far to the left that, from their perspective, even fascists were far right. Like in Saul Steinberg’s View of the World From 9th Avenue, they saw the rest of the world through a telescope wrong end to.
>>And Communism is international socialism, and the two hate each other because they are fighting for the same audience.
Precisely. Hayek recognized this in the 1940s.
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
The Left hates Nazis because they betrayed the glorious Russian Revolution by attacking Mother Russia and Stalin.
Therefore, anyone who disagrees with the Left must be a Nazi.
In his authoritative definition of Fascism (he coined the term,) Mussolini rejects classical liberalism because it makes the individual primary instead of the collective (specifically, the state--fascism is state socialism mixed with a limited free market.) Yes, he rejects Marxism and the Marxian doctrine of historic materialism. And yes, he rejects pure democracy, and argues for a class-based society. But he argues for "authoritarian democracy," where those who rule are expected to do so based on the greater good for the greater number (sound familiar?) Just like modern state socialists, he argues for the necessity of having the state regulate the individual and the market for socialist goals and objectives, using socialist justifications:
"Fascism is therefore opposed to all individualistic abstractions based on eighteenth century materialism; ..."
"Anti-individualistic, the Fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal, will of man as a historic entity (11). It is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhausted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual (12). And if liberty is to be the attribute of living men and not of abstract dummies invented by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism stands for liberty, and for the only liberty worth having, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State (13). The Fascist conception of the State is all embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.
No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16)."
That's essentially modern China. And essentially the way most nations are actually governed, regardless of their marketing propaganda. Mussolini, at least, was honest.
They all are right or left wings of Socialism. None of those labels have any relevance to a Constitutional Republic.
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.