Fascisme of Today?

[florelius]

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

[/quote]

Well the intellectual heirs are social democrates aka liberals.

Granted, they are to fascism as the Anglican Church is to the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe it will collapse without too much violence.

If you are just looking for a collecticist ideology that picks up the slack, my money is on religion.

[/quote]

socialliberalisme( liberals ) is close to fascisme when it comes to economy ( they both wants a mixedeconomy ) and both mussolini( father of fascisme ) and j.s.mill( importent to socialliberals ) both where afraid of classtyranny and wanted a constitution who made that impossible. but socialliberals are not militarists as the fascists, and they are not very rasists. ( a socialdemocrat of today are a socialliberal, they are no longer socialist )

In my country a selfclaimed classical-liberalist party is whats closest to a possible hatefest if they get in power. they are anti-labour-union ( an importent part of the old fascist movement ), they have a wiew on non-western people thats close to rasisme, and they want a mixed economy ( but so do all partys in my country ). The american counterpart is the socialconservative part of the teaparty and the republican party.

well thats my wiew.[/quote]

I wouldn’t call fascism a mixed economy. Everything was 100% controlled by the government. They essentially preserved some of the existing corporate structure and incorporated it into the government. Plus, when you look at it that way, you can really see the correlation to modern “progressives”.

It also depends on what you are talking about when you say “militarism”. Establishing global governing authorities is a form conquering sovereign authorities. Today it’s just political warfare.

Lastly, avoid commenting on the tea party if you don’t know anything about it.[/quote]

1. militarisme is being in favor of attcking other countrys as an example, an antimilitarist is by principle against attacking another country. ron paul is a antimilitarist. bush is a militarist.

[/quote]
And I’m saying political warfare is the new militarism.

2. my point about the teaparty/republicans, is that the movement is similar to the movement in my country thats called “The progressiv party”. in norwegian its called “fremskrittspartiet”.

And you likened them to racists.[/quote]

I understand that the teaparty is a complex movement with different groups.

but let say it like this: “the progressive party” is the norwegian party thats closest to the republican party, and they are closest to the republicans that are anti-immigration and islamo-phobic.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

[/quote]

Well the intellectual heirs are social democrates aka liberals.

Granted, they are to fascism as the Anglican Church is to the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe it will collapse without too much violence.

If you are just looking for a collecticist ideology that picks up the slack, my money is on religion.

[/quote]

I do not necessarily think it is religion, not even close. I think it’s the blind patriotic Americans. No offense, but most Germans didn’t see it either.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]florelius wrote:
marxisme and fascisme are not the same
[/quote]

Neither is 1" and 1.1" but they are damn close.

[florelius]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
marxisme and fascisme are not the same
[/quote]

Neither is 1" and 1.1" but they are damn close. [/quote]

no they are far away.

fascism stand on its own. but on some issues its closer to marxism, on other liberalism, and on other conservativism. but if you mix patriotism with europeen conservatism + some utilitarisme and a dash of leninism, you get prettyt close to fascism.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
marxisme and fascisme are not the same
[/quote]

Neither is 1" and 1.1" but they are damn close. [/quote]

no they are far away.

fascism stand on its own. but on some issues its closer to marxism, on other liberalism, and on other conservativism. but if you mix patriotism with europeen conservatism + some utilitarisme and a dash of leninism, you get prettyt close to fascism.[/quote]

So what is the real difference here?

They both are collectivist, illiberal, etatist quasi-religions that try to achieve the impossible when they come into power.

It is really nit picking to claim that they are that far apart, they are as far apart as Catholics and Lutherans.

[florelius]

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
marxisme and fascisme are not the same
[/quote]

Neither is 1" and 1.1" but they are damn close. [/quote]

no they are far away.

fascism stand on its own. but on some issues its closer to marxism, on other liberalism, and on other conservativism. but if you mix patriotism with europeen conservatism + some utilitarisme and a dash of leninism, you get prettyt close to fascism.[/quote]

So what is the real difference here?

They both are collectivist, illiberal, etatist quasi-religions that try to achieve the impossible when they come into power.

It is really nit picking to claim that they are that far apart, they are as far apart as Catholics and Lutherans.

[/quote]

I have explained the differences back in this tread. check it out.

[orion]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
marxisme and fascisme are not the same
[/quote]

Neither is 1" and 1.1" but they are damn close. [/quote]

no they are far away.

fascism stand on its own. but on some issues its closer to marxism, on other liberalism, and on other conservativism. but if you mix patriotism with europeen conservatism + some utilitarisme and a dash of leninism, you get prettyt close to fascism.[/quote]

So what is the real difference here?

They both are collectivist, illiberal, etatist quasi-religions that try to achieve the impossible when they come into power.

It is really nit picking to claim that they are that far apart, they are as far apart as Catholics and Lutherans.

[/quote]

I have explained the differences back in this tread. check it out.

[/quote]

I know, but the differences you mention hardly make any difference in real life.

I know he lies they tell to come into power, but in reality they have the same roots and they use the same means.

From a libertárian perspective they are practically undistinguishable.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

[/quote]

Which definition?

[/quote]

Yours.

Or else fascists are fascists is a rather redundant and meaningless statement.

Trees are trees.

So there.

[/quote]

My take is that the only truth of fascism is a 100% totalitarian dictator who pursues the ideals of Marxism in the way they see best. Other than that, most other traits of fascism seem pretty fluid.

A more modern definition would translate to “something in politics that I disagree with”.[/quote]

marxisme and fascisme are not the same. I dont know why I have to point that out.

but there are similaritys beetwen the stalinist sovjet and the fascist regimes.

to point some similaritys out: both where totalitarian and militarist.

but the marxist partys during the first world war where antimilitarist and internationalist. one of the reasons musolini stopped being a marxist, and become a fascist. and the fascists where militaristic and nationalist.

[/quote]

No. You are the one confusing communist and Marxist. By saying they pursued Marxism in their own way, I was not saying they were communist (like Russia). I agree that there are differences between communism and fascism. However, they are both descendants of Marxism And both communism and fascism were in pursuit of the Marxist ideals, they just went about it different ways.[/quote]

am I. fascisme is not buildt on marxist ideals. let me point out a marxist goals.

normative marxist goals for the society:

1: it should be classless.

2: there should be no private property.

3: there should be no state.

[/quote]
Communism doesn’t meet any of those definitions. No leader or country ever has or ever can. Does that mean there is no such thing as a Marxist or a marxist country?

fascist goals and princips for the society.

1: there should be no classwar, but classes are ok.

There are classes in the communist manifesto also.

2: the nationalstate is the most importent thing in society, individual and class interrest
are less importent.

The nation of people is a class of people. There is no difference between class interest and national interest.

However, how can you say the goal is no class, then claim class interest is supposed to be more important? You directly contradicted yourself and have no idea what you’re talking about.

3: privat property is ok.

No. In facism there is absolutely no private property. There is only what the government allows one to have, the same as in communism. The government can take what it wants from anyone at anytime for any reason. There were no private property rights in fascism.

you see there is a huge differens beetwen marxisme and fascisme. but the descriptive doctrin of lenin has many similaritys to fascisme. or in other words: a socialist one party state is similar to an fascist on party state.

Fascism was a socialist one party state idiot.

fascism was as marxist as communism. Both Mussolini and Hitler drew from Karl Marx.

[florelius]

doubleduce: you are totally wrong, or you missunderstand.

yes marx talk about classes in the communist manifesto, but he wants to free the human race from the classsociety. thats what communisme is all about.

fascisme on the other hand does not have communisme as a goal, so therefor they cannot be marxist, since a marxist has communisme as a goal. ( communisme = a egilitarian society without classes and a state ).

what the fascist regimes can be similar to is the totalitarian socialist regimes as sovjet, the eastern block etc. but the sovjets and and the eastern block where not communist, because a totalitarian state is the opposit of a communist society. dont fall under the tricks of stalin, even do he decleared sovjet as a communist society it didt make it that. again we have to judge the content, not the formalitys.

hitler does not base hes idees on marx, hitler was a firce anti-marxist, and just marx as an example of have much harm a jew can do. ( you know that marx where an etnich jew )

mussolini where a marxist before he became a fascist, but when he made the switch he was no longer a marxist. its the same as saying that marx was a classical-liberalist because he was one when he was young. do you see have stupid that line of thougt is?

finally this is not what I intended to discuss, its been discussed many times before, so I am going to end this marxist/fascist debate with this final words:

all modern ideologys stand on there own, even do they all have similaritys between eachother. as an example: the marxist idea of alianation, originally comes from adam smith. the fascist organisation of the political system is based on, anarcho-syndicalisme, leninisme and conservatisme. so fascisme is as sloth would say fascisme, and marxisme is marxisme.

so our discussion is not about the ideology thats called fascisme, but whom among the popular political movements that are most likely to repressent the same socialforce as the old fascist movement did.

[kamui]

Marx’s communism never existed outside of his head. and never will.

what we call communism today is basically leninism and stalinism. ie : an attempt to create a socialist society through a totalitarian state/party.

Fascism, on the other hand, is a bastard child.
Counter-revolutionnary nationalism was is Mother.
Pre-marxist socialism was his Father (Mussolini was a attentive reader of Proudhon and George Valois).

But Nazism and Fascism both killed their fathers pretty early after their rise to power, in a typically oedipian way. (Mussolini suddenly forgot all his propaganda about syndicalism, and Hitler started the Night of Long Knives against the “socialist” SA).

[florelius]

[quote]kamui wrote:
Marx’s communism never existed outside of his head. and never will.

what we call communism today is basically leninism and stalinism. ie : an attempt to create a socialist society through a totalitarian state/party.

Fascism, on the other hand, is a bastard child.
Counter-revolutionnary nationalism was is Mother.
Pre-marxist socialism was his Father (Mussolini was a attentive reader of Proudhon and George Valois).

But Nazism and Fascism both killed their fathers pretty early after their rise to power, in a typically oedipian way. (Mussolini suddenly forgot all his propaganda about syndicalism, and Hitler started the Night of Long Knives against the “socialist” SA).

[/quote]

good input kamui.

[kamui]

oh, and btw, the “nanny state”, welfare state, social-liberalism (or whatever you want to call this beast) is not a progeny of Fascism, it’s the pure breed child of Saint-Simonianism.

another dubious export of my country. just like cheese.

[DoubleDuce]

[quote]florelius wrote:
doubleduce: you are totally wrong, or you missunderstand.

yes marx talk about classes in the communist manifesto, but he wants to free the human race from the classsociety. thats what communisme is all about.

[/quote]
No. the "dictatorship of the proletariatâ?? which is the transition is still very much class based. â??Pure communismâ?? has never been more than written about. If you are disqualifying fascism on this point, you must disqualify the communist also(USSR).

fascisme on the other hand does not have communisme as a goal, so therefor they cannot be marxist, since a marxist has communisme as a goal. ( communisme = a egilitarian society without classes and a state ).

Yes, it has the perfect harmonious collective as itâ??s goal. It just limits the scope to the country rather than the world.

And the goal of communist leaders and countries has also never been the elimination of the state.

what the fascist regimes can be similar to is the totalitarian socialist regimes as sovjet, the eastern block etc. but the sovjets and and the eastern block where not communist, because a totalitarian state is the opposit of a communist society. dont fall under the tricks of stalin, even do he decleared sovjet as a communist society it didt make it that. again we have to judge the content, not the formalitys.

Marx advocated a dictatorship to start things. Then he had the absurd goal of elimination of state (more truly, what he wanted was the state to become everyone and everything, which is really the opposite of the elimination of the state).

hitler does not base hes idees on marx, hitler was a firce anti-marxist, and just marx as an example of have much harm a jew can do. ( you know that marx where an etnich jew )

No. This is buying into propaganda. The reason fascists/Nazis and the communists hated each other, is because they were competing brands of the same product. As such, they both embarked on propaganda smear campaigns against the other. They were competing for the same voting block. Hitler and Mussolini were even originally a communist, and he remained a socialist.

mussolini where a marxist before he became a fascist, but when he made the switch he was no longer a marxist. its the same as saying that marx was a classical-liberalist because he was one when he was young. do you see have stupid that line of thougt is?

Yes, Mussolini thought he found a better way to achieve the Marxist ideal. The switch to fascism was a change in methods only. AND the only reason that both Hitler and Mussolini switched was because they were frustrated that communism wasnâ??t working as they hoped.

finally this is not what I intended to discuss, its been discussed many times before, so I am going to end this marxist/fascist debate with this final words:

all modern ideologys stand on there own, even do they all have similaritys between eachother. as an example: the marxist idea of alianation, originally comes from adam smith. the fascist organisation of the political system is based on, anarcho-syndicalisme, leninisme and conservatisme. so fascisme is as sloth would say fascisme, and marxisme is marxisme.

so our discussion is not about the ideology thats called fascisme, but whom among the popular political movements that are most likely to repressent the same socialforce as the old fascist movement did.

Fascism was born from Marxism. Period. It was a refinement in methods to achieve the Utopian collectivist ideal. They are not merely similar, one gave birth to the other.

It is also important to note that during this change in political thought, FDRâ??s administration (and American liberals) paralleled the fascists in many ways. The â??New Dealâ?? was the American version of the fascist revolution.