Naomi Wolf: Secret Libertarian

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Oh, then you remember that it was Southern ‘Liberal’ Democrats who fought tooth and nail against ‘Civil Rights’ since Lincoln right up until LBJ redefined ‘Civil Rights’ as ‘Re-Enslaving Generations via Welfare Programs’[/quote]

You cannot use the labels of the past to explain new phenomena of ideology. Ideas change but the labels do not necessarily change with them.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Why would it “ride in” that way when that hasn’t been its natural path in the past?

[/quote]

What does history have to do with tomorrow? History is written in stone but the actions we may take tomorrow are not.

If you view the history of American interventionism in the correct light you could see that what enthogens says is true. For the last 100 years it has been crises after crises that has made it easier for the American public to accept government intervention – it has always been done in the name of truth, justice, and the American way, making it nearly impossible for any “patriotic” American to dissent against.

EDIT – I agree with your analysis of fascism but I think it stands in the way of understanding the context how US policies have changed for the worse. In fact, it will be the historians of the future that come up with the labels to describe the phenomena that have destroyed this country.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

You cannot use the labels of the past to explain new phenomena of ideology. Ideas change but the labels do not necessarily change with them.
[/quote]

You are absolutely correct. Both parties have drifted far from their roots.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Do you really think that the KKK (or racists in general) using the Bible to justify their actions is really what the Bible teaches?[/quote]

What does the bible teach? I think that is part of the problem. It is a book that is open to interpretation making it virtually useless for any intellectual pursuit other than a survey of middle-eastern mythological literature.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

What does the bible teach?[/quote]

Sorry. Too old, too tired to go here.

Have a nice Sunday!

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

It works both ways. One central and recurring theme of this election is that if you’re Anti-Obama (ie do not support class warfare and Marxism), then you must be a racist.
[/quote]

No, I don’t think if you are against Obama that you are a racist. Maybee there are people who think that way, but I haven’t heard that argument, and it is certainly not my position.

However, the idea that Obama promotes class warfare and is a Marxist is absurd. For goodness sake, Warren Buffet is set to be an economic advisor to him. How more capitalist can you get?

[quote]entheogens wrote:
SteelyD wrote:

It works both ways. One central and recurring theme of this election is that if you’re Anti-Obama (ie do not support class warfare and Marxism), then you must be a racist.

No, I don’t think if you are against Obama that you are a racist. Maybee there are people who think that way, but I haven’t heard that argument, and it is certainly not my position.

However, the idea that Obama promotes class warfare and is a Marxist is absurd. For goodness sake, Warren Buffet is set to be an economic advisor to him. How more capitalist can you get?

[/quote]

His ideas are the very definition of class warfare. How can one form an argument to the contrary?

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
Oh, boy…

A “force” of Volunteers to serve…

This “outcry” by some people falls under the same category of those that were “outraged” by the “Obama Youth Army” he was raising, with a bunch of overweight inner-city kids who with no rhythm to “step”.

Mufasa[/quote]

Funded as well as the military, though? How much is this guy looking to spend?! We’ve got his “urban” initiative, his stepping stone to single payer healthcare, this, and etc. Does anyone really think those tax raises of his aren’t going to drop down a number of income levels to fuel his plan for ‘economic justice?’

Personally, I can’t wait until Obama creates mechanized rape-murder factories to rape and kill all conservatives and their families, with blades.

[quote]Black Greg wrote:
Personally, I can’t wait until Obama creates mechanized rape-murder factories to rape and kill all conservatives and their families, with blades. [/quote]

Go away troll.

[quote]Black Greg wrote:
Personally, I can’t wait until Obama creates mechanized rape-murder factories to rape and kill all conservatives and their families, with blades. [/quote]

Yeah, generally when demagogues whip up large masses of people with talk about how they’re going to “transform the world,” one way or another it leads to something like this.

This is your fifth post - each one has been more or less on this level. Thanks so much for your intelligence, wit, & insight. Really.

I am presently reading Chris Hedge’s book, ?American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America?.
It covers some of the issues we have been discussing in this thread. You might enjoy (or hate) this interview given by Hedges on his book:

Naomi’s ripping off Sinclair Lewis almost word for word. I don’t have much time for her, although she’s kind of cute, but check out the original:

“Minutemen” brownshirts, military coups, a heroic Vermont newspaperman, it’s a fun read.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:

entheogens wrote:
As the economy tanks, it will become easier and easier for “populist” politicians to direct people’s chauvinism, anger toward some group(s).

Yes. Today it’s called ‘Class Warfare’ as practiced by today’s Democrat party and it’s reinvigoration of classic Marxism through it’s front runner for President.

[/quote]

I don’t have any love for Obama, but if you want to talk about class warfare, the McCain-Palin faux populism of hockey moms, anti-intellectualism, “he’s not one of us”, and Tito the Freaking Builder is much closer to class warfare than any moderately socialist policies of our new president, especially given TARP and the rest of it. Classic Marxism? Not by a long shot.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
One central and recurring theme of this election is that if you’re Anti-Obama (ie do not support class warfare and Marxism), then you must be a racist. [/quote]

On this particular forum, we had the opposite theme: If you support Obama, it must be because he is black; you must therefore be racist!

I also distinctly remember Obama supporters being labelled “anti-Americans”. A term that wasn’t used by Obama supporters on this board.

And please put this “Marxism” meme to rest. The election is over and Obama won. Besides, McCarthy’s been dead for quite some time. At this point, you’re just showing utter ignorance (or misrepresentation) of Marx and Obama’s positions.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
I am presently reading Chris Hedge’s book, ?American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War On America?.
It covers some of the issues we have been discussing in this thread. You might enjoy (or hate) this interview given by Hedges on his book:

[/quote]

I’d recommend the book “liberal Fascism”.

It makes the argument that Fascism originated from communism and the politics of the left. Things like that Mussolini and Hitler were both originally communists and Mussolini claimed he was one till his death. That the whole conflict between the “red” and “brown” were because they were both fighting over the same support base, not because they were doctrinally at odds.

There was also a stark similarity between what was happening in Germany, Italy and here in the US. It goes so far as to point out that the US could be considered the first fascist state under Woodrow Wilson and later escalated by FDR. With the Blue Eagle program, the first department of propaganda, est.

Umberto Eco has written an essay on “Ur Fascism” which summarizes quite well the elements of fascism:

<<In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.>>

Read essay at-

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

[quote]entheogens wrote:
Umberto Eco has written an essay on “Ur Fascism” which summarizes quite well the elements of fascism:

<<In spite of some fuzziness regarding the difference between various historical forms of fascism, I think it is possible to outline a list of features that are typical of what I would like to call Ur-Fascism, or Eternal Fascism. These features cannot be organized into a system; many of them contradict each other, and are also typical of other kinds of despotism or fanaticism. But it is enough that one of them be present to allow fascism to coagulate around it.>>

Read essay at-

http://www.themodernword.com/eco/eco_blackshirt.html

[/quote]

Yeah, one of the biggest problems with discussing fascism is a lack of a solid definition. Depending on how you define it shifts the perspective on who is fascist.

I find it hard to correlate what went on in Germany with what happened in Italy. The 2 were very different movements motivated and resulting in different focuses. I tend to consider Italy the “most” fascist with Mussolini the guy who wrote the rules on fascism, and label Nazi Germany as Nazism which was controlled by Hitler, but really had no set of rules.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

It makes the argument that Fascism originated from communism and the politics of the left. Things like that Mussolini and Hitler were both originally communists and Mussolini claimed he was one till his death.
[/quote]

Mussolini was a socialist at one time. He was never a communist and Hitler certainly was not. Anything remotely Leftist was wiped out under their regimes. Check out what Hitler did to trade unions and left-oriented academics. Same goes for Mussolini.

In any case, we can find cases new and old of people switching from one tendancy to another. For example, Christopher Hitchens used to be a Trotskyist and now is a neocon. The same can be said about David Horowitz. Yet, we would not conclude that Marxism gave rise to Neoconservatism.

Obviously, I would need to read the book to check what other supporting facts are given but, honestly, those you provide sound spurious to me.

[quote]
There was also a stark similarity between what was happening in Germany, Italy and here in the US. It goes so far as to point out that the US could be considered the first fascist state under Woodrow Wilson and later escalated by FDR. With the Blue Eagle program, the first department of propaganda, est.[/quote]

That is a peculiar argument. I know that the free marketers
on here don’t like FDR, but to claim that he was a fascist seems more than far-fetched.

[quote]entheogens wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

It makes the argument that Fascism originated from communism and the politics of the left. Things like that Mussolini and Hitler were both originally communists and Mussolini claimed he was one till his death.

Mussolini was a socialist at one time. He was never a communist and Hitler certainly was not. Anything remotely Leftist was wiped out under their regimes. Check out what Hitler did to trade unions and left-oriented academics. Same goes for Mussolini.

In any case, we can find cases new and old of people switching from one tendancy to another. For example, Christopher Hitchens used to be a Trotskyist and now is a neocon. The same can be said about David Horowitz. Yet, we would not conclude that Marxism gave rise to Neoconservatism.

Obviously, I would need to read the book to check what other supporting facts are given but, honestly, those you provide sound spurious to me.

There was also a stark similarity between what was happening in Germany, Italy and here in the US. It goes so far as to point out that the US could be considered the first fascist state under Woodrow Wilson and later escalated by FDR. With the Blue Eagle program, the first department of propaganda, est.

That is a peculiar argument. I know that the free marketers
on here don’t like FDR, but to claim that he was a fascist seems more than far-fetched.

[/quote]

Yes, both Hitler and Mussolini had deep roots in socialism (though Hitler didn’t claim to belong to any specific economic philosophy).

Both however used all inclusive government ownership and regulation combined with a socialist economy while trying to carryout the philosophies of Marx in their country.

Marx’s philosophy gave birth to both fascism and communism.

Ass for unions:

“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.” --BM

Mussolini claimed not to destroy them, but relocate their power to the state.

This really should be considered an ultimate goal of communism as well as total collective ownership would go beyond just the workers in a particular sector.

Edit: I forgot to mention one of the Early fascist slogans, “First brown, then red”. Witch furthers the point that they hated each other because they were fighting over the same segment of the population.