106 replies to this topic

[Moonlight Graham]

"Stephen Harper is trying to control the media again, he's such a Fascist!"

Above is a common type of thing you'd hear on on these forums and elsewhere. It's also a horrible comparison done simply for shock, because of course if you're a fascist you're basically as evil as Hitler, right? I'm quite tired of the many, many people who drop the "Fascist" label on any person/group/organization that shows any kind of controlling tendencies. These people obviously have no clue what Fascism actually means.

Facism is about the intolerance of dissent and brutal measures to enforce social rules. The label most definately applies to many people on the left today.

Wrong. As MiddleClassCentrist aptly pointed out in another thread, the above describes totalitarianism, not Fascism. The above quote is equally applicable to Communist totalitarian dictators such as Stalin or Mao.

"Stephen Harper is a fascist!". Really? Is he hyper-nationalist? Is he big into policies of eugenics/racism, and social-Darwinism? Does he want a corporatist economic system in Canada? Because that, along with one-party totalitarian control (just like Communism), is what fascism is about.

[Remiel]

It's also a horrible comparison done simply for shock, because of course if you're a fascist you're basically as evil as Hitler, right?

Though people are most familiar with Hitler, I would not think you should rule out, especially on a political messageboard, that people are instead implying that he is as evil as Mussolini, Franco, or Peron.

Is he big into policies of eugenics/racism, and social-Darwinism?

I do not think racism, or even eugenics, are really necessary to fascism. Though it was simplistic, back in first year it was described to us that you had to add racism to fascism to get Nazi-ism; a way of stating it that has stuck in my mind. Perhaps though if an idea that could be drawn out to account for these, it might be nationalist perfectability or optimizability, whether that be of blood, characteristic, or beliefs.

Also, there is always the possibility that someone could be fairly described as being between two ideologies. Surely there are plenty of folks who are a combination of classic liberal and socialism, or classic conservative and socialism, and equally so someone could be described as classically liberal and fascist. Not saying that any particular person is, but if this is a philosophical discussion what we are shooting for is if it can be ruled out...

[WIP]

"Stephen Harper is trying to control the media again, he's such a Fascist!"

Above is a common type of thing you'd hear on on these forums and elsewhere.

Who said that here in this forum? I can't help notice that you overlooked the most obvious example of misuse of the term: someone who calls a few hecklers in an empty auditorium "leftist fascists."

Wrong. As MiddleClassCentrist aptly pointed out in another thread, the above describes totalitarianism, not Fascism. The above quote is equally applicable to Communist totalitarian dictators such as Stalin or Mao.

"Stephen Harper is a fascist!". Really? Is he hyper-nationalist? Is he big into policies of eugenics/racism, and social-Darwinism?

Eugenics is brought up in the Hitler - Nazi context, but if eugenics is part of the definition of fascism, then pre-WWII United States would be a fascist state, since the U.S. engaged in the widest practice of eugenics on human populations, even outstripping Nazi Germany.

Does he want a corporatist economic system in Canada? Because that, along with one-party totalitarian control (just like Communism), is what fascism is about.

Now, we're getting to the source! Fascism is a totalitarian system that utilizes the existing power structures: business, military and religious leadership of the society. The exact meanings of terms like: fascist, conservative, liberal, socialist, are not set in stone, but are going to vary, depending on the society and the conditions of the time.

Part of the confusion over where fascism stands on the political spectrum is because the creator of Fascism: Mussolini, claimed to be creating something he called "a third way." He did not want his totalitarian movement to be defined on the political spectrum. The difference between the fascism of his time, and the ones we have now in many corporate-dominated third world countries...and where we are headed towards also...is that our modern system of multinational corporations that can freely move their resources from one country to another - rewarding nations that do their bidding, while punishing ones who do not, or refuse - is that our modern fascisms are ones where political leaders are dependent on the corporations, rather than the owners of corporations depending on political or military strongmen for protection.

[Moonlight Graham]

I do not think racism, or even eugenics, are really necessary to fascism. Though it was simplistic, back in first year it was described to us that you had to add racism to fascism to get Nazi-ism;

You're right, those things are definitely a component more of Naziism, not exclusive to fascism. Fascism concerns itself with nationalism, and in Nazi Germany's case German or "Aryian" nationalism took on a racist component.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Eugenics is brought up in the Hitler - Nazi context, but if eugenics is part of the definition of fascism, then pre-WWII United States would be a fascist state, since the U.S. engaged in the widest practice of eugenics on human populations, even outstripping Nazi Germany....

...and supported by The Greatest Canadian!

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Stephen Harper is no fascist.

He is an autocrat at heart.

[Jack Weber]

You're right, those things are definitely a component more of Naziism, not exclusive to fascism. Fascism concerns itself with nationalism, and in Nazi Germany's case German or "Aryian" nationalism took on a racist component.

Actually,things like Eugenics were proposed by the likes of Oliver Wendell Holmes jr.,Thomas Edison,and,Wiliam Shockley...

None of those would be considered "NAZI material"...In Shockley's case,a quack,but not really a NAZI...

It should be noted that "nationalism" in the Fascist sense is another word for supremacy,ethnic or otherwise...It just that the NAZI's took that to its seemingly logical extreme...

Edited by Jack Weber, 17 May 2011 - 02:21 PM.

[Shady]

Jack loves to throw around the terms fascist and crypto-fascist. I'm suprised he's actually posting in this thread, because it's basically directed at people like him.

[Jack Weber]

Jack loves to throw around the terms fascist and crypto-fascist. I'm suprised he's actually posting in this thread, because it's basically directed at people like him.

That's your best contribution??

Uh....well...Thanks for playing,Professor...

[WIP]

Jack loves to throw around the terms fascist and crypto-fascist. I'm suprised he's actually posting in this thread, because it's basically directed at people like him.

That's because you misuse the term fascist as a pejorative against causes you don't like, while corporate-loving conservative and libertarians are leading us down the road to fascism right here and now.

[dre]

"Stephen Harper is trying to control the media again, he's such a Fascist!"

Above is a common type of thing you'd hear on on these forums and elsewhere. It's also a horrible comparison done simply for shock, because of course if you're a fascist you're basically as evil as Hitler, right? I'm quite tired of the many, many people who drop the "Fascist" label on any person/group/organization that shows any kind of controlling tendencies. These people obviously have no clue what Fascism actually means.



Wrong. As MiddleClassCentrist aptly pointed out in another thread, the above describes totalitarianism, not Fascism. The above quote is equally applicable to Communist totalitarian dictators such as Stalin or Mao.

"Stephen Harper is a fascist!". Really? Is he hyper-nationalist? Is he big into policies of eugenics/racism, and social-Darwinism? Does he want a corporatist economic system in Canada? Because that, along with one-party totalitarian control (just like Communism), is what fascism is about.

Fascism has actually been branded the most mis-used word in history, and modern day use of the word is almost 100% fallacious.

[Shady]

That's because you misuse the term fascist as a pejorative against causes you don't like, while corporate-loving conservative and libertarians are leading us down the road to fascism right here and now.

Complete nonsense.

[GostHacked]

That's because you misuse the term fascist as a pejorative against causes you don't like, while corporate-loving conservative and libertarians are leading us down the road to fascism right here and now.

You think it's just conservatives and libertarians(although I am doubting the libertarians are for corporate fascism)? You can throw the democrats in there as well. Both sides are playing that game. It's not a left-right thing at all.

[WIP]

You think it's just conservatives and libertarians(although I am doubting the libertarians are for corporate fascism)? You can throw the democrats in there as well. Both sides are playing that game. It's not a left-right thing at all.

Libertarian ideologues may be just unhinged by the radical notion that unlimited personal freedom is possible in an organized society, without any curbs on personal freedoms in the interest of social cohesion and the welfare of the group. But, when it comes to these strange animals like libertarian billionaires, and Christian nationalist libertarians -- a little closer scrutiny is needed to understand the motives of what they get out of the libertarian brand.

When it comes to the billionaires, or money-motivated libertarians, the libertarian philosophy provides them a moral justification for continually limiting the role of government, and removing the only available tool that the average citizen has to check the growing power of artificially created corporate citizens. The libertarian paradise that the Koch Brothers, and the politicians they finance - like Rand Paul, Scott Walker, Jim DeMint etc., are setting in place, is one with even lower corporate and high end tax rates; and where government regulatory agencies serve as rubberstamps for the industries they are supposed to be regulating. They say history repeats itself, and this would just be a trip down memory lane, back to the early days of the Industrial Revolution, when the Company owned the lives of its workers.

I don't know about Rand Paul, but Walker, and Congressional libertarians like Pat Toomey, Nikki Haley, and especially Jim DeMint, are also Christian nationalists....likely Reconstructionists also, who would abolish secular law for Theonomy (Christian Law), and bust up public education in favour of private religious schools.

So, there is quite an assortment of strange bedfellows who call themselves libertarians today; and they have no real interest in promoting freedom and liberty!

[Shady]

I don't know about Rand Paul, but Walker, and Congressional libertarians like Pat Toomey, Nikki Haley, and especially Jim DeMint, are also Christian nationalists....likely Reconstructionists also, who would abolish secular law for Theonomy (Christian Law), and bust up public education in favour of private religious schools.

Wow, I have no idea where you get your bizarre conspiracies from. That's all complete nonsense. Are you off your meds again?