Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

The secret history of fascism


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1    UM-Bot

UM-Bot

    News, media and articles

  • 6,196 posts
  • Joined:21 Mar 2001
  • Gender:Male

  • Beep Boop

Posted 16 January 2010 - 11:12 AM

<strong class='bbc'>Image credit: USHMM</strong>
Image credit: USHMM
William B Stoecker: We are told that there is a political spectrum extending from communism on the left to fascism on the right. Aside from a few brain-dead Marxists, most people understand that communism inevitably means tyranny. No communist state in history has ever evolved into the promised “classless society.” In North Korea, where an entire nation has been transformed into a giant concentration camp, communism has become a hereditary monarchy. Most people do understand that fascism (its German variety is Nazism) means tyranny. Fascist states are always militaristic and follow an aggressive foreign policy, and always have a powerful secret police apparatus and a controlled mass media. Dissidents are always imprisoned, and often tortured and murdered. But isn’t this all an absurdity, a contradiction in terms? By definition a spectrum goes from one extreme to another, from red to violet, from light to dark, or from freedom to tyranny. A spectrum with tyranny at both ends is, by definition, not a spectrum. So let me propose an alternative. On the left is fascism, the ultimate tyranny, whether it is called fascism, Nazism, communism, or Marxism. On the right is anarchy. In the middle is free republican government with a written constitution to limit the power of that government.

Fascism was established in Italy by Benito Mussolini. Far from being a “right winger,” he was, like his father, a lifelong socialist, but he went further and advocated revolutionary socialism…communism. After coming to power, he established a socialist economy with government control over large sectors of the economy, and massive public spending. And, of course, he controlled the media, imprisoned dissidents, and led Italy into a disastrous war.

Posted Image View: Full Article

This is an official comment thread for a main site news story, article or video.
Please keep comments civil and on topic.
Thank you.

#2    TRUEYOUTRUEME

TRUEYOUTRUEME

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

  • We Have Heaven

Posted 16 January 2010 - 05:13 PM

Well it is fitting that I should be the first to comment on this article beign that I created this new political scale (left to right) about two years ago.  I have written about it on the internet in various places before.

Any scale must measure something.  The academic myth that communism and socialism are to the far left and that fascism is to the far right measures nothing politically.

I had proposed that a political scale should measure 'indivdual liberty'.  That the furhter to the right you go then the more individual liberty you have.  The further to the left you go then the more state control and less individual liberty you have.

I started poposing this years ago and I had seen Glenn Beck pick up on it once and now of course this article as well.

In my opinion though anarchy is an illusion.  It can never be maintained and can only happen naturally.  So it is not a real political system.  To the far right I would place libertarianism and then conservatism would follow after. Both political systems of capitalism.

Socialism and fascism are like brother and sister ideologies.  Very similair in many ways.  As the writer points out most socialist systems become fascist in practise throughout history.  They seem to be more like two different methods of achieving the same thing (state control).

Here is something I wrote to a FRiend just a couple of days ago in regards to the economic fascist system and it's relation to America today:

Quote

One of the main points that needs to be understood in regards to economic fascism is that it emphasized a ‘third way’ in relation to socialism and capitalism.

Whereas the socialist endorsed complete government or collective ownership and control of economic activity, and the capitalist in contrast endorsed complete private or individual ownership and control of economic activity, the fascist endorsed a ‘third way’ whereas either method could be used as long as economic activity served the state.

The main ideological principle of fascism is for all activity (private sector or public sector) to serve the state.

That is why the symbol of the fasces is branches intertwined. The private sector and the public sector intertwined. All areas of life to serve the state. In practice fascism would have all business entities intertwined with government whereas instead of simply operating on free market principles, each business would operate by a combination of political principles (or agendas) and free market principles both.

This is what we have for the most part in the United States today. The housing market and the banking markets have not been operating on simply free market principles but have been heavily intertwined with political agendas. This is the same ideology that the progressive movement wants to bring to all industry under the banner of the greenie movement as well. All companies must intertwine the greenie political agenda with their free market strategies according to the plan that they set forth. The progressive movement seeks to do the same with healthcare (intertwine their political agendas and the free market) The progressive movement goal is to try to get everyone marching lockstep in every aspect of life.

The progressive movement is a fascist movement. Jonah Goldberg’s book “Liberal Fascism” is a great book and helps expose a lot of this.


Dont hurt the Moon

#3    Farmer77

Farmer77

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,610 posts
  • Joined:04 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Desert

  • "Science has done its utmost to prevent whatever science has done" - Charles Fort

Posted 16 January 2010 - 07:18 PM

I personally see the political "spectrum" as being circular. I originally came to that opinion based on the shifting political world we live in now ( I.E. the dreaded 'neocons' would have been liberals in the 60's). Since then however I do believe that extremists are cut from the same cloth. The philosophical extremes on the right and the left very closely mirror each other and it often is a matter of semantics more than anything else which separates them.

I don't suffer from insanity, I rather enjoy it

#4    Helen of Annoy

Helen of Annoy

    devil's aunt

  • Member
  • 22,018 posts
  • Joined:21 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Croatia/Sucamore Beach

  • Where there's a will
    there's a way.

Posted 16 January 2010 - 07:39 PM

View PostTRUEYOUTRUEME, on 16 January 2010 - 05:13 PM, said:

Well it is fitting that I should be the first to comment on this article beign that I created this new political scale (left to right) about two years ago.  I have written about it on the internet in various places before.

Any scale must measure something.  The academic myth that communism and socialism are to the far left and that fascism is to the far right measures nothing politically.

I had proposed that a political scale should measure 'indivdual liberty'.  That the furhter to the right you go then the more individual liberty you have.  The further to the left you go then the more state control and less individual liberty you have.

I started poposing this years ago and I had seen Glenn Beck pick up on it once and now of course this article as well.

In my opinion though anarchy is an illusion.  It can never be maintained and can only happen naturally.  So it is not a real political system.  To the far right I would place libertarianism and then conservatism would follow after. Both political systems of capitalism.

Socialism and fascism are like brother and sister ideologies.  Very similair in many ways.  As the writer points out most socialist systems become fascist in practise throughout history.  They seem to be more like two different methods of achieving the same thing (state control).

Here is something I wrote to a FRiend just a couple of days ago in regards to the economic fascist system and it's relation to America today:

Interesting.
I think too that fascism and communism are so alike it’s hard to find a true difference between them. But one is extreme right, the other is extreme left. Why changing the existing affectionate names for political options, you're confusing simple people like me with that, just imagine that allegoric band that is marked like this:

Leftiest, leftier, left, slightly left, centre, slightly right, rightier, rightest

has its far left and far right ends meet, forming an anti-centre.

Taa-daa.
  
Speaking of individual liberty, every blood sucking construction will advertise itself with statements about enormous individual liberties it offers, but in reality, there’s a choice between liberty and security. One can’t have it both in the same time, simply because people – on average - are greedy, immoral b*******.

Posted Image

Have I ever lost the plot while reading one of your posts?
The will to live maybe, but not the plot...  -  Junior Chubb

#5    Oen Anderson

Oen Anderson

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 407 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Montana

  • We are all individuals and we are all special in our own unique way which really makes us quite ordinary!

Posted 16 January 2010 - 10:33 PM

one definition of liberty is the ability to choose.  We are losing our ability to choose be it health care insurance or our freedom of speech.  Choose your next words carefully for this is Sparta.  America has become the new Sparta from the most powerful military to the discarding of unwanted babies by abortion.  This was a good article Bill, keep up the good work.


#6    REBEL

REBEL

    Esoteric Seeker

  • Member
  • 6,559 posts
  • Joined:09 Jun 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:=Australia=

  • ''GONE FISH'N, BRB...''

Posted 17 January 2010 - 09:09 PM

View PostUM-Bot, on 16 January 2010 - 11:12 AM, said:

<strong class='bbc'>Image credit: USHMM</strong>
Image credit: USHMM
William B Stoecker: We are told that there is a political spectrum extending from communism on the left to fascism on the right. Aside from a few brain-dead Marxists, most people understand that communism inevitably means tyranny. No communist state in history has ever evolved into the promised “classless society.” In North Korea, where an entire nation has been transformed into a giant concentration camp, communism has become a hereditary monarchy. Most people do understand that fascism (its German variety is Nazism) means tyranny. Fascist states are always militaristic and follow an aggressive foreign policy, and always have a powerful secret police apparatus and a controlled mass media. Dissidents are always imprisoned, and often tortured and murdered. But isn’t this all an absurdity, a contradiction in terms? By definition a spectrum goes from one extreme to another, from red to violet, from light to dark, or from freedom to tyranny. A spectrum with tyranny at both ends is, by definition, not a spectrum. So let me propose an alternative. On the left is fascism, the ultimate tyranny, whether it is called fascism, Nazism, communism, or Marxism. On the right is anarchy. In the middle is free republican government with a written constitution to limit the power of that government.

Fascism was established in Italy by Benito Mussolini. Far from being a “right winger,” he was, like his father, a lifelong socialist, but he went further and advocated revolutionary socialism…communism. After coming to power, he established a socialist economy with government control over large sectors of the economy, and massive public spending. And, of course, he controlled the media, imprisoned dissidents, and led Italy into a disastrous war.

Posted Image View: Full Article

Got to admit, i never knew that, and in my home of heritage. :ph34r:  

Guess it's no surprise the masses hung upside down beating him & the mrs to death like a dusting a rug in the middle of vatican square, pity they never dusted some of them bandwagon two faced jumping church hierarchy as well.


He did fascist state a fact that *almost rings true today;

Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power. -Benito Mussolini

*more like, control of corporate power over government power.


#7    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,491 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 05 February 2010 - 02:41 AM

Trueyoutrueme

Does Imperialism merit a place in your L to R Scale?




#8    TRUEYOUTRUEME

TRUEYOUTRUEME

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

  • We Have Heaven

Posted 05 February 2010 - 02:46 AM

View PostEldorado, on 05 February 2010 - 02:41 AM, said:

Trueyoutrueme

Does Imperialism merit a place in your L to R Scale?

Yes sure it does.  The Soviet Union spread their imperialism from nation to nation through force.  Hitler tried the same.  There is nothing free about forcing other nations to be under your rule.

Dont hurt the Moon

#9    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,491 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 05 February 2010 - 02:47 AM

View PostTRUEYOUTRUEME, on 05 February 2010 - 02:46 AM, said:

Yes sure it does.  The Soviet Union spread their imperialism from nation to nation through force.  Hitler tried the same.  There is nothing free about forcing other nations to be under your rule.


How about American Imperialism?


#10    TRUEYOUTRUEME

TRUEYOUTRUEME

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

  • We Have Heaven

Posted 05 February 2010 - 02:50 AM

View PostEldorado, on 05 February 2010 - 02:47 AM, said:

How about American Imperialism?

I do not see America as an imperialistic nation though.

I do know that there is left-wing propaganda that claims such (I have read the arguments) but I disagree.

Edited by TRUEYOUTRUEME, 05 February 2010 - 02:51 AM.

Dont hurt the Moon

#11    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,491 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 05 February 2010 - 02:59 AM

But where on the Scale is Imperialism?  To the left, or to the right?


#12    TRUEYOUTRUEME

TRUEYOUTRUEME

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,006 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Jersey

  • We Have Heaven

Posted 05 February 2010 - 03:05 AM

View PostEldorado, on 05 February 2010 - 02:59 AM, said:

But where on the Scale is Imperialism?  To the left, or to the right?

By my definition it would be to the left as it denies a free market and forces one nations rule over another nation for no reason but to control their people and economic freedom. Imperialism is not a partnership between nations but a rule of one nation over another in everyway (not just for National Defense reasons).  The Soviet Union and other left-wing countries have done this many times throughout history but the United States has not ever done that. The U.S. may act for National Defense reasons but never has been imperialistic.

Dont hurt the Moon

#13    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,491 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 05 February 2010 - 04:13 PM

"The U.S. may act for National Defense reasons but never has been imperialistic."

http://www.legion.or...pire-dirty-word



#14    Eldorado

Eldorado

    Unforgiven

  • Member
  • 10,491 posts
  • Joined:29 Oct 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

  • I reckon so.

Posted 05 February 2010 - 05:00 PM

I suppose it's a back-door kind of imperialism.  Help other countries, offer them trade and expertise, make them reliant on you.  In return, they can host your military bases and you have a say in the running of their country. Slowly introduce your culture, and pretty soon those countries are well on the way to being Americanised


#15    Attemped Human

Attemped Human

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 63 posts
  • Joined:18 Jan 2010

Posted 06 February 2010 - 03:23 AM

I'm not here to jump for joy over communism and spread the good word, not by any means, but there are some problems in the OP. For instance, communism isn't an ideologically homogenous phenomena. Most anarchists are communist, at least outside the US they are, and they campaigned against Leninism and attempted to force power out of the nomenclature of Bolshevik party's hands...there reward was extermination (specifically, see the Kronstadt massacre). This is a pattern that is repeated throughout the history of communism (see the Spanish Revolution) and has a history prior to the Soviet Union.

It was Bakunin, an anarcho-collectivist (that is, a very leftwing anarchist), was the first person to extrapolate from Marx's theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat the "Red beaurocracy" of the machine that would come to be Soviet Russia. He and the anarchist faction lobbied to have Marx's ideological leadership of the communist movement rejected but for their pains they were expelled, breaking up the First International. During the Second International this was repeated when Kroptokin, Gustav Landauer (an anarchist, socialist and mystic) and Errico Malatesta and their supporters were physically ejected from meetings.

All of this is to say that actually existing socialism was based on extrapolations from Marx's political theories (and not his critique of capitalism which most economists agree is masterful). It was the developments of his theory by Lenin, and their further corruption by Stalin (a man who was actually insane), which eventually led to the Soviet brutality.  

Communism predates and has alternate versions to those instantiated in Russia.

Again, I won't go further into this next point as its the information is easily available but Soviet Communism was never actually communist. The goal of communism is the superseding of capital but the Soviet Union did not achieve this, rather it consolidated capital under state control through its vicious programs of collectivisation (forced nationalisation). It also failed to achieve the classless society, as the OP points out, which means that it did not achieve the other stated goal of communism. If these are the two goals of the communist movement and neither was achieved it seems silly to call Russia communist at all.

Nonetheless, the Soviet Union was a far worse atrocity than Fascism as Fascism did only what it promised to do. The Soviet experiment was a spectacularly bloody failure. The difference here is that the idea of Fascism was achieved in Germany and Italy but the communist idea was not achieved in Russia. The idea remains sound.


The OP also includes a factual error in its claim that Mussolini was a communist. Mussolini had been a socialist, this much is true, but never a communist (the two are not identical and often bitterly opposed). Mussolini had in fact been a Syndicalist. Syndicalism already has Facism's fetishism of the state in its idea of One Big Union, so the jump was not hard to fathom but that itself does not explain it. Perhaps the fact that Mussolini's theoretical icon was Max Stirner does explain this to some extent. While Stirner rejected the state he was not a true anarchist, and certainly not a communist, as he believed that only the individual Ego had any importance and was the highest source of authority.
Wedding Stirnite egoism to Syndicalist Unionism allowed Mussolini to postulate that the Ego should control the Union...that is, one should have a dictatorship.


And to those claiming that socialism and fascism are 'sisters' or related by similarity a history lesson might be in order. It is well documented that Fascists despised the left wing but admired their organisational skills. Socialist organisation was adapted to fit Fascist ends. This is especially true of Nazism where communists were, before gypsys or Jews, the first group to be systematically oppressed and murdered.


Like I say, I'm not here to prolysthetise but the ready identification of communism and fascism is based on some pretty gross simplifications of both movements.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users