FASCISM--a development of.......the Left!? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Honus · #16 01-22-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

I don't think so.

- Peter.

Really? I would love to know which environmentalists you find to be comparable to the Nazis. Can you point us to any websites that will tell us more about that?

RichC · #17 01-22-2008, 05:53 PM

.

Holy Crap !!

Someone needs to look up what fascism and leftism are.

This Jonah Goldberg has got to be a retard if he thinks the two are the same.

That has to be some of the stupidest s**t I have heard in a while.

What the heck is wrong with the right wing ?
Why are you so afraid of us liberals ?

Just watch, this will become the new line the republicans will use to
scare people into voting for them.
Along with illegal aliens taking our jobs.
(your great great grand parents were illegal aliens)
(go read the plack at Ellis island)
Just like they used gay marriage and abortion topics to scare the idiots
in the last election.

Dam people !
Open your eyes and look at what is going on !
Your not that stupid, and you dont have to be afraid.

Thank You
Have Fun !
RichC

.

tankdriver · #18 01-22-2008, 06:03 PM

It's important to have a good understanding of the terms being used.
By definition, Fascism cannot be socialist. Socialism's goal is to put the socio-economic system in the hands of the population. Fascism's goal is to put the socio-economic system in the hands of totalitarian leaders.
Both desire to put power in the hands of government, the type of government is crucially different. Socialists desire community ownership. Fascists, the opposite. So while they have some commonality, a socialist could never be a fascist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

As our country slides ever further to the Left with the increasing calls for "medical insurance for all", this is a warning we should carefully consider.

Further to the left? You live in America, right? Dubya is no leftist. Though maybe a fascist.

Botnst · #19 01-22-2008, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

It's important to have a good understanding of the terms being used.
By definition, Fascism cannot be socialist. Socialism's goal is to put the socio-economic system in the hands of the population. Fascism's goal is to put the socio-economic system in the hands of totalitarian leaders.
Both desire to put power in the hands of government, the type of government is crucially different. Socialists desire community ownership. Fascists, the opposite. So while they have some commonality, a socialist could never be a fascist.

Further to the left? You live in America, right? Dubya is no leftist. Though maybe a fascist.

Re-read Kerry's very clear description, "That description of fascism seems pretty good to me although the part about family and religion doesn't seem completely accurate.

Is it the part about socialism that makes you say that fascism is a product of the left? I don't think that socialism is a left wing phenomena. International socialism is left wing but national socialism is right wing. I think this is why Pat Buchanan often says things that could be mistaken as being said by leftists...".

That certainly doesn't mean that every socialist is a Nazi or fascist. It simply means that they share certain common characteristics concerning markets and so forth.

It's like saying that free market libertarians and free market dictators share a common economic model. Because of that shared belief, are they the same?

t walgamuth · #20 01-22-2008, 07:00 PM

Pat Buchanan is FOS, IMHO.

Tom W

Botnst · #21 01-22-2008, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Pat Buchanan is FOS, IMHO.

Tom W

No news there.

cmac2012 · #22 01-22-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dculkin

Jonah Goldberg went on The Daily Show to talk about that book. Jon Stewart was pretty rough on him. One of Goldberg's arguments seemed so ridiculous, I think I must have misunderstood him. He said that the Nazis placed a high value on nature and the environment and that makes them like today's liberals. Maybe someone else who is familiar with Goldberg's book could chime in here, because that argument seems so childish I can't believe a publisher would waste the ink to print it.

I saw that interview also along with the comments of the previous day(s) and it was interesting:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=147884&title=jonah-goldberg

The guy is not my cup of tea but he did make an effort to make sense and didn't fail entirely, IMO.

Small cadres of people intent on remaking a nation's economy, etc. tend to resemble each other in some ways, regardless of apparent differences.

tankdriver · #23 01-22-2008, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

That certainly doesn't mean that every socialist is a Nazi or fascist. It simply means that they share certain common characteristics concerning markets and so forth.

It's like saying that free market libertarians and free market dictators share a common economic model. Because of that shared belief, are they the same?

That's what I'm saying. They happen to share common characteristics. That doesn't mean, in your example, that a free market dictator is a type of free market libertarian. In fact, it would have to mean the dictator specifically could not be a free market libertarian.

Botnst · #24 01-22-2008, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

That's what I'm saying. They happen to share common characteristics. That doesn't mean, in your example, that a free market dictator is a type of free market libertarian. In fact, it would have to mean the dictator specifically could not be a free market libertarian.

If one's perspective is markets then one would say that certain dictators and libertarians share a tremendous fundamental belief in common -- and that would be accurate and correct. If one's perspective is liberty first, then one could accurately and correctly say that libertarians and dictators share almost nothing in common, except for a few free market dictators.

It's all in the perspective from which one chooses to conduct the analysis.

B

tankdriver · #25 01-22-2008, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

If one's perspective is markets then one would say that certain dictators and libertarians share a tremendous fundamental belief in common -- and that would be accurate and correct. If one's perspective is liberty first, then one could accurately and correctly say that libertarians and dictators share almost nothing in common, except for a few free market dictators.

It's all in the perspective from which one chooses to conduct the analysis.

B

We're on the same page. I only dispute that commonality means that one is of the other. It doesn't.

MS Fowler · #26 01-23-2008, 07:20 AM

I understand that the book presents a view of the left that they will not appreciate. Whether the author makes his arguments compellingly I cannot judge until I read the book. I will post back a synopsis after I have obtained, and read the book.

It is interesting that nobody likes to ba called a "fascist"--Both the right and the left disown the term.

LUVMBDiesels · #27 01-23-2008, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

It's important to have a good understanding of the terms being used.
By definition, Fascism cannot be socialist. Socialism's goal is to put the socio-economic system in the hands of the population. Fascism's goal is to put the socio-economic system in the hands of totalitarian leaders.
Both desire to put power in the hands of government, the type of government is crucially different. Socialists desire community ownership. Fascists, the opposite. So while they have some commonality, a socialist could never be a fascist.

.

I disagree with your statement about Fascism. Is was not designed to put all power in the hands of a totaritarian leader any more than socialism was designed to create a guy like Uncle Joe Stalin. It was desgined to replace a corrupt and ineffective system used by the rich to further their own agenda. In this case it is like Socialism, but with one telling point -- private property. In most cases private property remained private under all Fascist regimes.

In fascism, power sprung from mass movements of the common people. Mussolini was elected Prime Minister and had a massive movement behind him. Hitler could not have taken power without the election of 1934 giving him the Chancellorship, and Peron was elected President of Argentina three times, the last being 25 years after he had held the office.

kerry · #28 01-23-2008, 09:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels

In most cases private property remained private under all Fascist regimes.
.

The most notable exception being the soul of the individual, which in fascism, for all intents and purposes, belongs to the State.

LUVMBDiesels · #29 01-23-2008, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kerry

The most notable exception being the soul of the individual, which in fascism, for all intents and purposes, belongs to the State.

Same thing under most Socialist regimes... They usually implement atheism and replace the church with worship of the party. Look at the USSR for example.

kerry · #30 01-23-2008, 09:49 AM

Most Western European socialists didn't do this. German, French, Swedish, British socialists never put the State in the place of God or required subservience of the individual to the party or the State.