Great Socialists of Our Time

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Every president since FDR fits the standard of a socialist. None of them were great by any means.

Actually, I would put FDR more in the Fascist category, but they are pretty close ideologically.[/quote]

Good point and very true. Although he certainly dabbled in socialism or at least communism.

[quote]dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Every president since FDR fits the standard of a socialist. None of them were great by any means.

Actually, I would put FDR more in the Fascist category, but they are pretty close ideologically.

Good point and very true. Although he certainly dabbled in socialism or at least communism.[/quote]

Both Hitler and Mussolini originally ran under the communist banner. Mussolini maintained he was a communist until his death.

Both communism and fascism share a socialist style economy. The main difference is the emotionally motivating forces behind the movement.

Communism mobilized people based on a unification of class, “workers of the world unite.”

Guys like Hitler and Mussolini saw that it was to hard to unite people across the world from different countries and facing different struggles, so they tweaked the communist philosophy. Instead they turned it into a nationalist/militaristic movement. Or more specifically, with Nazi Germany, they united based on the German race.

Mussolini and FDR were actually correspondents and even friends pre-war. He claimed to learn lessons from FDR and was even quoted as remarking “he’s one of us” about FDR.

Arguments can even be made that the US under FDR was the first fascist state. He created the first department of propaganda, you mix that in with things like the blue eagle program (giving simi federal control of private business), alphabet soup, and pretty much made opposing political views illegal.

People for some reason think that the 2 are in some way opposites, when really the reason they fought so much is that they were competing over the same political base.

Edit: However, since the FDR movement was a Nationalistic/Militaristic one, I label him on the fascist side of things.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
It’s heartbreaking watching the country I love commit national suicide.

Ideas change. If you don’t like the current ideas then you have a moral obligation to change them.

How, pray tell, would you propose I go about doing that? Is there a button somewhere I missed that can be pushed? This country is losing it’s national identity. I don’t know if you’re keeping up with current events, but we are about to elect a man into our highest office who is the antithesis of everything that office was enacted to be.[/quote]

Stop babbling on a message board and get involved in politics?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Every president since FDR fits the standard of a socialist. None of them were great by any means.

Actually, I would put FDR more in the Fascist category, but they are pretty close ideologically.

Good point and very true. Although he certainly dabbled in socialism or at least communism.

Both Hitler and Mussolini originally ran under the communist banner. Mussolini maintained he was a communist until his death.
[/quote]

No, he didn’t. He was a socialist very, very early on and then changed it to fascism after declaring socliasm dead.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

Why don’t you stop throwing around terms that you obviously don’t understand?

There are plenty of socialist countries that are actually pretty decent, and not anywhere close to fascist or communist- Sweden or Norway is a standing example.

Communist economies and fascist economies are drastically different.

Wow. You’re unbelieveable.

That’s not “tweaking”. That’s the changing of an idealology.

Nationalism has no place in a truly socialist society. They look at the history of the world as a class struggle, and in that context, or paradigm, nationalism makes no sense because it’s the workers of one country fighting against the workers of another when they should be fighting against the upper class who exploits them.

Specifically, the Nazi ideal of a ruling Aryan race is the farthest thing from socialism that can be imagined.

Everything you’ve written is incorrect.

[quote]
Mussolini and FDR were actually correspondents and even friends pre-war. He claimed to learn lessons from FDR and was even quoted as remarking “he’s one of us” about FDR.[/quote]

What? Prove this. There are claims that he had written letters to Mussolini, but that is it.

No. FDR was most likely the farthest left that we went, but it was not anywhere near a fascist state. You’re the one making up propaganda here.

What department of propaganda? How did he make opposing political views illegal?

[quote]
People for some reason think that the 2 are in some way opposites, when really the reason they fought so much is that they were competing over the same political base.

Edit: However, since the FDR movement was a Nationalistic/Militaristic one, I label him on the fascist side of things.[/quote]

What? How was FDR nationalistic or militaristic? That’s a blatant lie.

All of your babbling is simply untrue. Everything. Remarkable.

Great article on fascism for any of those that can read on this board.

By Chip Berlet
September, 1992
This article is adapted from the author’s preface to Russ Bellant’s book Old Nazis, the New Right, and the Republican Party, co-published by South End Press and Political Research Associates.

“Fascism, which was not afraid to call itself reactionary… does not hesitate to call itself illiberal and anti-liberal.”
–Benito Mussolini
We have all heard of the Nazis–but our image is usually a caricature of a brutal goose-stepping soldier wearing a uniform emblazoned with a swastika. Most people in the U.S. are aware that the U.S. and its allies fought a war against the Nazis, but there is much more to know if one is to learn the important lessons of our recent history.
Technically, the word NAZI was the acronym for the National Socialist German Worker’s Party. It was a fascist movement that had its roots in the European nationalist and socialist movements, and that developed a grotesque biologically-determinant view of so-called “Aryan” supremacy. (Here we use “national socialism” to refer to the early Nazi movement before Hitler came to power, sometimes termed the “Brownshirt” phase, and the term “Nazi” to refer to the movement after it had consolidated around ideological fascism.)

The seeds of fascism, however, were planted in Italy. “Fascism is reaction,” said Mussolini, but reaction to what? The reactionary movement following World War I was based on a rejection of the social theories that formed the basis of the 1789 French Revolution, and whose early formulations in this country had a major influence on our Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights.

It was Rousseau who is best known for crystallizing these modern social theories in The Social Contract. The progeny of these theories are sometimes called Modernism or Modernity because they challenged social theories generally accepted since the days of Machiavelli. The response to the French Revolution and Rousseau, by Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, and others, poured into an intellectual stew which served up Marxism, socialism, national socialism, fascism, modern liberalism, modern conservatism, communism, and a variety of forms of capitalist participatory democracy.

Fascists particularly loathed the social theories of the French Revolution and its slogan: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.”

Liberty from oppressive government intervention in the daily lives of its citizens, from illicit searches and seizures, from enforced religious values, from intimidation and arrest for dissenters; and liberty to cast a vote in a system in which the ; majority ruled but the minority retained certain inalienable rights.
Equality in the sense of civic equality, egalitarianism, the notion that while people differ, they all should stand equal in the eyes of the law.
Fraternity in the sense of the brotherhood of mankind. That all women and men, the old and the young, the infirm and the healthy, the rich and the poor, share a spark of humanity that must be cherished on a level above that of the law, and that binds us all together in a manner that continuously re-affirms and celebrates life.
This is what fascism as an ideology was reacting against–and its support came primarily from desperate people anxious and angry over their perception that their social and economic position was sinking and frustrated with the constant risk of chaos, uncertainty and inefficiency implicit in a modern democracy based on these principles. Fascism is the antithesis of democracy. We fought a war against it not half a century ago; millions perished as victims of fascism and champions of liberty.
“One of the great lies of this century is that in the 1930’s Generalissimo Franco in Spain was primarily a nationalist engaged in stopping the Reds. Franco was, of course, a fascist who was aided by Mussolini and Hitler.”
"The history of this period is a press forgery. Falsified news manipulates public opinion. Democracy needs facts.
–George Seldes
Hartland Four Corners, Vermont,
March 5, 1988

Fascism was forged in the crucible of post-World War I nationalism in Europe. The national aspirations of many European peoples–nations without states, peoples arbitrarily assigned to political entities with little regard for custom or culture–had been crushed after World War I. The humiliation imposed by the victors in the Great War, coupled with the hardship of the economic Depression, created bitterness and anger. That anger frequently found its outlet in an ideology that asserted not just the importance of the nation, but its unquestionable primacy and central predestined role in history.
In identifying “goodness” and “superiority” with “us,” there was a tendency to identify “evil” with “them.” This process involves scapegoating and dehumanization. It was then an easy step to blame all societal problems on “them,” and presuppose a conspiracy of these evildoers which had emasculated and humiliated the idealized core group of the nation. To solve society’s problems one need only unmask the conspirators and eliminate them.

In Europe, Jews were the handy group to scapegoat as “them.” Anti-Jewish conspiracy theories and discrimination against Jews were not a new phenomenon, but most academic studies of the period note an increased anti-Jewish fervor in Europe, especially in the late 1800’s. In France this anti-Jewish bias was most publicly expressed in the case of Alfred Dreyfus, a French military officer of Jewish background, who in 1894 was falsely accused of treason, convicted (through the use of forged papers as evidence) and imprisoned on Devil’s Island. Zola led a noble struggle which freed Dreyfus and exposed the role of anti-Jewish bigotry in shaping French society and betraying the principles on which France was building its democracy.

Not all European nationalist movements were necessarily fascist, although many were. In some countries much of the Catholic hierarchy embraced fascist nationalism as a way to counter the encroachment of secular influences on societies where previously the church had sole control over societal values and mores. This was especially true in Slovakia and Croatia, where the Clerical Fascist movements were strong, and to a lesser extent in Poland and Hungary. Yet even in these countries individual Catholic leaders and laity spoke out against bigotry as the shadow of fascism crept across Europe. And in every country of Europe there were ordinary citizens who took extraordinary risks to shelter the victims of the Holocaust. So religion and nationality cannot be valid indicators of fascist sentiment. And the Nazis not only came for the Jews, as the famous quote reminds us, but for the communists and the trade union leaders, and indeed the Gypsies, the dissidents and the homosexuals. Nazism and fascism are more complex than popular belief. What, then, is the nature of fascism?

Italy was the birthplace of fascist ideology. Mussolini, a former socialist journalist, organized the first fascist movement in 1919 at Milan. In 1922 Mussolini led a march on Rome, was given a government post by the king, and began transforming the Italian political system into a fascist state. In 1938 he forced the last vestige of democracy, the Council of Deputies, to vote themselves out of existence, leaving Mussolini dictator of fascist Italy.

Yet there were Italian fascists who resisted scapegoating and dehumanization even during World War II. Not far from the area where Austrian Prime Minister Kurt Waldheim is accused of assisting in the transport of Jews to the death camps, one Italian General, Mario Roatta, who had pledged equality of treatment to civilians, refused to obey the German military order to round up Jews. Roatta said such an activity was “incompatible with the honor of the Italian Army.”

Franco’s fascist movement in Spain claimed state power in 1936, although it took three years, the assistance of the Italian fascists and help from the secretly reconstituted German Air Force finally to crush those who fought for democracy. Picasso’s famous painting depicts the carnage wrought in a Spanish village by the bombs dropped by the forerunner of the Luftwaffe which all too soon would be working on an even larger canvas. Yet Franco’s fascist Spain never adopted the obsession with race and anti-Jewish conspiracy theories that were hallmarks of Hitler’s Nazi movement in Germany.

Other fascist movements in Europe were more explicitly racialist, promoting the slogan still used today by some neo-Nazi movements: “Nation is Race.” The Nazi racialist version of fascism was developed by Adolph Hitler who with six others formed the Nazi party during 1919 and 1920. Imprisoned after the unsuccessful 1923 Beer Hall putsch in Munich, Hitler dictated his opus, Mein Kampf to his secretary, Rudolph Hess. ;

Mein Kampf (My Battle) sets out a plan for creating in Germany through national socialism a racially pure Volkish state. To succeed, said Hitler, “Aryan” Germany had to resist two forces: the external threat posed by the French with their bloodlines “negrified” through “contamination by Negro blood,” and the internal threat posed by “the Marxist shock troops of international Jewish stock exchange capital.” Hitler was named Chancellor of Germany by Hindenburg in January 1933 and by year’s end had consolidated his power as a fascist dictator and begun a campaign for racialist nationalism that eventually led to the Holocaust.

This obsession with a racialism not only afflicted the German Nazis, but also several eastern European nationalist and fascist movements including those in Croatia, Slovakia, Serbia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria, and the Ukraine. Anti-Jewish bigotry was rampant in all of these racialist movements, as was the idea of a link between Jewish financiers and Marxists. Even today the tiny Anti-communist Confederation of Polish Freedom Fighters in the U.S.A. uses the slogan “Communism is Jewish.”

“Reactionary concepts plus revolutionary emotion result in Fascist mentality.”
–Wilhelm Reich
One element shared by all fascist movements, racialist or not, is the apparent lack of consistent political principle behind the ideology–political opportunism in the most basic sense. One virtually unique aspect of fascism is its ruthless drive to attain and hold state power. On that road to power, fascists are willing to abandon any principle to adopt an issue more in vogue and more likely to gain converts.
Hitler, for his part, committed his act of abandonment bloodily and dramatically. When the industrialist power brokers offered control of Germany to Hitler, they knew he was supported by national socialist ideologues who held views incompatible with their idea of profitable enterprise. Hitler solved the problem in the “Night of the Long Knives,” during which he had the leadership of the national socialist wing of his constituency murdered in their sleep.

What distinguishes Nazism from generic fascism is its obsession with racial theories of superiority, and some would say, its roots in the socialist theory of proletarian revolution.

Fascism and Nazism as ideologies involve, to varying degrees, some of the following hallmarks:

Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.
Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.
Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).
Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.
Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.
Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.
Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission–often metaphysical and romanticized in character.
Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy–seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.
The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.
Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.
Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.
It is vitally important to understand that fascism and Nazism are not biologically or culturally determinant. Fascism does not attach to the gene structure of any specific group or nationality. Nazism was not the ultimate expression of the German people. Fascism did not end with World War II.
After Nazi Germany surrendered to the Allies, the geopolitical landscape of Europe was once again drastically altered. In a few short months, some of our former fascist enemies became our allies in the fight to stop the spread of communism. The record of this transformation has been laid out in a series of books. U.S. recruitment of the Nazi spy apparatus has been chronicled in books ranging from The General was a Spy by Hohne & Zolling, to the recent Blowback by Simpson. The laundering of Nazi scientists into our space program is chronicled in The Paperclip Conspiracy by Bowers. The global activities of, and ongoing fascist role within, the World Anti-Communist League were described in Inside the League by Anderson and Anderson. Bellant’s bibliography cites many other examples of detailed and accurate reporting of these disturbing realities.

But if so much is already known of this period, why does journalist and historian George Seldes call the history of Europe between roughly 1920 and 1950 a “press forgery”? Because most people are completely unfamiliar with this material, and because so much of the popular historical record either ignores or contradicts the facts of European nationalism, Nazi collaborationism, and our government’s reliance on these enemies of democracy to further our Cold War foreign policy objectives.

This widely-accepted, albeit misleading, historical record has been shaped by filtered media reports and self-serving academic revisionism rooted in an ideological preference for those European nationalist forces which opposed socialism and communism. Since sectors of those nationalist anti-communist forces allied themselves with political fascism, but later became our allies against communism, apologia for collaborationists became the rule, not the exception.

Soon, as war memories dimmed and newspaper accounts of collaboration faded, the fascists and their allies re-emerged cloaked in a new mantle of respectability. Portrayed as anti-communist freedom fighters, their backgrounds blurred by time and artful circumlocution, they stepped forward to continue their political organizing with goals unchanged and slogans slightly repackaged to suit domestic sensibilities.

To fight communism after World War II, our government forged a tactical alliance with what was perceived to be the lesser of two evils–and as with many such bargains, there has been a high price to pay.

“The great masses of people. . .will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.”
–Adolph Hitler

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Sweden or Norway is a standing example. >>>[/quote]

This figures. Why don’t stop babbling on a message board and move there. You’ll fit right in.

When all is said an done fascism is crony socialism. Fascism has its root in socialist principles – namely corporate-government partnerships that favors corporate ownership of all goods and productive means. Think mafia.

This system leaves little room for competition between businesses as it will always favor existing institutions over the possibility of newly created businesses.

A good example of a fascist system would be where government allows mafia and cartel like tactics to subdue competition.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Sweden or Norway is a standing example. >>>

This figures. Why don’t stop babbling on a message board and move there. You’ll fit right in.[/quote]

Ahh that’s a sad ass retort. You complain about politics here, say your country is committing national suicide, but won’t try to stop it. I say get involved, and you tell me to move away.

No. I love this country, and I’m going to do what I can to make it better. That old bullshit of, “Well…if, if you don’t like it…move to, to Canada! Yea! Yea! Move to Canada!” don’t work any more. That day’s dead.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Every president since FDR fits the standard of a socialist. None of them were great by any means.

Actually, I would put FDR more in the Fascist category, but they are pretty close ideologically.

Good point and very true. Although he certainly dabbled in socialism or at least communism.

Both Hitler and Mussolini originally ran under the communist banner. Mussolini maintained he was a communist until his death.

No, he didn’t. He was a socialist very, very early on and then changed it to fascism after declaring socliasm dead.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

Both communism and fascism share a socialist style economy. The main difference is the emotionally motivating forces behind the movement.

Why don’t you stop throwing around terms that you obviously don’t understand?

There are plenty of socialist countries that are actually pretty decent, and not anywhere close to fascist or communist- Sweden or Norway is a standing example.

Communist economies and fascist economies are drastically different.

Wow. You’re unbelieveable.

Communism mobilized people based on a unification of class, “workers of the world unite.”

Guys like Hitler and Mussolini saw that it was to hard to unite people across the world from different countries and facing different struggles, so they tweaked the communist philosophy. Instead they turned it into a nationalist/militaristic movement. Or more specifically, with Nazi Germany, they united based on the German race.

That’s not “tweaking”. That’s the changing of an idealology.

Nationalism has no place in a truly socialist society. They look at the history of the world as a class struggle, and in that context, or paradigm, nationalism makes no sense because it’s the workers of one country fighting against the workers of another when they should be fighting against the upper class who exploits them.

Specifically, the Nazi ideal of a ruling Aryan race is the farthest thing from socialism that can be imagined.

Everything you’ve written is incorrect.

Mussolini and FDR were actually correspondents and even friends pre-war. He claimed to learn lessons from FDR and was even quoted as remarking “he’s one of us” about FDR.

What? Prove this. There are claims that he had written letters to Mussolini, but that is it.

Arguments can even be made that the US under FDR was the first fascist state. He created the first department of propaganda, you mix that in with things like the blue eagle program (giving simi federal control of private business), alphabet soup, and pretty much made opposing political views illegal.

No. FDR was most likely the farthest left that we went, but it was not anywhere near a fascist state. You’re the one making up propaganda here.

What department of propaganda? How did he make opposing political views illegal?

People for some reason think that the 2 are in some way opposites, when really the reason they fought so much is that they were competing over the same political base.

Edit: However, since the FDR movement was a Nationalistic/Militaristic one, I label him on the fascist side of things.

What? How was FDR nationalistic or militaristic? That’s a blatant lie.

All of your babbling is simply untrue. Everything. Remarkable.[/quote]

Oy vey.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
dhickey wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Every president since FDR fits the standard of a socialist. None of them were great by any means.

Actually, I would put FDR more in the Fascist category, but they are pretty close ideologically.

Good point and very true. Although he certainly dabbled in socialism or at least communism.

Both Hitler and Mussolini originally ran under the communist banner. Mussolini maintained he was a communist until his death.

No, he didn’t. He was a socialist very, very early on and then changed it to fascism after declaring socliasm dead.

Do you have any idea what you’re talking about?

Both communism and fascism share a socialist style economy. The main difference is the emotionally motivating forces behind the movement.

Why don’t you stop throwing around terms that you obviously don’t understand?

There are plenty of socialist countries that are actually pretty decent, and not anywhere close to fascist or communist- Sweden or Norway is a standing example.

Communist economies and fascist economies are drastically different.

Wow. You’re unbelieveable.

Communism mobilized people based on a unification of class, “workers of the world unite.”

Guys like Hitler and Mussolini saw that it was to hard to unite people across the world from different countries and facing different struggles, so they tweaked the communist philosophy. Instead they turned it into a nationalist/militaristic movement. Or more specifically, with Nazi Germany, they united based on the German race.

That’s not “tweaking”. That’s the changing of an idealology.

Nationalism has no place in a truly socialist society. They look at the history of the world as a class struggle, and in that context, or paradigm, nationalism makes no sense because it’s the workers of one country fighting against the workers of another when they should be fighting against the upper class who exploits them.

Specifically, the Nazi ideal of a ruling Aryan race is the farthest thing from socialism that can be imagined.

Everything you’ve written is incorrect.

Mussolini and FDR were actually correspondents and even friends pre-war. He claimed to learn lessons from FDR and was even quoted as remarking “he’s one of us” about FDR.

What? Prove this. There are claims that he had written letters to Mussolini, but that is it.

Arguments can even be made that the US under FDR was the first fascist state. He created the first department of propaganda, you mix that in with things like the blue eagle program (giving simi federal control of private business), alphabet soup, and pretty much made opposing political views illegal.

No. FDR was most likely the farthest left that we went, but it was not anywhere near a fascist state. You’re the one making up propaganda here.

What department of propaganda? How did he make opposing political views illegal?

People for some reason think that the 2 are in some way opposites, when really the reason they fought so much is that they were competing over the same political base.

Edit: However, since the FDR movement was a Nationalistic/Militaristic one, I label him on the fascist side of things.

What? How was FDR nationalistic or militaristic?

All of your babbling is simply untrue. Everything. Remarkable.[/quote]

I’ll look up the exact quotes and their times from Mussolini when I get home as well as some FDR quotes on Mussolini.

The OWI or “Office of War Information” was specifically created to be in charge of DOMESTIC propaganda, to mobilize people’s emotions and beliefs. I believe there was a different department that handled the international stuff but I can’t recall the name off hand.

You are also confusing socialism, the economic system, with communism, the political system. Yes, fascism uses a socialist economy, which includes things like complete nationalization of business, redistribution of wealth, ect.

I never said there weren’t descent socialist countries, don’t know where that came from. I Even believe Fascist Italy was a decent country that was more bullied into a war they didn’t really believe in. I’m almost inclined to say that Mussolini did far more good than bad. I would have loved to live in Italy under Mussolini pre-war just for the experience. I just think it would be cool to see the rebirth of a nation’s pride, along with it’s economy (no I’m not a Nazi sympathizer either.

They began arresting people they suspected of being “anti-american” was how they made contrary thought illegal (something being perfected by republicans today). They had departments for that too. “Step out of line, the men come, and take you away”

You also have to remember that FDR and the left movement back then was very militaristic and pro-war unlike today.

However, when I mention militaristic, I refer to the application of military style principles to the civilian population.

It’s eerie to see the similarities between some of the new deal youth programs and the Hitler youth. Though I believe the intentions and results to be very different.

If you don’t get how the FDR was a nationalist, you need to go read the history books again. The problem was he took it to the point that if you didn’t 100% agree with everything the nation and administration did, you were “anti-American” (once again a republican trick on todays political stage)

The real problem with labeling anyone a fascist is there is no clear definition. Clearly some people include the violence of Hitler’s movement in their definition in which case you would eliminate FDR and Mussolini. It is in fact hard in some instances to call Italian and German fascism the same political theory. But there is no denying that Mussolini and FDR shared very similar methods and ideals.

I’m not hating on any political or economic system with my argument.

There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.

Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.

That is about it.

The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.

In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.

One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.

Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.

Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.

That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.

It is modern religion, and the state is their God.

Idolatry if you will.

[quote]orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.

Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.

That is about it.

The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.

In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.

One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.

Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.

Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.

That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.

It is modern religion, and the state is their God.

Idolatry if you will.
[/quote]

That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.

That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.

It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.

Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< Sweden or Norway is a standing example. >>>

This figures. Why don’t stop babbling on a message board and move there. You’ll fit right in.

Ahh that’s a sad ass retort. You complain about politics here, say your country is committing national suicide, but won’t try to stop it. I say get involved, and you tell me to move away.

No. I love this country, and I’m going to do what I can to make it better. That old bullshit of, “Well…if, if you don’t like it…move to, to Canada! Yea! Yea! Move to Canada!” don’t work any more. That day’s dead.[/quote]

What you love has nothing to do with this country and you have no idea what I do away from this board.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
What you love has nothing to do with this country and you have no idea what I do away from this board.[/quote]

Countries do not exist except in the ideas people carry about them. I am willing to bet both of you have very different ideas concerning this matter.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.

Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.

That is about it.

The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.

In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.

One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.

Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.

Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.

That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.

It is modern religion, and the state is their God.

Idolatry if you will.

That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.

That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.

It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.

Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)[/quote]

It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.

On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.

I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.

[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:

It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.

[/quote]

If I understand you correctly, the words Christian and Conservatives should be in quotation marks too.

Bush has done a lot to concentrate “God-like” powers in the executive branch. But I wouldn’t call him conservative.

[quote]orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.

Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.

That is about it.

The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.

In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.

One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.

Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.

Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.

That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.

It is modern religion, and the state is their God.

Idolatry if you will.

That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.

That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.

It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.

Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)

It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.

On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.

I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.[/quote]

The religious folk killed and oppressed under state atheism would disagree. I know, I know, socialism (somewhow now a religion) warped their atheist minds. Could Christians then blame the economic and political regimes present at low and bloody points in our history? Fair is fair, after all.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.

Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.

That is about it.

The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.

In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.

One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.

Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.

Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.

That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.

It is modern religion, and the state is their God.

Idolatry if you will.

That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.

That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.

It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.

Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)

It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.

On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.

I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.

The religious folk killed and oppressed under state atheism would disagree. I know, I know, socialism (somewhow now a religion) warped their atheist minds. Could Christians then blame the economic and political regimes present at low and bloody points in our history? Fair is fair, after all. [/quote]

You misrepresent the argument.

I know of no holy war in the name of atheism.

A lot of wars were waged to spread/stop the spread of national socialism, fascism and communism though, and these ideologies undoubtedly have quasi religious motifs as is pointed out by a lot of Christians today.

[quote]orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.

Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.

That is about it.

The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.

In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.

One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.

Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.

Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.

That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.

It is modern religion, and the state is their God.

Idolatry if you will.

That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.

That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.

It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.

Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)

It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.

On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.

I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.

The religious folk killed and oppressed under state atheism would disagree. I know, I know, socialism (somewhow now a religion) warped their atheist minds. Could Christians then blame the economic and political regimes present at low and bloody points in our history? Fair is fair, after all.

You misrepresent the argument.

I know of no holy war in the name of atheism.

A lot of wars were waged to spread/stop the spread of national socialism, fascism and communism though, and these ideologies undoubtedly have quasi religious motifs as is pointed out by a lot of Christians today.

[/quote]

Now we’re back to quasi religious…Can’t you just admit that the secular and atheist is at least as likely to resort to bloodshed? Is it really painful to do so? I mean, where atheism has had power, state atheism, it’s wielded a bloody sword.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
Sloth wrote:
orion wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
orion wrote:
There is exactly one big issue fascists and socialists could never agree one.

Fascists wanted to control the economy by leave the day to day operation to the owners and socialist wanted to nationalize them and run them themselves.

That is about it.

The whole point of the article FI posted seems to be lost to me, unless he wanted to show that yes, indeed, fascism and socialism do have the same roots but manifested themselves differently in each country.

In the case of Germany they happily coexisted with a heavy dose of nationalism and racism. And, surprise those were also collectivist, totalitarian philosophies.

One could also argue that Stalins or Kim Jong-Ils regimes had lots of traits that are considered to be “fascist” by the left.

Like militarism, nationalism, cult of personality, the invention of an outward enemy to create unity within the country and so on.

Fascism, Socialism and Social democracy share many of the same assumptions, and the central assumption is that the collective is more important than the individual.

That ultimately leads to using other people as beasts of burden, no matter how you turn it.

It is modern religion, and the state is their God.

Idolatry if you will.

That is an argument I’ve always found interesting, more so with the Obamessiah talk slinging around.

That the ultimate liberal ideology is an encapsulation of religion, not an abolishment of it.

It certainly manifested itself in Nazism where you saw a merging of socialism, religion, and an all authoritative messiah figure. Kind of the belief that a Utopian, heaven like society is achievable on earth through the power of government.

Thoughts Irish? Care to accuse me of comparing Obama and Hitler? =0)

It is interesting insofar as Christian conservatives are pointing out that “liberals” think that the state has God-like powers and can bring about paradise on earth.

On the other hand they get pissed that “atheists” never waged a jihad because socialism and fascism are religion like.

I am afraid that that is a problem they themselves have to solve.

The religious folk killed and oppressed under state atheism would disagree. I know, I know, socialism (somewhow now a religion) warped their atheist minds. Could Christians then blame the economic and political regimes present at low and bloody points in our history? Fair is fair, after all.

You misrepresent the argument.

I know of no holy war in the name of atheism.

A lot of wars were waged to spread/stop the spread of national socialism, fascism and communism though, and these ideologies undoubtedly have quasi religious motifs as is pointed out by a lot of Christians today.

Now we’re back to quasi religious…Can’t you just admit that the secular and atheist is at least as likely to resort to bloodshed? Is it really painful to do so? I mean, where atheism has had power, state atheism, it’s wielded a bloody sword. [/quote]

I think the point is that “state atheism” is a brand of religion. Or maybe to some point atheism can be a religion.

Which is kinda funny, because I flipped through a book in a book store the other day on “Atheist Spirituality”.