The "Fascist" fallacy

[bloodyminded]

What I'm saying is clear, that fascism is not an extreme right-wing idelogy, but rather an extreme left-wing ideology. Most importantly, fascism has MUCH more in common with the contemporary left-wing in Western politics than with those of us on the right.

This is flatly untrue. And yes, what you're saying is "clear," perfectly so. Is that really your argument for your being correct?

I don't care what this or that scholar says. I am more than intelligent enough to come to my own conclusions.

Not at all. You've already claimed that lots of scholars agree with you, and you summoned the name of an intellectual who agrees with you...etc. And suddenly they don't matter...once you realize that others can actually cite multiple scholarly sources on the subject, rather than making bland claims about it as you have done.

Just because I was lied to in university and high school when fascism was placed on the far right end of the political spectrum doesn't make it so.

Yep, everyone's been lying to Bob, his whole life. Teachers and professors--not even mistaken, but lying to Bob.

This is pretty extreme paranoid delusion, and amounts to one of the more far-fetched conspiracy theories I've yet heard.

At the end of the day, and I've said this several times already, fascism has many more parallels with the contemporary left than the contemporary right.

I realize this is comforting for you--and allows you to assume that the political Right is utterly free of responsibility for any horrors (aside from the fact that they kowtow too much to this monolithic "Left"). Comforting, but not too wise.

[Bob]

All those things may be true (though most are not. Morality-based censorship, for example, is a distinctly right wing phenomenon). But they don't have anything to do with fascism. Fascist states never cared a jot about "redistributing wealth" except insofar as it could be redistributed to the ruling class. As for the focus on the protection of rights, history tells us that is not really a huge priority for fascist regimes.

"Morality-based censorship"? How effective has that been? How strong is that movement among those on the right to censor things based on "morality"? The reality is that it has been the left that has been the most aggressive, and unfortunately effective, in establishing censorship in Canada and the USA. Off the top of my head, the MPAA was founded and run by leftists (Lyndon B Johnson and Jack Valenti, there was a docuemntary-ish film made about its history). Consider the ratings system on video game, the ESRB, another leftist creation. Consider the HRTs in Canada. Again, it's leftism. Censorship in the contemporary West, if anything, is almost exclusively a product of leftism. Adjacent to censorship is government control over content, and in Canada of course the CRTC forces "Canadian content" regulations onto Canadian broadcasters.... another product of leftism (big thanks to Trudeau). And the loudest advocates for the CRTC and such regulation are exclusively from the left. I could go on and on, but it's obvious to anyone with even a cursory review of historical and current examples of censorship organizations and though police in contemporary Western society.

And yes, fascism mobilizes control and wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of others. That is leftism. That is socialism. That is communism.

[Bob]

This is flatly untrue. And yes, what you're saying is "clear," perfectly so. Is that really your argument for your being correct?

Not at all. You've already claimed that lots of scholars agree with you, and you summoned the name of an intellectual who agrees with you...etc. And suddenly they don't matter...once you realize that others can actually cite multiple scholarly sources on the subject, rather than making bland claims about it as you have done.

Yep, everyone's been lying to Bob, his whole life. Teachers and professors--not even mistaken, but lying to Bob.

This is pretty extreme paranoid delusion, and amounts to one of the more far-fetched conspiracy theories I've yet heard.

I realize this is comforting for you--and allows you to assume that the political Right is utterly free of responsibility for any horrors (aside from the fact that they kowtow too much to this monolithic "Left"). Comforting, but not too wise.

The only reason I mentioned Thomas Sowell was because of an earlier attempt at an appeal to authority from another poster. I never use the agreement of someone else to support my positions. Frankly, I don't care who does or doesn't agree with me. Now you're harping on the point, seemingly in an attempt to have a pissing contest over who can name more "scholars" who agree with my position or your position on the political orientation of fascism.

And after all this time, nobody has even come close to explaining how fascism DOESN'T have much more in common with the contemporary left than the contemporary right. That is my point. You then tried to suggest that I am speaking of a very narrow segment of the contemporary right (libertarianism), when in fact it is the broader right-wing that opposed the very parallels I am speaking about between the contemporary left and fascism (increased government control over most dimensions of life - economic and social).

[eyeball]

And yes, fascism mobilizes control and wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of others. That is leftism. That is socialism. That is communism.

Wow...I guess if this is the case then GW Bush really was a commie.

So what the hell does that make me? Is this political spectrum like space and time - if I look far enough in one direction will I finally see the back of my own head or something.?

Am I actually a right-winger? I suddenly feel like Little Nemo adrift in Slumberland.

Edited September 15, 2011 by eyeball

[Bob]

George Bush was a conservative? In name only, perhaps....

[dre]

George Bush was a conservative? In name only, perhaps....

Bob quit the god damned charade. Nobody is ever going to buy it. Do a little bit if reading about how the Italian fascists regarded leftists, socialism, and communism.

What youre doing is another demonstration of how the word fascism is one of the most misused words in the english language... a universal epithet for everying bad. If you think the fascists were leftists then you flat out done know what either of those words mean.

[Black Dog]

"Morality-based censorship"? How effective has that been? How strong is that movement among those on the right to censor things based on "morality"?

Pretty fucking strong.

The reality is that it has been the left that has been the most aggressive, and unfortunately effective, in establishing censorship in Canada and the USA. Off the top of my head, the MPAA was founded and run by leftists (Lyndon B Johnson and Jack Valenti, there was a docuemntary-ish film made about its history).

The MPAA was the successor to the Hays ciode, created by the Republican Will Hays. The MPAA was initially run by Eric Johnston a socialist so red he came up with the idea of the blacklist.

Consider the ratings system on video game, the ESRB, another leftist creation.

Rating systems are censorship too?

Consider the HRTs in Canada. Again, it's leftism. Censorship in the contemporary West, if anything, is almost exclusively a product of leftism

Like those commies at Parent's Television Council, the Catholic League, the Media Research Center and every hillbilly who objects to books about gay penguins.

I could go on and on, but it's obvious to anyone with even a cursory review of historical and current examples of censorship organizations and though police in contemporary Western society.

Sure, if you depend wholly on circular logic. "Censorship is a leftist thing, so if someone wants to censor something they are ipso facto leftists."

And yes, fascism mobilizes control and wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of others. That is leftism. That is socialism. That is communism.

It's also capitalism. OMG!

Edited September 15, 2011 by Black Dog

[netspawn]

] netspawn asked bob: ... what are they?

.

Bob answered by reiterating yet again what he has already said several times (and thus failing to answer my simple question), and then ending with this observation: ... It is the right-wing that most aggressively promotes freedom and liberty from government control, in both economic and social dimensions. <snip>

.

This is a gross over-generalization and over-simplification of a very complex situation, Bob ... BUT there IS a nugget of truth in what you say. Thus, for example, it was the right-wing (ie. conservatives and big business) that aggressively promoted the free-market ideology that allowed financial institutions to ignore the laws and regulations meant to protect the common good, and thus gave them the freedom and liberty to sell and trade their toxic financial products all over the world, and which later led to the financial meltdown (credit crisis) that resulted in millions of people losing their jobs, savings, and investments. On the other hand, it is these SAME liberty-loving conservatives that aggressively promote the war-on-drugs whereby billions of dollars are spent to incarcerate otherwise law-abiding citizens for the heinous crime of 'getting high'. What do you call it when those in power make war upon it's own citizens out of spite, hatred, bigotry, and intolerance? To me, this is the very essence of fascism; and it's coming directly from those that you claim promote "freedom and liberty from government control"! Do you see the contradiction here, Bob?

[Bob]

Bob quit the god damned charade. Nobody is ever going to buy it. Do a little bit if reading about how the Italian fascists regarded leftists, socialism, and communism.

What youre doing is another demonstration of how the word fascism is one of the most misused words in the english language... a universal epithet for everying bad. If you think the fascists were leftists then you flat out done know what either of those words mean.

I've already described, in moderate detail, how fascism must more closely resembles contemporary leftism than the contemporary right-wing. It's a simple point, and it's true.

You talk about this imagined animosity between fascists and communists... you mean like this?

Here.

Here.

Want to see images of Stalin meeting and greeting Nazis? Or the other way around?

[dre]

I've already described, in moderate detail, how fascism must more closely resembles contemporary leftism than the contemporary right-wing. It's a simple point, and it's true.

You talk about this imagined animosity between fascists and communists... you mean like this?

Here.

Here.

Want to see images of Stalin meeting and greeting Nazis? Or the other way around?

I've already described, in moderate detail, how fascism must more closely resembles contemporary leftism than the contemporary right-wing.

Youve done no such thing. Not even close.

You talk about this imagined animosity between fascists and communists... you mean like this?

Its not imagined its what real Fascists actually wrote down, said, and did.

Heres what Mussolini said in the Doctrine of Fascism...

Granted that the XIXth century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the XXth century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century.

Anti-socialism, anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, and anti-leftist. A complete and total wholesale REJECTION of left/liberal ideology.

So Im sure whats coming next is the retarded claim that your subjective definition somehow trumps that of the people that ACTUALLY INVENTED fascism (who themselves defined it as an anti-leftist right-wing ideology, but that would be almost as dopey as your suggestion that since fascism is authoritarian it must be leftist.

[Bonam]

Fascism believes in mega-government control over all aspects of society - both business/economics and social/cultural behaviours. That is in-line with leftism, NOT those on the right. As we can see, you also subscribe to this lie about fascism being a "far-right" or "extreme right" ideology when in fact fascism is identical to communism aside from not being internationally-driven and allowing a symbolic form of private ownership of property, albeit under strict government regulation.

Nazism, as an example, is extreme leftism. Hitler was not right-wing by any means. Same for Mussolini.

The problem is what someone defines as "far right" is very different depending on one's perspective. For some, far right means libertarian/Objectivist, which means very small government, minimal taxes, and government pretty much leaving people alone. It is certainly very far from Fascism. However, for others, far right means social conservatism, subscribed to for example by many Republicans in the US, which is big government imposing religious-based policies and policies that dictate what they consider to be moral behavior. These share nothing in common at all philosophically, they are about as far apart philosophically as two philosophies can be, and yet they are both classified as "far right".

A one dimensional political spectrum is woefully insufficient to classify most ideologies.

This whole debate is just an inevitable result of people trying to fit a multidimensional problem into a one-dimensional spectrum. It just won't and can't work. It's pointless.

[Jack Weber]

The problem is what someone defines as "far right" is very different depending on one's perspective. For some, far right means libertarian/Objectivist, which means very small government, minimal taxes, and government pretty much leaving people alone. It is certainly very far from Fascism. However, for others, far right means social conservatism, subscribed to for example by many Republicans in the US, which is big government imposing religious-based policies and policies that dictate what they consider to be moral behavior. These share nothing in common at all philosophically, they are about as far apart philosophically as two philosophies can be, and yet they are both classified as "far right".

A one dimensional political spectrum is woefully insufficient to classify most ideologies.

This whole debate is just an inevitable result of people trying to fit a multidimensional problem into a one-dimensional spectrum. It just won't and can't work. It's pointless.

To be fair,Libertarianism on the Left and Right are hard to place on any political spectrum...And yes,there is such a thing as a Leftist Libertarian.But social conservativism certainly carries the trademark of top down government that is a hallmark of Fascism.

I was taught in school to not look at the political spectrum as a straight line,but more like a horseshoe.Looking at it that way,the extreme ends of the spectrum end up being closer together than their democratic counterparts.In fact,thismight be where some of the "confusion" comes into play because both ends of the spectrum are authoritarian forms of government.The issue is really that the extremes get to that point from completely seperate viewpoints...

[Jack Weber]

I've already described, in moderate detail, how fascism must more closely resembles contemporary leftism than the contemporary right-wing. It's a simple point, and it's true.

You talk about this imagined animosity between fascists and communists... you mean like this?

Here.

Here.

Want to see images of Stalin meeting and greeting Nazis? Or the other way around?

Mussolini and Hitler...

Two Fascists!!!

Stalin meeting NAZI's??

That would'nt have anything to do with the phony non-agression pact signed by Von Ribbentrop and Stalin would it??Ya'know...The one that Hitler disregarded because he thought the Communists(and Russians in general) in Russia beneath him?

Do you wonder why The Reichstag Fire was blamed on a Dutch Communist named Marius Vander Lubbe?

Do you wonder why the NAZI's not only banned,but killed,every Communist they could find?

Do you wonder why all organized labour was banned in NAZI Germany?

Why were all elements of Communist activity destroyed in Mussolini's Italy?

Why were all elements of Communist activity destroyed in Franco's Spain?

Why did both Mussolini and Hitler Back Franco while Stalin backed the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War?

I could go on about the viscious Fascist regimes during the Cold War in Central and South America,Africa,and,Asia...But for now I won't...

Here's a hint,Bobarino...

Both ideologies were/are like oil and water because they are diametrically opposed to each other...

[Bob]

Youve done no such thing. Not even close.

Its not imagined its what real Fascists actually wrote down, said, and did.

Heres what Mussolini said in the Doctrine of Fascism...

Anti-socialism, anti-liberalism, anti-democracy, and anti-leftist. A complete and total wholesale REJECTION of left/liberal ideology.

So Im sure whats coming next is the retarded claim that your subjective definition somehow trumps that of the people that ACTUALLY INVENTED fascism (who themselves defined it as an anti-leftist right-wing ideology, but that would be almost as dopey as your suggestion that since fascism is authoritarian it must be leftist.

I don't really care what they say. I care what they did. Communism, when described by communists, is a beautiful utopia. I live in the real world, however, not the fantasy world. And in the real world, fascism has many more parallels with contemporary leftism (centralization of control over the economy and society) than with the contemporary right (decentralization of such control via freedom and liberty).

[Jack Weber]

I don't really care what they say. I care what they did. Communism, when described by communists, is a beautiful utopia. I live in the real world, however, not the fantasy world. And in the real world, fascism has many more parallels with contemporary leftism (centralization of control over the economy and society) than with the contemporary right (decentralization of such control via freedom and liberty).

Wrongo...Again...

You THINK contemporary conservativism is about personal freedom...

That's the libertarian's wet dream they try to sell folks like you on...

Librtarians are the useful idiots of the political right because you folks will hold out that what conservatives say about "personal freedom" will come true...Libertarians are like a bowling handicap and conservatives know this!

And the only person in a "fantasy world" is you,who keeps yammering on about Fascism being a leftist construct when it very clearly is not...

[Bob]

Decnetralization of control over the economy and culture are certainly not values that are espoused from the contemporary left in Western society. Indeed, the opposite is true, where is primarily the left that seeks more regulation (always in order to "protect" the public) over more economic and social affairs.

[dre]

I don't really care what they say. I care what they did. Communism, when described by communists, is a beautiful utopia. I live in the real world, however, not the fantasy world. And in the real world, fascism has many more parallels with contemporary leftism (centralization of control over the economy and society) than with the contemporary right (decentralization of such control via freedom and liberty).

And in the real world, fascism has many more parallels with contemporary leftism (centralization of control over the economy and society) than with the contemporary right (decentralization of such control via freedom and liberty).

Those are not even accurate descriptions of the left and the right.

Edited September 16, 2011 by dre

[bloodyminded]

The only reason I mentioned Thomas Sowell was because of an earlier attempt at an appeal to authority from another poster. I never use the agreement of someone else to support my positions. Frankly, I don't care who does or doesn't agree with me. Now you're harping on the point, seemingly in an attempt to have a pissing contest over who can name more "scholars" who agree with my position or your position on the political orientation of fascism.

I don't care for the pissing contest myself; you claimed that "lots of scholars" agree with your points, which evidently you arrived at through your own intelligence.

First of all, no you certainly did not, as you echo the talking points of that contemporary right-wing sector of left-obssessives. Unless they have been cribbing from you all along, I cry foul.

Second, you remain unwilling to name the scholars, and maybe even offer us some quoted insights. As I did, for the sake of this debate.

I quoted them because they know more about the subject than you or I...especially more than you. They offer actual, substantive remarks against precisely some of the points you've been making.

Why not take them on, if it so "self-evident" that fascism is a leftist phenomenon?

And after all this time, nobody has even come close to explaining how fascism DOESN'T have much more in common with the contemporary left than the contemporary right.

Several posters have offered strong arguments...and the historians I linked to and quoted directly explain it quite specifically. I take it you didn't read any of their remarks. That's fine...but what's not fine is to ignore the pointed arguments that are made, and then claim they never existed!

And in fact, Dre and Jack Weber have offered a lot here, as well. Why pretend they haven't put forth arguments?

The fact is that the fascists--of Germany, of Italy, of Spain--despised the left. They couldn't stand them. They tended, in fact, to kill them.

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Bob]

Nobody's offered anything substantial, at all. Like I said, I am echoing what plenty of intellectuals and scholars have explained regarding how fascism has much more in common with contemporary leftism than the contemporary right-wing. I am not the one who started this pathetic pissing contest to see who can compose a longer list of such people. It's irrelevant, anyways, as my arguments never hinge on agreement from some perceived authority. I never bring it up, because my level of argumentation is far beyond such pathetic appeals to authority.

The fact remains, fascism being described as "extreme right-wing" is just another lie perpetrated by the leftists in academia, when any basic examination of the mechanisms of fascism instantly reveal it to be a harsher form of contemporary leftist politics (more and more government control masquerading as being in the best interests of "the people").

Edited September 16, 2011 by Bob

[bloodyminded]

Nobody's offered anything substantial, at all.

If none of the scholars (not all of whom are "leftwing") has offered anything substantive, then take them on.

They covered most of your points quite nicely, after all.

Like I said, I am echoing what plenty of intellectuals and scholars have explained regarding how fascism has much more in common with contemporary leftism than the contemporary right-wing. I am not the one who started this pathetic pissing contest to see who can compose a longer list of such people. It's irrelevant, anyways, as my arguments never hinge on agreement from some perceived authority. I never bring it up, because my level of argumentation is far beyond such pathetic appeals to authority.

You did bring it up, though, so I don't know where you're getting this. Even if you offer it as a resposne...it's still engaging in the "pissing contest," and it's still summoning authority. Hell, it's present in the first line of this passage of yours to which I'm at this moment responding!

At any rate, trying to parse the ideas of scholars and historians on the subject is not automatically a debate fallacy; no more than "I use my own common sense" is.

The fact remains, fascism being described as "extreme right-wing" is just another lie perpetrated by the leftists in academia, when any basic examination of the mechanisms of fascism instantly reveal it to be a harsher form of contemporary leftist politics (more and more government control masquerading as being in the best interests of "the people").

No. You favour your own theory of "conservatism" over reality itself.

To you, it makes no difference, none whatever, what conservatives do, or what they say; you determine what is "conservative" based on whetehr it aligns in action with what you think it should do.

You even blame leftists for bad rightwing behaviour, which is the height of irresponsibility.

In other words, there are no conservatives.

So you're defending some non-existent phantom.

Edited September 16, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Jack Weber]

I'm thinking that a Fasci....er...Far Right Wing Ultra Nationalist Extremist feels almost anything other than Far Right Wing Ultra Nationalistic Extremism is probably almost pure Marxism???

Edited September 17, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Oleg Bach]

There is a few old lawyers who sit on the top of a few bank towers - they are the facists and they the autocrats tell little steve harper what notes to play ----

[Black Dog]

It's irrelevant, anyways, as my arguments never hinge on agreement from some perceived authority. I never bring it up, because my level of argumentation is far beyond such pathetic appeals to authority.

No, your arguments hinge on you plugging your ears, stomping your feet and claiming that up is down and down is up because you claim it to be so according to your own personal definitions of up and down. And when questioned, your response is to stomp your feet harder. It's the solipsism of a child or a madman, wholly divorced from reality.

[dre]

The fact remains, fascism being described as "extreme right-wing" is just another lie perpetrated by the leftists in academia

LOL. Bob somehow figures his opinion on fascism trumps that of Musolini who described it as a right-wing authoritarian reaction against liberalism, leftist and communism. What a waste of time both this thread, and Bobs moronic rambling have turned into.

[Bob]

LOL. Bob somehow figures his opinion on fascism trumps that of Musolini who described it as a right-wing authoritarian reaction against liberalism, leftist and communism. What a waste of time both this thread, and Bobs moronic rambling have turned into.

Yes of course, let's use Mussolini's words rather than a basic analysis of what actually happened. And while we're at it, let's define communism in accordance with the proclamations of Lenin and Stalin.

Edited September 19, 2011 by Bob