Leftist Fascists Strike Yet Again

[WIP]

Nope. It'll be smiley-faced fascism. You know the kind. You're part

of it. The group that tells you what you can and cannot eat, what you can and cannot say, what you can and cannot drive, what lightbulbs you can use, what toilets you're allowed to flush, etc. Look in the mirror.

In other words...total nonsense!

[Black Dog]

Then don't say something so stupid and unrelated to the topic at hand.

It's not unrelated. It's an example of how, despite your child-like belief in the concept, there's no such thing as unlimited freedom of speech. Speech is regulated all the time and not by the PC police or the smiley face leftist fascists that live in your mind.

Tell you what: prove me wrong. Prove your assertion that Godard's firing was the work of "left wing fascists". Name names. No YouTubes, though.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Black Dog

[Scotty]

"fascism" completely misused for the sake of shock value strikes again.

I think the term has simply morphed into a general description of what one believes to be heavy-handed abuse of personal freedoms by any person or organization. Everyone understands what you mean when you use it in that fashion, and I don't think anyone really expects it to be closely related to a complete ideological program any more. Thus you can be a fascist regardless of your actual political ideology.

[Scotty]

You and Shady, and the whole host of rightwing pundits, broadcasters and blogger just feel free to make this shit up as you go along! Calling a corporation that deliberately seeks monopoly markets "left wing" means that terms: left wing and right wing have no meaningful relevance in the real world. They are just characters in rightwing dramatizations of real life.

Real fascisms are totalitarian, authoritarian systems that use traditional cultural values and traditional levers of power in the society to exercise control of the population..

I've seen and heard the term used to describe Stephen Harper and his party, and to describe the Americans, not to mention the Israelis. It's used pretty indiscriminately. Thing is, it's usually reserved for people or organizations perceived as being right of centre. There really isn't an equivalent to be used against those who are Left of centre because accusing someone of being "Communist", which is the leftist totalitarian ideology, has last any affect it might have had due to the way the left leaning media have shown sympathy for the communist ideology over the years, and for those who either are communists or are accused of being communist (harkening back to the McCarthy era). The Communists murdered more people than the Fascists, but it's still considered acceptable to run for the Communist party in Canada, then simply switch and run for the NDP without any kind of uproar. Imagine, if you will, someone who ran for the Nazi party in Canada switching and running for the Conservatives, and what kind of a national uproar there would be over THAT.

I think the reason is that the Nazis are perceived (rightly) as having had racist underpinnings while the Communists are not so perceived (wrongly). In fact, Communists, when they rule, have, in the past, been every bit as nasty to ethnic and religious minorities as the Nazis were.

[Shwa]

Nope. It'll be smiley-faced fascism. You know the kind. You're part

of it. The group that tells you what you can and cannot eat, what you can and cannot say, what you can and cannot drive, what lightbulbs you can use, what toilets you're allowed to flush, etc. Look in the mirror.

And let's not forget that scion of fascists, Miss Manners and the evil etiquette of polite society. You know the ones that tell you what fork to use, how to eat properly (no elbows on the table!) and their well known attack on freedom of speech: the etiquette of conversation in mixed company.

Facists, all of them and their political correct politeness. That this decorum is firmly rooted in finer civilized nobility of the ages shouldn't fool you, they were totalitarianistic social-ists in the worst way. They invented 'politically correct' in the great halls of Kings and Queens.

[Pliny]

Your premise is flawed. Here's a hint: the decision was not motivated by "left wing bias" or any other such bugbear.

Well, how about "politically correct left wing social justice".

[Pliny]

And let's not forget that scion of fascists, Miss Manners and the evil etiquette of polite society. You know the ones that tell you what fork to use, how to eat properly (no elbows on the table!) and their well known attack on freedom of speech: the etiquette of conversation in mixed company.

Facists, all of them and their political correct politeness. That this decorum is firmly rooted in finer civilized nobility of the ages shouldn't fool you, they were totalitarianistic social-ists in the worst way. They invented 'politically correct' in the great halls of Kings and Queens.

Forcing the peasants to hold their pinky properly under threat of the guillotine was particualrly egregious!

I think your issue is more with authority and leadership rather than politics and government.

There was no law only the expectation of proper and acceptable etiquette and manners in upper social circles.

[Pliny]

You and Shady, and the whole host of rightwing pundits, broadcasters and blogger just feel free to make this shit up as you go along! Calling a corporation that deliberately seeks monopoly markets "left wing" means that terms: left wing and right wing have no meaningful relevance in the real world. They are just characters in rightwing dramatizations of real life.

Real fascisms are totalitarian, authoritarian systems that use traditional cultural values and traditional levers of power in the society to exercise control of the population....and that makes them conservative and rightwing in any honest analysis of the problem:

“When fascism comes to America, it will come wrapped in the flag and waving a cross,” attributed to Sinclair Lewis.

I prefer Jonah Goldberg's concept of fascism coming to America with a smily face. The wrapped in a flag and waving a cross thing seems reactionary response to the encroachment of the State.

[Shwa]

Forcing the peasants to hold their pinky properly under threat of the guillotine was particualrly egregious!

I think your issue is more with authority and leadership rather than politics and government.

There was no law only the expectation of proper and acceptable etiquette and manners in upper social circles.

I would wholly agree were it not for the peasant - or anyone else - getting their head lopped off for not bowing, or otherwise being quite rude, to the King or Queen. Etiquette - whether at the dinner table or the King's Privy Chamber, was always ruled by 'politcal' correctness.

[Remiel]

I think the reason is that the Nazis are perceived (rightly) as having had racist underpinnings while the Communists are not so perceived (wrongly). In fact, Communists, when they rule, have, in the past, been every bit as nasty to ethnic and religious minorities as the Nazis were.

The proper counterpart of the Nazi Party would more truthfully be the Stalinist Party. And I guarantee you that no one who claimed to be a Stalinist would be welcomed in Canada.

[Scotty]

The proper counterpart of the Nazi Party would more truthfully be the Stalinist Party. And I guarantee you that no one who claimed to be a Stalinist would be welcomed in Canada.

Stalin is not the only Communist who murdered his citizens. In fact, as far as I'm aware this is a trait relatively common among Communist governments.

[Remiel]

Stalin is not the only Communist who murdered his citizens. In fact, as far as I'm aware this is a trait relatively common among Communist governments.

So some murderers are Communists but not all Communists are murderers? I could say the same thing about Capitalists. And even some " Liberals " .

[WIP]

I prefer Jonah Goldberg's concept of fascism coming to America with a smily face. The wrapped in a flag and waving a cross thing seems reactionary response to the encroachment of the State.

I wasn't aware of what the hell this "fascism with a smiley face" was about until I learned that Jonah Goldberg wrote a book on the subject, with a smiley face icon that looks like it came from a Walmart ad. I have too many other subjects I want to read about, to waste valuable time reading Goldberg's book - the description on the Amazon page looks like it's in the same realm as Ann Coulter's "Godless: The Church of Liberalism," which uses similar blame-shifting strategies to portray liberal academics in universities as dangerous subversives out to destroy Christian America. The obvious reason for her stupid diatribe that's one third creationism, is because the universities remain the last bastion for critics of rightwing authoritarianism.

As for Goldberg, he wrote a rebuttal of sorts to critics in National Review, wherein he is forced to explain the actual conflict in Italy at the time with the Communist Party as:"In the era that we’re talking about the great question on the Left was between different kinds of socialism: International Socialism or National Socialism.". What the hell is the good of his label: "two different kinds of socialism" if the only distinguishing feature he can cite is that the Marxists were internationalists, while Mussolini incorporated nationalism in his movement? If his book mentioned that Pope Pius and the wealthiest industrialists and landowners at the time, turned against the Prime Minister and threw their support behind Mussolini, then maybe I could take his labels a little more seriously! The obvious reason why most legitimate historians and political scientists have placed fascism and nazism on the right side of the political spectrum is because of their collusion with the aristocrats and established business leaders, and their use of traditional conservative values of nationalism and religion.

There's nothing saying that Marxism doesn't qualify as a totalitarian system of government, but communism focuses its appeal on adopting new values -- a classless society where the aristocrats have their wealth and land confiscated by the people, internationalism, equality for women...which are designed to appeal to those who aren't happy with tradition, and want something radically new. While the rightwing fascists create a vision of returning to past glory, when the nation was respected, when people followed traditional religious and family values....and since this is the vision churned out endlessly by the corporate-sponsored authoritarian conservatives today, Sinclair Lewis's dark vision of a future American fascism is more relevant than any smiley faced fascism that Jonah Goldberg wants to dream up!

[WIP]

I've seen and heard the term used to describe Stephen Harper and his party, and to describe the Americans, not to mention the Israelis.

Which hardly justifies calling every opposing group "fascist." But, I'm still not backing away from my position that conservatives are already halfway down the road to fascism, with their appeals to religion, retributive justice, emphasis on nationalism, and disregard for civil liberties.

It's used pretty indiscriminately. Thing is, it's usually reserved for people or organizations perceived as being right of centre. There really isn't an equivalent to be used against those who are Left of centre because accusing someone of being "Communist", which is the leftist totalitarian ideology, has last any affect it might have had due to the way the left leaning media have shown sympathy for the communist ideology over the years, and for those who either are communists or are accused of being communist (harkening back to the McCarthy era).

Who in the corporate media is showing sympathy to communist ideology? In the U.S., the Republican Party has successfully painted "liberal" as a pejorative that most spineless Democrats deny rather than embracing. Authoritarian leaders give orders, and their followers carry out orders without wasting neurons evaluating their latest talking points. On the other hand, liberals don't follow leaders unconditionally, and that, in a nutshell is how less than one quarter of the U.S. adult population is effectively running the nation's policy-making.

The Communists murdered more people than the Fascists, but it's still considered acceptable to run for the Communist party in Canada, then simply switch and run for the NDP without any kind of uproar. Imagine, if you will, someone who ran for the Nazi party in Canada switching and running for the Conservatives, and what kind of a national uproar there would be over THAT.

I don't know about where you are, but I haven't seen a Communist Party candidate on the ballot where I live in quite a few years! Be that as it may, even during the Cold War, a Communist, or Marxist-Leninist could say that they were following a different brand of communism than the one in the Soviet Union, or in China; but a Nazi is taking ownership of a political movement cannot be separated from it's one time national leader - Adolf Hitler, and one that fully embraces racism, so that is still a more difficult hurdle to clear.

I think the reason is that the Nazis are perceived (rightly) as having had racist underpinnings while the Communists are not so perceived (wrongly). In fact, Communists, when they rule, have, in the past, been every bit as nasty to ethnic and religious minorities as the Nazis were.

One big difference though, is that the Soviet Union could not use Marxist theory to justify Russian supremacy, while Nazism fully incorporated Aryan supremacy in its political philosophy, as well as placing other races on a scale with varying degrees of inferiority.

[Scotty]

So some murderers are Communists but not all Communists are murderers? I could say the same thing about Capitalists. And even some " Liberals " .

Not truthfully.

Communism is every bit as failed an ideology as fascism, and both are equally associated with the most severe and widespread human rights violations the world has seen since their inception.

[Scotty]

Which hardly justifies calling every opposing group "fascist." But, I'm still not backing away from my position that conservatives are already halfway down the road to fascism, with their appeals to religion, retributive justice, emphasis on nationalism, and disregard for civil liberties.

Emphasis on nationalism? Please describe how the Tories have done this and contrast it with how the Liberals played a big rah-rah-rah nationalistic propaganda game about Canada and Quebec. On Canada Day now (used to be a quiet Dominion Day) we have the same type of rah-rah attitude complete with face painting of maple leafs, wrapping yourself in the flag, and teary eyed singing of anthems which the Americans do. NOBODY used to do that sort of thing until the Liberals recreated nationalism in an effort to counter Quebec nationalism.

As for appeals to religion or disregard for civil liberties: you have no case.

Conservatives do appeal to justice, but I don't see that as related to fascism either.

Who in the corporate media is showing sympathy to communist ideology?

There have been a number of sympathetic portraits of Communists over the years, especially those attacked by McCarthy. I don't mean to suggest the media is at all in favour of Communism, but it does not look upon Communists in the same way as it would look upon Fascists. I would say a lot of the media look upon Communists as rather quaint and mistaken people who are otherwise well meaning. No one looks on Fascists like that.

I don't know about where you are, but I haven't seen a Communist Party candidate on the ballot where I live in quite a few years! Be that as it may, even during the Cold War, a Communist, or Marxist-Leninist could say that they were following a different brand of communism than the one in the Soviet Union, or in China; but a Nazi is taking ownership of a political movement cannot be separated from it's one time national leader - Adolf Hitler, and one that fully embraces racism, so that is still a more difficult hurdle to clear.

But Nazi and Fascist are not exactly the same thing. There have been a number of Fascist regimes, and only Hitler's ever set out to exterminate people.

Edited May 22, 2011 by Scotty

[Pliny]

I would wholly agree were it not for the peasant - or anyone else - getting their head lopped off for not bowing, or otherwise being quite rude, to the King or Queen. Etiquette - whether at the dinner table or the King's Privy Chamber, was always ruled by 'politcal' correctness.

Yes, political correctness is a plague indeed - and etiquette is perhaps the worst form.

If all were equal there would have been a shortage of heads to lop off and some other criteria would be necessary to define the ruling class. Perhaps, a committee that determined the proper rules of superiority and equal wealth distribution - after the committee is fed, of course.

I wonder what the etiquette would be for the class that enforced the classless society. One thing is certain, the peasantry, unlike the committee, would not be allowed to disrespectfully bring their guns to the table - best they have none.

Have you never sentenced someone to exile for improper behavior at the dinner table?

There are rules of the game and if everyone understands them and is willing to follow them they can play the game. If they are not willing to follow the rules they cannot play the game. Of course, one of the rules that allow participation is having a valid membership. In a caste system or society of class levels, membership is not simply granted between the classes and that's the pity. If membership to every level was accessbible and could be earned there would not be such a problem of class warfare.

Only a free market economy could offer that. A controlled economy would make the ruling class unaccessible. Democracy offers a promise of accessiblity to the people I suppose, but once it becomes a system of special interests, and can pick winners and losers through wealth re-distribution it loses it's lustre and the ruling class is again established with all the politically correct etiquette expected of the peasantry being entrenched in the rules - most of which, through complexity, the peasants are not made aware.

[Pliny]

I don't know about where you are, but I haven't seen a Communist Party candidate on the ballot where I live in quite a few years!

We had one on our ballot in Surrey. Isn't that quaint.

Be that as it may, even during the Cold War, a Communist, or Marxist-Leninist could say that they were following a different brand of communism than the one in the Soviet Union, or in China; but a Nazi is taking ownership of a political movement cannot be separated from it's one time national leader - Adolf Hitler, and one that fully embraces racism, so that is still a more difficult hurdle to clear.

That is the precise problem with socialism. Every socialist believes he has the right formula for accomplishing basically the same thing - taking control of the economy and redistributing the wealth as they see fit - once they themselves are fed, of course.

One big difference though, is that the Soviet Union could not use Marxist theory to justify Russian supremacy, while Nazism fully incorporated Aryan supremacy in its political philosophy, as well as placing other races on a scale with varying degrees of inferiority.

Of course, science determined their superiority in eugenics, so science was what was incorporated into it's political philosophy making Aryan supremacy and racial inferiority mere conclusions of science. They knew, intuitively it was true all along though, and science simply provided the corroborative evidence - as science often does for political purposes. Checkout a thing called "global warming".

Edited May 22, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

Sinclair Lewis's dark vision of a future American fascism is more relevant than any smiley faced fascism that Jonah Goldberg wants to dream up!

Be it fascism or communism they are both statist ideologies. Why the wealthiest industrialist landowners and the Pope of the time supported fascism was mainly because they could not support communist socialism. However, the great socialist experiment was on. The Monarchies had been supplanted with republican consititutional parliaments and it was only a matter of which form of state control was your preference. Communism being revolutionary and designed to totally eliminate the existing social structure and institute secular humanism destroying all churches was not the favourite of the Pope or the wealthiest landowners. The Pope could make a deal with the national socialists and did.

I think Sinclair Lewis confuses who the future American fascists are. The way it works is socialism is established in a country by putting on a great smiley face being for the common good and it meets no intial resistance because well, we being a compassionate society have an obligation to protect the country and the welfare of all its people especially the less advantaged. But once a certain level of socialism is achieved, by democratic vote of course, then some resistance to instituting further socialist concepts is met. Of course, any sign of regression in limiting the power of the State is decried as being politically and economically inviolable. The socialists must protect their ground calling any attempt to limit the State as fascist, even though fascism is a statist ideology. The socialists, the progressive liberals look upon any assualt to their earned entitlements or "just society" as a fascist attack upon it. In doing so these socialists themselves become the authoritarian enforcers of the rights of the State as more important than the rights of the people. Who then is more the fascist?

Edited May 22, 2011 by Pliny

[Pliny]

One big difference though, is that the Soviet Union could not use Marxist theory to justify Russian supremacy, while Nazism fully incorporated Aryan supremacy in its political philosophy, as well as placing other races on a scale with varying degrees of inferiority.

True, Marxism could not be used to justify Russian supremacy many communists though would not call the USSR a Marxist state for that reason.

Communists, or anyone engaged in territorial conquest for that matter, must in some manner believe they are superior. Communists themselves believed in their superiority because they transcended all ethnic, cultural, racial, religious, economic and class differences. There is only a matter of deciding who shall be in the Duma - intelligence was not necessarily the deterimining factor since they had no method of measuring it. The deciding measure was in a person's capability of brutishness. His etiquette at the dinner table was somewhat of a factor as well but not as important as it was under the oppressive monarchical sytem.

[Sir Bandelot]

Wow Pliny, your insights have transformed an otherwise banal and highly partisan thread into something truly useful! I grew a brain cell!

[Pliny]

Wow Pliny, your insights have transformed an otherwise banal and highly partisan thread into something truly useful! I grew a brain cell!

A toast! well-l-l....on second thought we don't want to nip it in the bud.

[Shwa]

Yes, political correctness is a plague indeed - and etiquette is perhaps the worst form.

Well, etiquette, or any other form of proper social behaviour, has always been present in all of human history and recorded in one form or another with all socities and culture groups I have ever read about. Perhaps it is not such a plague more than simple human nature. The political power structures may have changed, but each structure had it's own mode of proper social behavior, not matter how crude it may appear to us today. Even tribal peoples have their version of political correctness. One of the obvious signs of this phenomenon is in a culture's mythology, where mythological ideas are used to re-enforce the prevailing ethic of a particular group or class. God-kings, and all that.

If all were equal there would have been a shortage of heads to lop off and some other criteria would be necessary to define the ruling class. Perhaps, a committee that determined the proper rules of superiority and equal wealth distribution - after the committee is fed, of course.

Committees, tribal councils, parliaments, it is all the same.

I wonder what the etiquette would be for the class that enforced the classless society. One thing is certain, the peasantry, unlike the committee, would not be allowed to disrespectfully bring their guns to the table - best they have none.

I would imagine, back in the day, there was some form of respect required, with a smile and a hearty grin towards 'comrade.' All the stress of such an act could be reduced with copious amounts of vodka.

Have you never sentenced someone to exile for improper behavior at the dinner table?

I am not sure if anyone has been exiled for poor table manners, but etiquette reaches much further into human life than the dinner table of course.

There are rules of the game and if everyone understands them and is willing to follow them they can play the game. If they are not willing to follow the rules they cannot play the game. Of course, one of the rules that allow participation is having a valid membership. In a caste system or society of class levels, membership is not simply granted between the classes and that's the pity. If membership to every level was accessbible and could be earned there would not be such a problem of class warfare.

True, but have we ever seen this in human history - the idyllic, the utopia? Maybe for small periods of time, but class is simply one form of group and there have always been groups - cadres, associations, societies, etc. One could argue - one of the deconstructive arguments against Marx, is that "class" is beholden to the one making the definition. We can define all kinds of social groups and make broad statements about them. But would, alas, risk being politically incorrect with such statements.

Only a free market economy could offer that. A controlled economy would make the ruling class unaccessible. Democracy offers a promise of accessiblity to the people I suppose, but once it becomes a system of special interests, and can pick winners and losers through wealth re-distribution it loses it's lustre and the ruling class is again established with all the politically correct etiquette expected of the peasantry being entrenched in the rules - most of which, through complexity, the peasants are not made aware.

Again, everyone has their ideal, their utopia. But has there ever been a time when the market has been totally free? In my read of history, etc., there are always controls on the market for one reason or another, from the simplist tribal groups in the jungle to the mightiest of kingdoms to the most modern of democracies. Perhaps too, that control on the market is part of human nature somehow, of our hard wired psychological make-up.

[bloodyminded]

I prefer Jonah Goldberg's concept of fascism coming to America with a smily face. The wrapped in a flag and waving a cross thing seems reactionary response to the encroachment of the State.

It's too bad for Goldberg that the more eminenet and well-known scholars of fascism tend to think he'd dead wrong, his arguments specious and entirely politicized.

Scholarly flaws in Goldberg's thesis:

http://www.antifascistencyclopedia.com/allposts/scholarly-flaws-in-jonah-goldbergs-liberal-fascism

Poor Scholarship, Wrong Conclusions:

http://hnn.us/articles/122247.html

Not Illuminating:

http://www.hnn.us/articles/122473.html

[punked]

How come Shady, who fights at every twist and turn for business right to fire anyone at anytime for any reason, is mad that business fired someone? Seriously?