Iraq and the Bush Administration

[kimmy]

Dear Shady,

In my opinion, staying in Canada, and fighting for what's right, is having the true courage of our convictions.

That is a large claim, for what you believe to be 'right' may or may not be right at all.

Still, the notion that people who disapprove of Canadian policies ought to move comes rather close to the Ugly American's motto "Love it or leave it!"

-k

[Shady]

That is a large claim, for what you believe to be 'right' may or may not be right at all.

That's irrelevant. The same could be said for you. It's my country too. I have just as much of a right to live here as you do. The left's notion that if one disagrees with the policies of the country, you must leave is insulting and ridiculous. It seems, that in this present time, the true fascists are on the left.

[Black Dog]

In my opinion, staying in Canada, and fighting for what's right, is having the true courage of our convictions. Not running away from the problem by moving away.

I have no problem with anyone who wants to fight for what they think is right. Tally ho and all that.

My beef is with people who want nothing more than to turn this country into a shallow copy of teh U.S., who prais ethe latter at every opportunity while denigrating the former. I'm no nationalist, but I look at it from a practical point of view: the world already has one U.S.A. Rather than try and take a country where the majority of people have an abiding attachement to Canada's progressive institutions and swing it drastically to the right, why not just go someplace where you'd be more at home?

It seems, that in this present time, the true fascists are on the left

You wouldn't know fascism if it kicked you in the face with its jackboot.

[BHS]

My beef is with people who want nothing more than to turn this country into a shallow copy of teh U.S., who prais ethe latter at every opportunity while denigrating the former. I'm no nationalist, but I look at it from a practical point of view: the world already has one U.S.A. Rather than try and take a country where the majority of people have an abiding attachement to Canada's progressive institutions and swing it drastically to the right, why not just go someplace where you'd be more at home?

So explain to me why updating our institutions to provide a broader range of democratic choices in federal government necessitates a swing to the right politically, because I'd love to see the logic underlying that conclusion.

You wouldn't know fascism if it kicked you in the face with its jackboot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's funny, coming from you. I've seen a few posts where your own comprehension of the word was questionable.

[Black Dog]

So explain to me why updating our institutions to provide a broader range of democratic choices in federal government necessitates a swing to the right politically, because I'd love to see the logic underlying that conclusion.

I wouldn't say that is the case, probably because that hasn't entered the discussion. What I am basing that on is your partisan sloganeering.

That's funny, coming from you. I've seen a few posts where your own comprehension of the word was questionable.

Examples, por favor.

[BHS]

1) go to the forum search utility

2) in the field for keywords enter "fascist"

3) in the members filter enter "Black Dog"

4) select the radio button for Show Results As Posts

Voila. Numerous examples, due to the apparent appeal the word has for you. My personal favourite involves you declaring Bush's judicial nominations to be "crypto-fascists", whatever that means. I couldn't find a trustworthy definition online. "Crypto" is Greek for "hidden" so I gather they're fascists who practice their dark arts in secret. Somehow all the bug eaters know the truth of the matter, so I guess it isn't that secret.

[Shady]

1) go to the forum search utility

2) in the field for keywords enter "fascist"

3) in the members filter enter "Black Dog"

4) select the radio button for Show Results As Posts

Wow, that really works well. There's a plethora of examples, each with a varying degree of humor. One of my favourites is his post of a quote from Herman Goering, where he highlights the word fascist. Great post BHS.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear BHS,

"crypto-fascists", whatever that means. I couldn't find a trustworthy definition online. "Crypto" is Greek for "hidden" so I gather they're fascists who practice their dark arts in secret.

I have seen numerous relevant examples of this term, though they could have been coincidences. In an editorial in the Calgary Sun, (years ago) Paul Jackson (an avowed right-winger) made fun of leftist thinking, and said "our system will last a thousand years" Transplant the word 'reich' for system, and you have the essence of 'crypto-fascism', with the appropriate obeisance yet less than full disclosure.

[Black Dog]

oila. Numerous examples, due to the apparent appeal the word has for you. My personal favourite involves you declaring Bush's judicial nominations to be "crypto-fascists", whatever that means. I couldn't find a trustworthy definition online. "Crypto" is Greek for "hidden" so I gather they're fascists who practice their dark arts in secret. Somehow all the bug eaters know the truth of the matter, so I guess it isn't that secret.

Wow, that was weak, even for you. See, I know what fascist means. I know what the characteristics of fascism are. So when I use the term, I don't use it likely. When I call someone a fascist, I don't do it to simply denigrate them, but because their beliefs, or actions are characteristic of the historical fascist political movement.

Now, your buddy Shad there does not have a grip on the word. He ascribes the "notion that if one disagrees with the policies of the country, you must leave" solely to the left (ignoring for a moment that such "love it or leave it" sentiment, a sentiment not expressed on this thread, was originally the product of right-wing anti-liberal thinking) and ascribes it to some kind of fascism on the left. Of course anyone with any knowledge of fascism knows that, historically, extreme nationalism, while a trait of fascism, is contrary to the principles of progressive thought and social democracy. In short: fascism is, by definition, a extreme right-wing ideology, which is why I'm comfortable using it to describe those with extreme right wing beliefs and Shady is wrong for using it to describe the left.

You'll have to try a lot harder than that.

[BHS]

Wow, that was weak, even for you.  See, I know what fascist means. I know what the characteristics of fascism are. So when I use the term, I don't use it likely. When I call someone a fascist, I don't do it to simply denigrate them, but because their beliefs, or actions are characteristic of the historical fascist political movement.

Now, your buddy Shad there does not have a grip on the word. He ascribes the "notion that if one disagrees with the policies of the country, you must leave" solely to the left (ignoring for a moment that such "love it or leave it" sentiment, a sentiment not expressed on this thread, was originally the product of right-wing anti-liberal thinking) and ascribes it to some kind of fascism on the left. Of course anyone with any knowledge of fascism knows that, historically, extreme nationalism, while a trait of fascism, is contrary to the principles of progressive thought and social democracy. In short: fascism is, by definition, a extreme right-wing ideology, which is why I'm comfortable using it to describe those with extreme right wing beliefs and Shady is wrong for using it to describe the left.

You'll have to try a lot harder than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You want to talk about weak. This is pathetic.

You'd do well to read a dictionary before spouting off about your non-knowledge of a subject. Here's a handy list of definitions via Google for you to examine:

fascism definitions

Facism is in practice a form of heavy handed socialism. How you can equate facism with the "right wing" is beyond me. It's the "progessive thought" you espouse (progressing towards greater and greater government regulation of every aspect of human endeavour) that most closely resembles fascism in modern democratic politics.

[Guest eureka]

BHS!

I am currently reading one of the great novels of the 20th. century. It is "Man's Hope by Andre Malraux and a novel of the Spanish Civil War by one who knew it from experience.

I suggest that you look at sources such as that to gain some inkling of Fascism and the war waged by all shades of "Leftists" to stop Fascism. Do that before you sink deeper into silliness.

Dictionary definitions are "for starters" and are a child's game when used as the "end game."

[Black Dog]

Facism is in practice a form of heavy handed socialism. How you can equate facism with the "right wing" is beyond me. It's the "progessive thought" you espouse (progressing towards greater and greater government regulation of every aspect of human endeavour) that most closely resembles fascism in modern democratic politics.

As Hugo would say "Read your Shirer". Fascism was an extreme right wing ideology rooted in nationalism, militarism and sprinkled with theories of racial superiority. Any resemblance to socialism or communism was purely superficial. Both place collective good oabove individual freedoms, but in fascist states, the indvidual's loyalty was to the State or the leader (the "fuherpriznip").

[BHS]

Facism is in practice a form of heavy handed socialism. How you can equate facism with the "right wing" is beyond me. It's the "progessive thought" you espouse (progressing towards greater and greater government regulation of every aspect of human endeavour) that most closely resembles fascism in modern democratic politics.

As Hugo would say "Read your Shirer". Fascism was an extreme right wing ideology rooted in nationalism, militarism and sprinkled with theories of racial superiority. Any resemblance to socialism or communism was purely superficial. Both place collective good oabove individual freedoms, but in fascist states, the indvidual's loyalty was to the State or the leader (the "fuherpriznip").

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ridiculous! Loyalty demanded by the state (by way of loyalty to your "comrades" or fellow citizens, who's lives are de facto owned by the state) is absolutely a feature of communism.

The fact that both communism and fascism favour the collective over the individual is hardly superficial - it's the entire point of my argument. The fact is, it's your differentiations that are superficial in this argument. The policies produced by fascist and communist (read "leftist") states are nearly identical in their effects on individual liberty, no matter what fiction writers have to say on the matter.

As for Hemmingway's war of choice, the fact that it was commies fighting fascists just means that the citizenry were screwed no matter who won, because you'd still have the government's fingers probing your orifices when the day was done.

[Black Dog]

The fact that both communism and fascism favour the collective over the individual is hardly superficial - it's the entire point of my argument. The fact is, it's your differentiations that are superficial in this argument. The policies produced by fascist and communist (read "leftist") states are nearly identical in their effects on individual liberty, no matter what fiction writers have to say on the matter.

That could explain, then why your argument is so weak. Let's take Hitler and Stalin as a couple of our examples. These are both ideologically based, authoritarian, and anti-parliamentary democracy. But the purposes for which individual liberty was suppressed and the idealogical motivations behind them were polar opposites. Hitler's earliest acts were to suppress the Communist and Social Democratic movements in Germany, crush organize labour and align the state (embodied in his person) with the Army and the industrialists. Business was allowed to go about its, well, business without the interference of labour and pursue profits in the service of the Reich. Contrasted with Stalin's policies of collectivization and direct state ownership of resources and means of production. Basically your analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep.

But then, I would expect nothing more from an indivisdual who dismisses the preeminent authority on Nazi Germany as a "fiction writer".

[BHS]

That could explain, then why your argument is so weak. Let's take Hitler and Stalin as a couple of our examples. These are both ideologically based, authoritarian, and anti-parliamentary democracy. But the purposes for which individual liberty was suppressed and the idealogical motivations behind them were polar opposites. Hitler's earliest acts were to suppress the Communist and Social Democratic movements in Germany, crush organize labour and align the state (embodied in his person) with the Army and the industrialists. Business was allowed to go about its, well, business without the interference of labour and pursue profits in the service of the Reich. Contrasted with Stalin's policies of collectivization and direct state ownership of resources and means of production. Basically your analysis is a mile wide and an inch deep.

But then, I would expect nothing more from an indivisdual who dismisses the preeminent authority on Nazi Germany as a "fiction writer".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

eureka stated he was reading a novel, which is a form of fiction last time I checked.

If you propose to murder a guy for his money, and I propose to murder him for his wife, then our distinctly different motivations somehow create different outcomes, even though the meat of the matter, his being murdered, is exactly the same. Is that the gist of your argument? Because that's what I'm reading. Always the same with the Left - style trumping substance, words and intentions replacing facts and deeds.

Whether you're forced to join a union or barred from forming a union, the effect is same on your right of free association.

Since the rise of Italian fascism in the 1920s, the tortured attempts of Marxist thinkers to analyze fascist ideology and regimes have foundered because of a tendency to ignore the obvious, according to A. James Gregor in his new book, The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism in the Twentieth Century. Fascism, rather than being the opposite of communism—that is, a counterrevolutionary movement shielding capitalist interests against working-class revolutionaries—represents only a variation on communist rule, in Gregor’s argument. Gregor cites Richard Pipes’s useful observation that “Bolshevism and Fascism were heresies of socialism.” Adding his own gloss, he tells us that they “shared subspecies traits.” Both types of government feature a unitary dictatorship with a single party, and each engages in massive economic planning to modernize societies that are supposedly being kept down by economically more developed ones.

Moreover, fascism and communism resemble each other in what they both oppose—parliamentary democracy and the free-market economy. Gregor expresses concern that here at the beginning of the twenty-first century, “democracy” still faces the “anti-democratic temptation” that gave rise to the major totalitarian ideologies of the twentieth century. In the “arduous struggle” of that earlier period, Gregor notes, the contest was “not between the Right and the Left. It was between representative democracies and their anti-democratic opponents.”

Read the whole article here.

[Black Dog]

If you propose to murder a guy for his money, and I propose to murder him for his wife, then our distinctly different motivations somehow create different outcomes, even though the meat of the matter, his being murdered, is exactly the same. Is that the gist of your argument? Because that's what I'm reading. Always the same with the Left - style trumping substance, words and intentions replacing facts and deeds.

Hitler wasn't socialist in ideology or in deed.

But rather than continue down this path (pointless as it is), I'll instead point out that, by attempting to demonstrate that fascism's fundamental charateristic is the abrogation of individual liberty, you've validated by previous use of the word! I mean, you can ignore fascism's roots as a right-wing ideology, more akin to feudalism tahn true socialism, but I maintain that, in labelling as fascist individuals who wish to expand the power of the state, suppress individual freedom and dismantle liberal traditions, I am but calling a spade a spade.

[BHS]

Hitler wasn't socialist in ideology or in deed.

But rather than continue down this path (pointless as it is), I'll instead point out that, by attempting to demonstrate that fascism's fundamental charateristic is the abrogation of individual liberty, you've validated by previous use of the word! I mean, you can ignore fascism's roots as a right-wing ideology, more akin to feudalism tahn true socialism, but I maintain that, in labelling as fascist individuals who wish to expand the power of the state, suppress individual freedom and dismantle liberal traditions, I am but calling a spade a spade.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay then. Feudalism (and it's precursor, tribalism) is a good analog for fascism. Both tribalism and socialism adhere to the paradigm of the family, but I'm willing to let that go for the sake of coming to an agreement.

I'm also willing to concede that Bush's actions post 911 fall under your description of fascism. He has increased (by means of the loathed Patriot Act, for instance) the powers of the state to interfere with individual liberty. Fine. You win. Bush is a fascist.

Would a Democratic president have done any different? I don't think so. The implication of the 911 atrocity is that not enough was being done to prevent terrorism in America. Al Gore would have taken measures to increase the state's powers of investigation too, placed in the same circumstances. He would then also be a fascist, the difference being that people like you wouldn't mind it a bit.

[Black Dog]

Would a Democratic president have done any different? I don't think so. The implication of the 911 atrocity is that not enough was being done to prevent terrorism in America. Al Gore would have taken measures to increase the state's powers of investigation too, placed in the same circumstances. He would then also be a fascist, the difference being that people like you wouldn't mind it a bit.

Well, that's where you're wrong. I challenge you to find any time where I've said anything complementary of the Democrats. I consider them to be no different than the Republicans on matters of policy or in whom they are beholden to.

[Guest eureka]

Communism does not emphasise loyalty to the state. Far from. "Pure" Communism is an internationalist ideology that does not recognise states and wants an end to state systems. Inlike Fascism whih, as Black Dog says, is all about loyalty to the state above everything. Fas cism is also racist and looks on those from many other states as a sub-species.

The book I wrote of id not by Hemingway - not Grade 5 stuff. It is by Malraux, the Frenchman who organizes the government air force to fight the Fascists. It is from the experience of the "foreigner" who knew the Spanish civil war better than any other - even Orwell. He also wrote another novel about the Chinese civil war, Man's Fate," an equalyy brilliant work based on his experiences in China.

Novels will often tell you more about reality than any history book.

[BHS]

I didn't mean "pure" (small in scale) communism, which I grudgingly respect from a libertarian standpoint. I meant the state-sized Soviet perversion.

I'll add to your statement about novels revealing reality, that the works of humorists can cast a particularly revealing light on news and events. Humourists are allowed leeway that other commentators deny themselves, to dig into the unseemly details of a story that are often ignored or danced around by the others. It's part of the reason why comedian Jon Stewart does better interviews than a lot of the "real" news interviewers.

[Guest eureka]

One short paragraph that struck me in the book!

"When a Communist addresses an international conference, he puts his fist on the table. When a Fascist addresses an international conference, he puts his feet on the table. A Democrat scratches his head....... and asks questions."

Says a lot in a little about the differences.