![]() |
![]() |
#1 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Are You Leaning Far Enough to the Right to be Considered a Neo-Fascist?
WHAT HAPPENED TO US?
I am asking because I am probably just to the left of center, politically, but I am aware that I am extremely more left leaning than some of the others who post here. The abuses of our constitutional rights have been so extreme in this era, and the response to it by our representatives in congress, so accomodating, the existing provisions of FISA law, first passed in 1978, and "modernized" at least 50 times in the last 30 years, have started to look reasonable to me. Keeping the terms of the present FISA laws, sans the revisions of last summer which have expired, and without the addition of the president's push for telecom immunity, seemed to be the most we could hope for. Supporting this, 30 years ago, was a right leaning postion. Since I am just as resolute in defending my rights against elected leaders' attempts to infringe and reduce them, reading the following gave me pause. We have sunk very low, and conceded very much. What was "to the right", in 1978, advocacy for the FISA laws, as they were passed then, is considered "extreme left" today. Is your advocacy for even more transfer of unchecked/unbalanced power to the president (the state) than what the FISA law already cedes to him, symptomatic of your neo-fascist bent, politically? Why wouldn't it be considered that? Why would many of us, and our congress move so alarmingly far to the right, in just 30 years? Is it due to fear and manipulation? One senator, Russ Feingold, voted agains the Patriot Acts in Sept., 2001? Is he the sole "left" representation in the senate? What does this all say about the attraction for Obama's "unity" message? "United" to do what....descend into neo-fascism? Wouldn't "unity" consist of bringing together the "near" left and "near" right? It appears we are already "unified", very, very, far to the right..... .....or, do the right and left principles actually move? If say, we devolved to a point where only one right of the bill of rights remained, would an unwavering position in favor of restoring just one other right to the list, be an "extreme left" position? Why wouldn't supporting the idea that preservation of all the rights in the bill, unaltered, is the only acceptable status quo, be now and always a moderate, neither right nor left leaning position to hold? Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by host; 03-03-2008 at 02:55 AM.. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#2 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
I just want to make sure my sarcasm detector wasn't malfunctioning here. Do you seriously think you are 'just left of center'?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#3 (permalink) | |
Darth Papa
Location: Yonder
|
Quote:
I think we ALL think that all right-thinking people think the way we do. I mean, I'm right, after all. I wouldn't have deeply held opinions that were WRONG, god knows. So everyone who's right--and I'm an optimist, so I think most people are probably fairly smart and thoughtful, despite daily evidence to the contrary--must clearly think the way I do. I think I'm moderate. I think host is way left of me. I think you're WAY WAY right of me. But I think I'm in the middle. I think the political center-of-gravity has been right of the mainstream for the last many years. But I think I'm in the middle, and I think most Americans pretty much feel the same way I do. What I'm realizing is that most people actually think this way about their own views. I'm clear I do, it's clear from what host said here that he does, and I think you certainly do. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#4 (permalink) |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Host - Fascism is inherently a liberal/socialist concept. Centralized government, industry, and social management. The guys that gave fascism a bad name were totalitarians like Mussolini (the fascist party), Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc.
Right wingers are characterized as being conservative, small government, free enterprise. Don't confuse global industrialists with conservatism. If you want a good laugh, scare, check out George Bernard Shaw and the "Fabian Society". Guys like George Orwell and Woodrow Wilson. Sorry, but you've totally got this one backwards.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 03-03-2008 at 07:10 PM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Host, without commenting on your own political self-assessment, let me just say that to make your point cogent you really would have to define what you mean by "fascist." I understand it to mean -- historically, and roughly speaking -- an all-powerful state, driven by nationalism, with large dollops of militarism, and insistence that the individual is submerged to the will of the whole. I don't think anyone here supports anything that matches that description. Of course your definition might be different. But if it is, you may want to consult the words of George Orwell, as far back as 1946, lamenting the distortion of words for political purposes: "The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies "something not desirable."" He had more to say about accusations of fascism here (good quote: "it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.").
The term is not an all-purpose catch-all that means "political things I disagree with." It has a specific historical context, meaning and practice, originating in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s, originally in Italy under Mussolini, who invented the term. I'm unaware of any American who subscribes to Mussolini's tenets, and I certainly have not seen anyone here who does. |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Isn't this more about the military-industrial complex than fascism?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 (permalink) | |
Pissing in the cornflakes
|
Quote:
I don't pretend I'm in the center, if I was in the center the US wouldn't be slipping slowly into socialism. I will say I'm more to the center than host is, but thats not saying I'm the 'norm'. Personally I don't see what the attraction of 'the center' is. If its the philosophical center, then it means pretty much nothing. Thats just an arbitrary a little of column A a little from B. If its the national 'vibe' of what the average is, then the only appeal is that people like when others agree with them. My personal saying is average sucks, and while I applied mostly scholastically, I think it has applications outside of ones GPA as well. I do think you are correct in your assessment of how people like to see themselves, but I always try to be honest with myself in all my opinions.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin
|
Quote:
And this explains why right-wingers like Nixon and Bush were dead set opposed to the FBI & CIA spying on Americans and chopped the gummint down to the proper, night-watchman size. Yep. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#9 (permalink) | ||||
Banned
|
Quote:
A couple of things...I tried to change the title moments after first posting the thread, to "neo-fascists" because I don't want to distract from the core issue I've put up for discussion. I also tried to make it clear that, for the purposes of the one issue of FISA "reform", I find myself far to the right of where I would have been on the issue in 1978, and where I should be, based on my core beliefs now. Compared to the folks desrcribed below, two aged and recently deceased veteran's of the 1930's Lincoln Brigade, and Corliss Lamont, my political leanings put me clearly much to the right of theirs. In a recent historical context, I am, compared to the three of them, of a center-left political persuasion, and they are "leftists". Almost all of you who claim to be "moderates", are probably of a political bent that puts you to the right of 50s center-right republican president, Dwight Eisenhower. From the standpoint of their avowed "militarism" and "corporatism", Clinton and Obama are positioned to the right of Eisdenhower, as well. The tax policy Eisenhower accepted and presided over for 8 years was dramatically to the left of anything Clinton or Obama would advocate. Eisenhower's foreign policy was less "hawkish" than Clinton's or Obama's. On the issue of what should be done now about FISA, and on the idea that America is moving "towards socialism", and on a host of issues involving tax, social, foreign, military, and domestic security policy, some of you who consider yourselves center-right or right, are so far to the right of Eisenhower ans the historical idea of "center", that you embrace, wittingly or not....neo fascist postures, Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Those who think they are "centrist" are predominately significantly to the right of the republican president in office 50 years ago, and the majority of the congress are positioned to the right of this "centrist" group. But "the right", and the "center-right" is far to the right of "left-lite", perceived by them to be folks like me, and I am someone who, in the 50s would be regarded as center-left establishment. Neo-fascist is where it was on the spectrum, in the early 30s....the peculiarities of it are "same old", "same old", the difference now is that lots of folks on the right have drifted over to it, are happy with the neighborhood, but just haven't yet glanced up at the street sign. They all perceive a "liberal bias" in the press, though! Last edited by host; 03-03-2008 at 10:58 PM.. |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
#10 (permalink) | |
lost and found
Location: Berkeley
|
Quote:
There are certainly many flavors of fascismo, but it is primarily identified as the enemy of civil liberties, civilian governance, and nationalized industry.
__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#11 (permalink) |
Banned
|
Johnny, this "tome" has been edge-umacating the faithful, as of late:
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0385511841/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt/104-6597636-4273548?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1">Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning</a> |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
The OP is associating global industrialism and the "military industrial complex" with conservatism in an attempt label right-wingers as fascists. Like when people call GW a Nazi or labeling Democrats as socialists and communists. If you really feel the need to use the term fascism, then Globalism and Orwellian-style (1984) philosophy is more than likely the new and improved fascism. The powerful from all political stripes can be found here. You may want to change the meaning of fascism to demonize a political group, but it would be more accurate to use a term based on historical accuracy.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 (permalink) | ||
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
well, comrades there are a couple problems with now the thread is set up. i almost put something up about this yesterday but figured that'd kill it. so i'll do it now.
on the fascism thing: the only reason this: Quote:
1. political positions are relational. this is a sociological question--you can make a grid of the range of political options---but it's an analytic construction---you can map terms/labels onto the grid and you can use it to talk about relative ideological power--so if the apparatus particular to conservativeland and its willing resonating chamber in the amurican "freepress" has been able to shift the way folk label political position to the right significantly, it follows that the apparatus has ALOT of ideological power because all (or most) other groups define themselves in the same terms--even against the right. the point here is that the grid shifts. personally, i think that the conservative media tactic (compulsion?) of projection has worked pretty well for them--you project qualities onto others to disable naming--if you disable naming, you disable orientation--and so and so a function emerges for this Quote:
2. if the grid that folk rely on to say what their positions are moves around, and if a term like "fascism" is--without speculating as to why--an element within that grid (as a term of abuse even) and you want to make it do something other than be a term of abuse within that grid, then you kinda have to say how you mean the term. 3. the op does offer a de facto definition--but it's limited and strange--it reduces fascism to illegal surveillance. how does that work? the rhetorical effect of the move is evident enough (if you support this, you're a fascist)...but in a strange way. so what to do?
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#14 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
Actually, if you're going to be scrupulously honest you'll need to recognize that socialism and fascism have far more in common with each other than either one does with classically liberal capitalism. Both rely heavily on state power and both depend on the wisdom and authority of the person or group running the government to make decisions for the polity. Both (in their pure forms) are all-encompassing, making decisions for individuals for their own good. Both claim to be revolutionary. The differences are primarily in the justifications invoked. To an individual living in a society governed by either system, that's a negligible difference.
And that's why Friedrich Hayek was 100% right. Well, maybe not 100% but a lot more than 50-50. If you believe in human rights you have to believe in both civil AND political freedom AND economic freedom. Otherwise you're on the road to serfdom. Oh, and Roachboy, you're right about needing a definition of fascism. That was my point above. And I also maintain that if you set up a grid based on characteristics of the system (as opposed to platitudinous justifications - and maybe even then), you'll see that communism and fascism are very, very, very close - not at all on opposite ends. Last edited by loquitur; 03-04-2008 at 08:10 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
![]() |
![]() |
#15 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
loquitor---yeah, i have heard these arguments before. i'm assuming that you're repeating them, so what follows is about the argument, not your repeating of it:
classically "liberal capitalism" is an affair of political economy fantasy novels like "wealth of nations"---in actually existing systems, the nation-state, which is a PRODUCT of capitalism--has been engaged in various modalities of repression in DEFENSE of capitalism from the outset. so following your logic, and not straying outside its narrowness, the "conclusion" would be liberal capitalism as it actually exists=stalinism=fascism. which is useless. it says nothing. on the flipside: capitalist metaphysics....funny stuff.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite Last edited by roachboy; 03-04-2008 at 08:52 AM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#16 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Fascism can fit into basically any political structure, including but not limited to conservatism and libertarianism. Any time that authority by not just a government but any organization opposes freedom and equality you have fascism to some degree. It's marked by great power with a singular authority. We can see clearly in the Bush Administration the degenerate marriage of conservatism and fascism. How do those find themselves as bed-fellows? Simple. Conservatism enjoys ideals like patriotism, militarism, corporatism, and populism. Those ideals happen to be shared by fascism, which makes the transition less uncomfortable. Much like putting a frog in slowly boiling water. In addition to this, conservative ideology in it's current state actually seems to want authority. This, of course, is a contradiction with traditional conservatism and is probably the most important point of this thread. A few years ago I created a thread which basically asked: what is conservatism? I posted what I know to be traditional conservative ethics, beliefs, and ideals... but they didn't look anything like conservatism today. In fact, conservatism today is not conservatism of yesterday at all, it's a new beast: neo-conservatism. Neo-conservatism isn't just far right, it's far right, up and towards fascism. That marriage makes neo-conservatism extremely far from center, so far in fact that it manages to change the entire scale of where the center is. In a country where liberalism lies on the left and traditional conservatism lies on the right, Host is very much correct that he lies just to the left of center. I'd lie a bit more left, and probably towards socialism a bit more, but I don't know of any radical liberals on TFP in the traditional scale. Now that neo-conservatism is on the board, it's thrown off the scale completely. So yes, compared to neo-conservatism (conservative-fascism), Host is far left. Compared to traditional conservatism, host is just left of center. Just an aside, those who wish to discuss what conservatism means probably shouldn't do it in this thread but rather in the old thread, located here Last edited by Willravel; 03-04-2008 at 09:34 AM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
roachboy, that is positively staggering in its ipse dixit circularity. Nice little ju-jitsu to try to show that individualism (classic liberalism) equals fascism (submergence of the individual into the state-driven mass). I understand why you want to make that argument but it makes no sense.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 (permalink) | ||
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
Like fascism, the concepts of liberalism and socialism are not BAD or EVIL. Only the application of these concepts haven't been too successful (or humane) to date. To claim that associating fascism accurately with liberal or socialist concepts as a "sublimbaugh bit of nonsense", sounds a bit like an argument I've heard before and I'm assuming that you're just repeating it. Your comment is probably an amusing one-liner among the faithful, but it doesn't make it true.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 03-04-2008 at 10:29 AM.. |
||
![]() |
![]() |
#19 (permalink) | |
Location: Washington DC
|
Quote:
One interesting phenomenon that occurred during the debate of the Patriot Act was the odd coalition that came together to oppose it....the ACLU and the American Conservative Union....the National Rifle Association and the American Library Association. Unfortunately, it was short-lived when it came to FISA reform and other constitutional threats. The problem is that the guy in the White House with the greatest access to the bully pulpit to spew whatever furthers his ideological agenda always has the advantage to influence those not on either extreme. Roosevelt did it with the New Deal (many considered these programs unconstitutional), LBJ did it with Vietnam (an undeclared war), Reagan did it with Iran/Contra (an illegal act to "promote democracy in Central America), and Bush has done it for the purpose of expanding the powers of the President but in the guise of national security And I am just left of center too.
__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 03-04-2008 at 10:43 AM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#21 (permalink) | |
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
If you look at Bush, though, you can't call him liberal or socialist. He cut spending on libraries, cut spending on pediatric training for doctors, cut spending on renewable energy, stopped research into cleaner automobiles, reduced the CAP program budget by 86%, cut funding for the Boys and Girls club by $60m, cut $200 million from workforce training programs for dislocated workers, eliminated prescription contraceptive coverage (cept viagra), cut $700m in funds for public housing repairs, cut $500m from the EPA, and cut $15m from programs dealing with child abuse and neglect... just in his first year. He's a conservative through and through, but he's also a fascist. He's been a VERY strong purporter of nationalism, he's actively worked against human rights, he's named phantom enemies as a unifying cause, he's created a much stronger military and executive, we've seen clear evidence of the government controlling a great deal of media, an obsession with national security, we've seen the reemergence of religion in government, corporate power is protected, labor is suppressed, obsession with crime and punishment, etc. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#22 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
a type of radical nationalism.
typically at the ideological level, fascism works around a continual re-definition of the national body-politic through the definition of an internal Other: in germany of the 1930s, the Other was the Left, homosexuals, the physically or mentally impaired, and, obviously, the jews. the Other enables a sense of purification of the body politic, which in turn enables that body to become healthy and in turn embark upon its Historical Mission, which is generally expressed in military terms. legally, you have a dictatorship which takes shape in the context of a state of emergency or exception: generally this legal situation dovetails with the ideological formation, makes it operational. the ideological form in turn enables the state of exception. sound familiar? at the level of state structure, there is considerable variation between types of fascism--the german example hinged around the fabrication of a "dual state" one formal, the other less formal--relations between the healthy body politics and the state were directed toward the informal institutions--the formal ones became instruments of repression--the spanish state structure was different, the italian, the argentine, the portugese--all different one from the other. none of this has any relation to stalinism---even if both ended up being a kind of genocidal regime, the parallels between them at the level of ideology are so shallow as to make then analytically worthless, and the relations between the state and outside the state were also entirely different. there are multiple pathways to genocide--the american system is itself another (remember the extermination of the native americans?)---often you read that "analysis" on this level is linked to and justified by a concern about massacre or genocide--but if you think about it, these arguments don't even start: they basically serve a therapeutic function--genocide is a possibility that arises from Outside the "center" which is the viewpoint from which the analysis departs. so if you want to talk about anything--really--using the term fascism, you end up being pushed back onto its characteristics as an ideological formation first of all--and that ideological formation looks a whole lot like the post 9/11/2001 worldview of the american political right. then you have to think in terms of the various usages of the state of emergency or exception--another post 9/11/2001 parallel. does that mean the american system has **been** fascist since 9/12/2001: no. it means that it has slid dangerously close to it. that's all. parallel, not identity. why? the state of emergency has remained largely rhetorical. and then there was iraq, which crumbled the regime politically. now the bush people couldnt be fascist if they wanted to be: they dont have the consent. conservatives might not like that, but it's of no consequence to me. as far as the argument i made against you, above, loquitor, its easy peasy: if you work off the op as a "definition" of fascism, it comes down to illegal surveillance. i dont think that's a defining characteristic of fascism at all, so i think it a red herring. insofar as captialism cannot possibly be fascist, i think that's idiotic. actually existing capitalism has depended and will continue to depend on the functionality of the state, on its repressive arm--but generally, capitalism also requires the procedural legitimacy of the state to remain intact because its own procedural legitimacy to some extent derives from that of the state.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 (permalink) | |
lost and found
Location: Berkeley
|
Quote:
Moving on, I would contend that no form of government is "good" or "evil." It would be more accurate to say that every form of government is "good or evil." What we can tell from fascism at a glance is that, no matter its approach to private industry or military strength, what all branches of it have in common is the reduction of civil liberties, to the point of elimination. Historically, fascism has been the doctrine of so many violent dictatorships that it can't really be argued as a viable approach, in comparison to other governmental forms. Take Argentina, for example, whose despot is serving time in prison for murder and whose regime is officially responsible for the murders of 35,000 people and the torture of thousands more. Take East Timor, where 200,000 died and whose government was accused of genocide. You may think I'm cherry-picking, so I'll put this a different way: Can you think of a single fascist regime that has worked? I would have to resort to Wikipedia -- and to say that these bloody cabals are well-known by sheer sensationalism is not a strong defense. By and large, the concentration of forceful power that fascism represents drives inevitably to bloodshed; remember how often it's said that absolute power corrupts absolutely.
__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#24 (permalink) |
Junkie
Location: NYC
|
roachboy, I'll have more to say when I'm home and can devote to your last post the time it deserves, but let me just say this: any kind of big institution will have certain fascistic impulses, and that includes big corporations as well as big government. How they translate into practice may vary. But you can't just equate big business with capitalism in making your argument, which I think is one of the main premises of your post. Big business may or may not operate in a classically liberal/capitalist way. In regulated economies it often doesn't.
|
![]() |
![]() |
#25 (permalink) |
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
|
actually, loquitor, that wasn't my intent at all--i didn't mention corporations or corporate structures--->i talked only about the state--and that only because of the op.
my last post was mostly a quick-and-exapserated outline of a defintion of fascism. the short tag at the end was aimed more at you. i was trying to erase the space this sternhell left=right move, mostly. it's crap. but please, we should continue so post more when you've a chance. i'm in the middle of stuff as well.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
roachboy, in an attempt to "shore up" the example of the "shift" in political reaction since 1978 to a shift towards neo-fascism in the US, there is this to consider, a Dec., 2007 opinion piece by former CIA man Ray McGovern:
Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#27 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 03-04-2008 at 07:02 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#28 (permalink) | |
Addict
Location: Cottage Grove, Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Indeed, by that definition you're absolutely right. Of course, by your definition you cannot even begin to account for the 20th century's most significant events. Small price to pay for being "right". Carry on! I spent some time after 2001.9.11 thinking about what to call the Bush regime. At the time, the Bush cabal was being compared to the Nazis, even in the mainstream press. After kicking the idea around for a while, i decided that the label "fascist" didn't really help define our current situation. Whereas in classical fascist regimes (fascist Italy, say, or Japan from 1931-45) the body politic as imaginary incorporation of the national-totality mattered, in contemporary America, it doesn't. It mattered to Hitler that you brushed your teeth, because you could bite a Russian on the ass if it came to that. Women mattered, workers mattered, and what they did mattered because the entire population was engaged in a total war. This is no longer true. Our connection to the war is mediated by money and television. It's not coporeal, not even in an imaginary sense. The war is no less real for that, and we are no less connected to it. People are sick and can't pay for health care? Their teeth are falling out? Bush & Cheney couldn't care less. People are opposed to the war? So what? We'll have it anyway, with Blackwater! Last edited by guyy; 03-04-2008 at 06:03 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#29 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
->edit<- looks like you added more to your post... uhh, this has nothing to do with what I've been saying. Sorry. Do you want to break it down as it applies to the topic?
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 03-04-2008 at 06:53 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#31 (permalink) | |
lost and found
Location: Berkeley
|
Quote:
__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#34 (permalink) |
The Griffin
|
exactly
seems i'm surrounded by media writers... being a repub, i'm repulsed by my party and going obama... i'm sick of the repub arrogance i can't stand that whiney spoiled brat bitch so i'm going the lesser of the evils but to get edited because someone doesn't like my approach to a user's non-stop abuse... yes, abuse... of this forum, after having been warned more than once upsets me... seems the liberal party travels far and wide Last edited by Hanxter; 03-04-2008 at 07:34 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
I admit purposely bringing up the historical association of fascism to counter the supposition that fascism is relative to right-wing conservatism. I'm not saying my doing so was inaccurate, but it also illustrates how associating inflammatory language (correctly or not) incites such strong reactions... and that we should be careful about applying destructive labels with devisive intent.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 03-04-2008 at 07:46 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#37 (permalink) |
warrior bodhisattva
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
|
Doesn't anyone use Wikipedia anymore?
Anti-individualistic, the fascist conception of life stresses the importance of the State and accepts the individual only insofar as his interests coincide with those of the State, which stands for the conscience and the universal will of man as a historic entity.... The fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value.... Fascism is therefore opposed to that form of democracy which equates a nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of the largest number.... We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the nineteenth century was the century of the individual we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State. --Benito Mussolini, The Doctrine of Fascism. Fascism may be defined as a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victim-hood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy, and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." ...a sense of overwhelming crisis beyond reach of traditional solutions; 2. belief one’s group is the victim, justifying any action without legal or moral limits; 3. need for authority by a natural leader above the law, relying on the superiority of his instincts; 4. right of the chosen people to dominate others without legal or moral restraint; 5. fear of foreign `contamination." --Robert O. Paxton, former professor at Columbia University. Stanley Payne's Fascism: Comparison and Definition (1980) uses a lengthy itemized list of characteristics to identify fascism, including the creation of an authoritarian state; a regulated, state-integrated economic sector; fascist symbolism; anti-liberalism; anti-communism; anti-conservatism. Basically, fascism is a monstrosity of an entity that has all but completely been left behind in the 20th century. Neither neo-liberalism nor neo-conservatism resemble fascism as we should know it.--Wikipedia: Fascism. This is not to say that some government practices don't infringe on rights and freedoms. In doing so does not a fascist make. China isn't fascist. Russia isn't fascist. America isn't fascist. They might be militaristic and/or expansionist. They might be lured through capitalist channels to partake in rampant globalization at an unsavory cost. They might also do unjust things protecting these interests. But, seriously, none of this is fascism. If it were, we'd be more mobilized to put a stop to it. Perhaps a period of hyperinflation and a reactionary fallout will once again lead to this, but for now, let's keep perspective.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 03-04-2008 at 07:51 PM.. |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 (permalink) | |
let me be clear
Location: Waddy Peytona
|
Quote:
wait... was that response for me? If not, I'd like to buy a vowel. Let us know how the protest goes.
__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo Last edited by ottopilot; 03-04-2008 at 08:25 PM.. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
#40 (permalink) | ||
Banned
|
Scroll down the linked page about 52% to view this excerpt:
Quote:
An explanation for invading Iraq, in the first place, with no adequate post invasion planning as "icing on the cake" for this comparison: Quote:
Last edited by host; 03-05-2008 at 12:29 PM.. |
||
![]() |
Tags |
considered, fascist, leaning |
|
|