Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You realize Mussolini was fundamentally opposed to Marxism, right?
oh my gawd, where to start
the government is a corporation
unions are corporations
I have no problem with PRIVATE unions...but PUBLIC unions should not have barganing power over taxpayer monies
and yes many liberals are PRO-nationalism
One major "socialist" reform of the economy that is still a misty ideal to modern-day Leftists Mussolini actually carried out. He attempted to centralize control of industry by declaring a "Corporate State" which divided all Italian industry up into 22 "corporations". In these corporations both workers and managers were supposed to co-operate to run industry together -- but under Fascist guidance, of course. The Corporate State was supposed to ensure social justice and give the workers substantial control of industry.
And in 1933 Mussolini even promised that the National Council of Corporations would eventually replace the Parliament! Surely the ultimate unionist's dream! And the Chamber of Fasces and Corporations created in 1939 largely fulfilled that promise. Since Mussolini had dictatorial powers by then it was largely tokenism but it nonetheless showed how Leftist his propaganda was.
"""Therefore I desire that this assembly shall accept the revindication of national trades unionism""" mussolinni ..pro-union
even when mussolini spoke of 'liberalism'..The "Liberalism" he refers to here would of course be called "Neo-liberalism" today -- the politics of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. Mussolini opposed such politics and so do Leftists today.
so when he says..""Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics""...he is not talking about american progressive liberals..he is talking about american conservatism
F.D. Roosevelt, found in Mussolini's policies part of his inspiration for the semi-socialist "New Deal" and referred to Mussolini in 1933 as "that admirable Italian gentleman". Mussolini was plausible to an amazingly wide range of people -- not the least to the people of Italy.
And Roosevelt and his political allies practiced what they preached. As UPI financial journalist Martin Hutchinson has pointed out, the USA in the 1940s was a place "with price controls, government licensing of transportation, state intervention in the steel and auto industries, interest rates that were set by Treasury fiat and a capital market in which banks were not allowed to operate. Also a "democracy" in which electoral districts were wildly unequal and 15 percent of the population was denied the vote." By modern-day standards the USA of that time had considerable Fascist elements too. American Leftism was Fascist even then.
In 1954, Hofstadter chided those who had worried about "several close parallels" between FDR's N.R.A. and fascist corporatism. There are more than "several" parallels. In 1944, John T. Flynn made the case in As We Go Marching, where he enumerated the stigmata of generic fascism, surveyed the interwar policies of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and pointed to uncomfortably similar American policies. For Flynn, the hallmarks of fascism were: 1) unrestrained government; 2) an absolute leader responsible to a single party; 3) a planned economy with nominal private ownership of the means of production; 4) bureaucracy and administrative "law"; 5) state control of the financial sector; 6) permanent economic manipulation via deficit spending; 7) militarism, and 8) imperialism (pp. 161-62). He proceeded to show that all these were alive and well under the wartime New Deal administration (pp. 166-258). Pragmatic American liberalism had produced "a genteel fascism" without the ethnic persecutions and full-scale executive dictatorship seen overseas.
There is practically no feature of modern-day Leftism that was not prefigured by Mussolini. It is clear from the many quotations and reports that are available (only a fraction of which are reproduced here) that Mussolini was very much a kindred spirit of modern-day Leftists. It is therefore hilarious that Leftists now use the name of his movement as their routine term of abuse! Ignorance of history does indeed lead to some strange follies.
He started out as such a radical unionist firebrand and Marxist agitator that he was often jailed for his pains. But as he matured he moved towards somewhat more moderate politics which saw him win power by political rather than by revolutionary means. Modern day Leftists seem to be the same. The young go out demonstrating against globalization and the like while older Leftists exert their efforts within the framework of conventional democratic politics -- via the major Leftist political parties.
And no-one was a more ardent advocate of government provision of basic services than Mussolini was -- and he actually put those ideas into practice on a large scale as well. And he also instituted a "welfare state" that was very advanced for the times.
In his "corporate state", Mussolini was the first to create that very modern phenomenon constantly now being advocated by Leftists everywhere -- a system of capitalism under tight government control. And his corporate state was one where the workers had (at least in theory) equal rights with management. He actually put into full-blown practice what is still a great but rather misty ideal for most Leftists.
You realize Mussolini was fundamentally opposed to Marxism, right?
unions...usually backed by the globalist progressive fascist liberals have helped in some areas (child labor laws, etc) but their sole intent is to 'socialize' the united states, to either "nationalize" the entire country and its corporations (main stream socialist way), or to so over regulate the corporations (the fascist way)
Where socialism sought totalitarian control of a society’s economic processes through direct state operation of the means of production, fascism sought that control indirectly, through domination of nominally private owners by way of UNIONS. Where socialism nationalized property explicitly, fascism did so implicitly, by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the autocratic authority conceived it. (Nevertheless, a few industries were operated by the state.) Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically through unions. State ministries or unions, rather than consumers, determined what was produced and under what conditions.
""Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism."" Mussolini
Mussolini was the son of a blacksmith and village school teacher who had been a Socialist party leader and radical newspaper editor before the war.
As an ardent admirer of Marx, Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) called his version of Marxist socialism "Fascism" Instead of nationalization--government ownership--of private business, Mussolini advocated government control of business via complete bureaucratic regulation.
He also created fascist labor unions, and therefore He controlled labor
marxism, socialism, communism, fascism, progressivism, liberalism...all part of the same family
"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of 'liberalism,' they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
- Norman Thomas, former U.S. Socialist Presidential Candidate
No he wasn't. Facism is rooted in Marxism. He couldn't be opposed to something that he incorporated into his ideas. If he was really opposed to Marxism he would have been a Capitalist. That is the true polar opposite.
Read any book on Mussolini's Fascist Italy and see how he dealt with Marxists, Socialists and Communists during his reign. He was not left-wing in any sense. You basically rely on historical distortion and ignorance to advance your argument. It's pitiable.
Hey workingclasshero, copy and pasting a bunch of tripe doesn't make the b.s. you're peddling any more persuasive, especially when you don't cite your sources.
This is a derail now, since we have left the purview of America, where the political spectrum is so small that nothing even resembling socialist or Marxism is possible as a political ideology for anyone in power. Only through the most incredible deformation of the terms could we call progressivism a form of Marxism, and it takes a true fool to make such an argument.
Again, progressivism is reformist and ultimately supportive of capitalism. This is inimical to Marxism. Why do you think even the most milquetoast American socialists (social democrats, at best) and Marxists decry the Democratic party?
The KEY to understanding "Wing-ism" is to recognize absolute ownership (aka "private property") and then, to determine if the government defends private property ownership or not.
From the Communist manifesto:
"In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."
The USCON, fifth amendment, explicitly protects private property ownership.
However, thanks to "voluntary" socialism via FICA / Social Security, people have surrendered their private property rights.
(FYI: estate is NOT private property)
Collective Ownership by the State - http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/faqs/Currency/Pages/legal-tender.aspx
" Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are "backed" by all the goods and services in the economy."
All YOUR goods and YOUR labor are collateral on those worthless notes that Congress keeps authorizing.... by YOUR consent.
Read any book on Mussolini's Fascist Italy and see how he dealt with Marxists, Socialists and Communists during his reign. He was not left-wing in any sense. You basically rely on historical distortion and ignorance to advance your argument. It's pitiable.
So he dealt with those other ideologues in a harsh way. That's not surprising at all considering madmen don't want any opposing ideologies around. They weren't dealt with because he didn't like their ideology, he didn't want competition. Same with Hitler.
CAPITALISM - An economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are privately owned and operated for private profit.
- - - WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY
PRIVATE PROPERTY - "As protected from being taken for public uses, is such property as belongs absolutely to an individual, and of which he has the exclusive right of disposition. Property of a specific, fixed and tangible nature, capable of being in possession and transmitted to another, such as houses, lands, and chattels."
- - - Black's Law dictionary, sixth ed., p.1217
If you concatenate capitalism with private property, you can see the "inconvenient truth".
Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are absolutely owned by individuals and operated for their individual profit.
Capitalism is in harmony with the governments created under the auspices of the Declaration of Independence, 1776, Statute #1 of the Statutes at Large of the United States of America.
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
Translation:
1. Men are created equal - before the law that protects rights - and there are no privileged classes.
2. Men are endowed by their Creator with rights to life, liberty and private property ownership.
3. Governments, in America, are instituted to (a) secure rights, and (b) govern those who consent.
----
In case you forgot Marxism 101:
COMMUNISM - the ownership of property, or means of production, distribution and supply, by the whole of a classless society, with wealth shared on the principle of 'to each according to his need', each yielding fully 'according to his ability'.
- - - Webster's Dictionary.
SOCIALISM - A political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of the means of production and control of distribution. It is based upon the belief that all, while contributing to the good of the community, are equally entitled to the care and protection which the community can provide.
--- Webster's dictionary
Socialism and communism = COLLECTIVE ownership.
How that collective ownership is accomplished, by overt or covert means, is the grist for philosophers to argue about.
But a government that does not recognize the individual's right to absolutely own himself, his labor and the fruits of his labor is anathema to the republican form of government, America and its people.
I am so embarassed as a conservative/libertarian in this country calling Obama a socialist. He is far from it. Are you all just spewing talking points, or are you putting intellectual thought into your criticisms? I am watching this Republican debate, and I know their sample size is small and doesn't cover all conservatives, but Obama IS FAR from socialist. He's a neo-conservative, corporatist hack: he is no socialist. Do the Republicans on city-data really think Obama is a socialist This just sounds like uneducated, hot-air.
/rant
If President Obama didn't have to deal with Congress and the public he would enact socialist policies.
I believe if he were a king he would eliminate capitalism and socialize everything. He thinks things would be better this way.
Luckily, he or anyone else, can't do that without public consent.
Look at Mussolini.
Was he a socialist?
Was he a fascist?
Obama is modeling his agenda on that of Mussolini.
No.
Yes.
No.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, there is a ton of evidence coming out of the WH that supports this right? Progressivism is Fascism with a fancy name.
This just sounds like uneducated, hot-air.
