Is America Moving Toward Right-Wing Fascism? (brainwash, voting, gun control, laws)

[subaru5555]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

I asked this on the previous page and none of you lefties have answered yet. So, here is another chance, in case you missed it the first time :

Let's look at some of the similarities of the German fascists and the Russian/Soviet Communists.

1. They both claimed to be socialists. The Russians eventually renamed their country the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and NAZI is an acronym for National Socialist German Workers Party. The Nazis were fascists and the Russians/Soviets were communists, and they were both socialists.
2. Yes, socialists lie about what they are, and both the Nazis and the Communists lied to their people, that is a fact that no sane person will try to dispute. The Russians started first of course, with their revolution going back to 1917, when they campaigned on a platform of Marxist socialism (Communism). The Russian people were promised the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, resulting in a classless society, and basically an age of utopia. You know the drill. Similarly, the Nazis in Germany promised that they would restore prosperity to their country, as the Germans were under the burden of immense reparations from WWI, and then came the great depression. Hitler and the Nazis promised that if the people would just trust them, then the Nazis would fix everything and life would be wonderful. It was a complete lie.
3. Both the communists and the fascists initially came into power by election, and then ended democratic voting on their watch.
4. Both the fascists and the communists relied on thugs to violently intimidate and bully their opposition into submission.
5. Both the communists and the fascists were excellent propagandists, who controlled the media and published lies and severely punished any who dared to defy them in terms of speech.
6. Both the fascists and the communists terrorized and systematically killed their political enemies, which in both cases numbered well into the millions.
7. Both the communists and the fascists controlled the means of production, although in Germany property ownership was still allowed. The Communists in Russia outlawed property ownership at one point.
8. Both the fascists and the communists were effectively collectivists, with their power exercised under totalitarian control.
9. Both the communists and the fascists ruled by the rule of man and did not respect the rule of law. If you crossed the people running these regimes, you were quickly imprisoned or executed.

These are a lot of similarities and not a lot of huge differences.

The "polar opposite" of these sorts of regimes is a constitutional Republic, which respects the rule of law and allows no person to be above the law, not even its rulers. Or if you want to take that a bit further, something that is strictly libertarian, meaning government basically being limited to national and domestic defense, or perhaps true anarchy, which is every man for himself, with no law or government.

Clearly, these two regimes were not the "polar opposite" of each other. They were close rivals both of which had dreams of international expansion and realized that they were a mortal threat to each other. Eventually, with our help, the communists won during WWII. But it was not because they were "polar opposites," and even now, especially after the cold war and the problems we continue to have with Russia, it is hard to imagine how we ever were allies with the Russians.


So, I have explained some of the similarities between the fascism and communism, which are different flavors of socialism. Would you perhaps help us to understand how they are opposites, in your view?

No one’s answering your “question” as it’s simply gish-gallop with an irrelevant question tacked on; it reads like a post on The Daily Stormer. Furthermore, discussing this concept with you, sans bias, is literally impossible.

[Endoplasmic]

No. Next stupid question.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by Spartacus713

I asked this on the previous page and none of you lefties have answered yet. So, here is another chance, in case you missed it the first time :

Let's look at some of the similarities of the German fascists and the Russian/Soviet Communists.

1. They both claimed to be socialists. The Russians eventually renamed their country the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and NAZI is an acronym for National Socialist German Workers Party. The Nazis were fascists and the Russians/Soviets were communists, and they were both socialists.
2. Yes, socialists lie about what they are, and both the Nazis and the Communists lied to their people, that is a fact that no sane person will try to dispute. The Russians started first of course, with their revolution going back to 1917, when they campaigned on a platform of Marxist socialism (Communism). The Russian people were promised the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat, resulting in a classless society, and basically an age of utopia. You know the drill. Similarly, the Nazis in Germany promised that they would restore prosperity to their country, as the Germans were under the burden of immense reparations from WWI, and then came the great depression. Hitler and the Nazis promised that if the people would just trust them, then the Nazis would fix everything and life would be wonderful. It was a complete lie.
3. Both the communists and the fascists initially came into power by election, and then ended democratic voting on their watch.
4. Both the fascists and the communists relied on thugs to violently intimidate and bully their opposition into submission.
5. Both the communists and the fascists were excellent propagandists, who controlled the media and published lies and severely punished any who dared to defy them in terms of speech.
6. Both the fascists and the communists terrorized and systematically killed their political enemies, which in both cases numbered well into the millions.
7. Both the communists and the fascists controlled the means of production, although in Germany property ownership was still allowed. The Communists in Russia outlawed property ownership at one point.
8. Both the fascists and the communists were effectively collectivists, with their power exercised under totalitarian control.
9. Both the communists and the fascists ruled by the rule of man and did not respect the rule of law. If you crossed the people running these regimes, you were quickly imprisoned or executed.

These are a lot of similarities and not a lot of huge differences.

The "polar opposite" of these sorts of regimes is a constitutional Republic, which respects the rule of law and allows no person to be above the law, not even its rulers. Or if you want to take that a bit further, something that is strictly libertarian, meaning government basically being limited to national and domestic defense, or perhaps true anarchy, which is every man for himself, with no law or government.

Clearly, these two regimes were not the "polar opposite" of each other. They were close rivals both of which had dreams of international expansion and realized that they were a mortal threat to each other. Eventually, with our help, the communists won during WWII. But it was not because they were "polar opposites," and even now, especially after the cold war and the problems we continue to have with Russia, it is hard to imagine how we ever were allies with the Russians.


So, I have explained some of the similarities between the fascism and communism, which are different flavors of socialism. Would you perhaps help us to understand how they are opposites, in your view?

*The UK's Labor party, Germany's Social Democratic Party, France's Socialist Party, etc. also claim to be socialist. But they also believed in meaningful multiparty democracy, as evidenced by frequent turnovers over who controls the legislature over time. Gerrymandering in favor of reducing the number of "fair fight" districts IS a step toward rendering elections ineffectual.
*No democratic socialist party promises utopia. At most, they promise to make the lot of the poor and working class "less bad" by using high income and/or business taxes to fund social programs AND to prevent the wealthy from gaining too much power in government. But that's not totalitarian, quite the opposite.
*Ended elections - I grant that part, but see the part of rendering elections less effectual than before (i.e. "ineffectual"). Beyond this, while Fascists and Communists abruptly ended elections, this is only a matter of speedy vs creeping, not of ending elections itself. At the very least, frequent voter roll purges are a warning sign (poor people, absent snail-mail, are less able to maintain their voter registration. I hate to stereotype, but I say offer plainly visible voter registration opportunities to people on public assistance).
*Violently intimidate opponents - Trump's "beat the crap out of them", "stand on 5th Avenue with a gun", offering to pay legal fees of people who assault opponents. Sounds like violent intimidation of opponents to me. I will grant that any way you look at it, the police and other official security simply aren't doing a good job of stopping violence. Beyond this, constant verbal abuse of opponents strips away cultural inhibitions against physical abuse of opponents. You see this in playground bullies. Same thing goes for adults. It's part of the dehumanization process. Thus, verbal abuse of Jim Acosta at a political rally in SC, on top of all other abuses of him personally, CNN more generally (the last 2 also at a political rally), is a warning sign.
*Even the centrist parties (left and right) have "excellent propagandists" these days. The difference is that neither "severely punish" people who defy them in terms of free speech
*Systematically terrorizing - see the second to previous point. It applies here too, or at least that point is an early warning that this might occur in the not-so-distant future.
*Property ownership and fascism - property was so tightly controlled that it's virtually a creature of the state. True, but fascism can take many forms, some without touching private property whatsoever. Even in this case, suppression of individual civil liberties, oppression against the "distastefully different", and a de facto Social Darwinist approach implying that "only the strong deserve even the most basic of rights" is definitely part of fascism too, and even this much is far too much to be appropriate for a nation with our kind of Constitution.
*Collectivists in the sense of the individual must always submit to "the will of the society" if not "the state", perhaps. But historically, "collectivism" has to do with regimentism, not with obligations to not let income inequality to become so large and/or class mobility to be so difficult that it denies those on the lower end of the scale only a very slim chance of escaping their situation and especially making it difficult for their descendants to move up the socio-economic ladder. Democratic socialists seek to dismantle such a near-caste system. The USA is becoming less and less good at that kind of thing. Australia and Canada, even Scandinavia, has more class mobility than the USA these days.
*Rule by the rule of man and not the rule of law - a president seeking to undercut the rule of law by undercutting enforcement of the rule of law is a fair start. We're not at that point - YET. But Trump's behavior, if continued for even a generation, WILL move us far toward abandoning the rule of law, if not eliminating it completely.


Fascists and communists not being "polar opposites" - ONLY in terms of tactics, not in terms of ideology. Fascists seek to eliminate the weak, the uncompetitive, or otherwise "undesirable", "trim the fat", train the youth for physical combat, and generally take a Social Darwinist approach - as part of intrinsic ideology, strength for strength's sake. Communists seek to eliminate class differences (barbarically, I hasten to add) but don't affirm Social Darwinism, quite the opposite in fact. Any military emphasis they have is only a means to forcefully spread their ideology to other countries or for traditional self-defense. Thus, focusing on tactical similarities simply fogs up perceptions of what the ideologies actually stood for, which is to say, fascists and communists DO ultimately stand for very different things.

[Jay F]

We are moving towards left wing fascism. We can see it with all the censorship liberals do, with political correctness and how liberal college students shout down right wing speakers (all while thinking they are open minded).

The U.S in general has been moving to the left for decades. Today's Republicans are more liberal than Democrats were in the 60s.

[Spartacus713]

Fascism is not the same thing as racism. Fascism is not the same thing as nationalism. While fascism is inherently left wing - it is a type of socialism, similar in most ways to communism, which is also a type of socialism - nationalism and racism are in no way inherently left or right wing.

The Chinese and the Russians - the two early adopters of communism (Marxist socialism) tend to be quite racist. They are also quite nationalistic to this very day. As are the Japanese. As are the Indians (from India). As are most people in our country.

There is no political spectrum for racism, with a particular skin color on one end of the spectrum and another color on the other end of the political spectrum. That is just nonsense.

[johnp292]

You guys give Trump too much credit. He wouldn’t know a fascist from a communist from an anarchist.

He’s just a con man who never expected to win, and now that he’s in office he has no idea what he’s doing. He bases every decision on how it benefits him personally, or how it hurts someone he personally dislikes.

Someone called him a “guardian of the Second Amendment”. In your dreams. He pretends to be one to play to his base. If he thought for a second that outlawing guns would be politically or financially to his own benefit, he’d be trying to confiscate every firearm in the country. Wake up, you are all being played.

[Old Gringo]

Trumplings are right wing authoritarians.

That means, "compliant followers."

They need to be told what to think/say and they seek out someone like tRump/Limbaugh/Hannity to tell them.

As much as they desire an authoritarian right wing fascist state where their fellow Americans (their "enemies") are coerced into compliance, it ain't gonna happen.

America is putting up a great big stop sign to tRumpism.

Not in THIS country.

[Chowhound]

Originally Posted by craigiri

Thanks for telling me- I guess you should tell IBM's supercomputer division that you know more than Watson now because they used WP to win against the best Human jeopardy player, an amazing result.

The RWA papers and books were written (and read by me) online long before WP had an entry. In fact, their entry is much softer and tries to balance out the category.

Here is the original paper/book:
https://theauthoritarians.org/Downlo...oritarians.pdf

Note the first article on the page:
https://www.theauthoritarians.org/

Addresses just what we are talking about...
"Compared to most people, studies have shown that authoritarian followers get their beliefs and opinions from the authorities in their lives, and hardly at all by making up their own minds. They memorize rather than reason. "

"When your beliefs are memorized copies of other people’s opinions, you don’t really know why they are right. That means you don’t know IF your professed truths really are true. So how do you maintain your beliefs should events and discoveries contradict them?

Researchers discovered decades ago that people validate their social opinions socially to a certain extent by selecting news outlets, friends, and so on that will tell them they are right."

There ya go, see how much better that is?

[engineman]

The Dimms are pushing us toward left wing Bolshevism.

[Phil75230]

Originally Posted by engineman

The Dimms are pushing us toward left wing Bolshevism.

Who among the Democratic party is pushing the government toward nationalizing all wealth-generating properties? Can't name any? Didn't think so. Therefore, barring you presenting a Democrat who does call for that, then it's not even close to "left wing Bolshevism" they call for.