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.
I like Capitalism, but if i had to choose between Socialism and Fascism, i pick Fascism
The problem is that in either you wouldn't have the choice. Every society that went to either socialism or fascism have regretted it when it was too late.
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.
Using that logic, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) or East Germany as it was commonly referred to was a democracy.
I don't know about their mental state but anyone who thinks believes that right wing ideologues are by nature adverse to authoritarian states is about three years short of a high school diploma, because history is replete with totalitarian right-wing regimes.
See Hayek's love affair with Augusto Pinochet
“Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression — and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government."
(Friedrich von Hayek, Leader and Master of Liberalism Renée Sallas, “El Mercurio” (p. D8–D9), 12 April 1981, Santiago de Chile)
Quote:
The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
Quote:
The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone...
Nazis were right. World War II was basically the liberal/far left powers of the world (FDR in the US, Stalin in Russia, and Churchill in Britain. Against the conservative/far right powers. Facist Italy, Imperial Japan, Nazi Germany.
You do understand the word liberate, I'm sure of it. Of that word derives the word liberal. Do you think an all powerful state liberates people? Do you think a person's entire life controlled by the state is liberating them and as such, the liberator, is far-left?
Collectivism is far-left no matter how many of today's liberals try to change the definition.
Liberating someone would be giving them rights that were instituted from nothing on this planet. But to hear the left explain it all, the state (people) gives people their liberty.
Let's agree on a concise definition of liberal, liberator, liberate, and liberty so that we can move forward because this moving goal post stuff is dishonest.
I like Capitalism, but if i had to choose between Socialism and Fascism, i pick Fascism
The problem is that in either you wouldn't have the choice. Every society that went to either socialism or fascism have regretted it when it was too late.
"What no one seemed to notice," said a colleague of mine, a philologist, "was the ever widening gap, after 1933, between the government and the people. Just think how very wide this gap was to begin with, here in Germany. And it became always wider. You know, it doesn’t make people close to their government to be told that this is a people’s government, a true democracy, or to be enrolled in civilian defense, or even to vote. All this has little, really nothing, to do with knowing one is governing.
I feel sorry for you as you missed HS history. The ideas pushed by the real far right are fascist in nature. The history of our country,if you were aware of it, shows that we the people are against fascism. We can move forward with the mild socialism which we have today. It will take leaders who take there oath of office ahead of some oath to not raise taxes.
Quote:
often capitalized: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>
Those far-rightist are coming to get you and take all your possessions and give them to the state... wait. That's isn't at all what the far-right is.
The one sole thing that Fascism has that might make it to the right is it usually has religion involved with it. But even that has an authoritarian tone to it. Which again, is control of the state (people) and power. Not very liberating...
You do understand the word liberate, I'm sure of it. Of that word derives the word liberal. Do you think an all powerful state liberates people? Do you think a person's entire life controlled by the state is liberating them and as such, the liberator, is far-left?
Collectivism is far-left no matter how many of today's liberals try to change the definition.
Liberating someone would be giving them rights that were instituted from nothing on this planet. But to hear the left explain it all, the state (people) gives people their liberty.
Let's agree on a concise definition of liberal, liberator, liberate, and liberty so that we can move forward because this moving goal post stuff is dishonest.
You understand the definition of conserve. Conservatives look backward and try to conserve idealized versions of the past.
Nazis were far right. They used romanticized ideas about the German past and attempted to bring Germany back to an imagined golden age. Italian Facists did the same by taking Italy's Roman past and idealizing it and using that as their goal. Monarchies like Japan were also conservative because they too looked to tradition and a mythological past.
Now compare that to the Soviet Union which was far left. The Soviet Union was modernist to the extreme. They unlike the far right regimes of the Axis the USSR made a clean break with the Russian Imperial past.
Liberals in the extreme push for modernism and a break from the past (e.g. Soviet Union). Extreme conservatives look to the past and try to create an idealized verision of the past in the modern world (Nazi Germany).
As for state control and rightwing movements. Look no further then Chile. Rightwingers on this forum romantize and fawn over Augusto Pinochet and he was a dictator who believed in strong state control. Authoritarianism has no ideology save being opposed to liberty.
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.
