Facism making a comeback?

[Hippie Tech]

oh lord, fascism is a type of socialism? it's something a bible thumping fear monger would say on fox news 

you know, you can dislike someone like obama without calling him an "emperor" or "dictator" because he is ostensibly not. he and hilary are just another piece of the pro-establishment, just like every other republican candidate.

Don't let his oBomBa phone hear you say that !

[1715642961]

1715642961

[1715642961]

1715642961

[1715642961]

1715642961

[1715642961]

1715642961

[BitMos]

First Obamaphone then the Obama dildo? and finally the Hilary pussy? we have to whoreship our leader. they are the greatest. because one isn't white, the other a female. both are clones, produced by an university system controlled by the most mercyless men on earth... they just failed to free themselves from the conditioning. aka they didn't made the cut.

that explain why they hate the USMIC, for one reason, you can't lie in a battlefield... already trying to see trough the fog of war is fucking crazy... saw some clips from the pacific ww2, impossible to see the beach... just a wall of smoke filed with Death itself.

[tvbcof]

Back to Mussolini's 'merger of state and corporate power' definition of Fascism, and mapping it to the U.S., I just ran across the following in my morning reading:

  this from this.

It is worth note that 'corporate' did not have exactly the same meaning back when Mussolini was flapping his gums as it does in modern vernacular, but our legal corporate structures of today are related to and a sub-set of what he was talking about by use of the term 'corporate'.

I've also read that some of the founders and framers of the U.S. were fully aware and plenty leery of the corrupting and destructive influence that 'corporations' can have on a nation.  I was interested in this when there was a huge (and successful) push to propagandize 'corporations' as some sort of a gift from God.  This line has actually been pushed through my lifetime and probably was before, but it was pushed especially hard (and effectively) during Republican administrations.

[AllTheBitz]

Fascist have always hated communism just because they use tools that a authoritative state would use doesn't mean there fascist.

nope, fascist and commies are brothers forever

I really hope this is b8. you can look back at the leaders of national socialism and fascism and see the hatred of communism.

[Pagan]

Fascist have always hated communism just because they use tools that a authoritative state would use doesn't mean there fascist.

nope, fascist and commies are brothers forever

I really hope this is b8. you can look back at the leaders of national socialism and fascism and see the hatred of communism.

They all have the same socialist / marxist roots: commies, nazi, bolsheviks etc.







Soviet NKVD and Nazi Gestapo cooperation > http://www.soviet-empire.com/ussr/viewtopic.php?t=33713

[Gronthaing]

Back to Mussolini's 'merger of state and corporate power' definition of Fascism, and mapping it to the U.S., I just ran across the following in my morning reading:

  this from this.

It is worth note that 'corporate' did not have exactly the same meaning back when Mussolini was flapping his gums as it does in modern vernacular, but our legal corporate structures of today are related to and a sub-set of what he was talking about by use of the term 'corporate'.

I've also read that some of the founders and framers of the U.S. were fully aware and plenty leery of the corrupting and destructive influence that 'corporations' can have on a nation.  I was interested in this when there was a huge (and successful) push to propagandize 'corporations' as some sort of a gift from God.  This line has actually been pushed through my lifetime and probably was before, but it was pushed especially hard (and effectively) during Republican administrations.

It has also been a push to popularize the idea of "All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, [...] the vile maxim of the masters of mankind" (Adam Smith). It's interesting that at the end of the 19th century, even The New York Times was describing wage labor as "a system of slavery as absolute if not as degrading as that which lately prevailed at the South".

Nop, actually fascism is quite hostile to socialism.

And saying fascism is xenophobic right is quite accurate because it is a 'style' of nationalism.

It's true that fascism tends to be hostile to socialism, but it's also true fascism and socialism have many things in common, first of all a similar economic theory that wants the state to be the biggest enterpreneur and wants to limit free market.

What you described there was state socialism, not socialism. In socialism, the idea is to avoid the concentration of power that you mentioned. But you're right in the second case, it does seek to move towards a production for consumption model, instead of for profit. Which, by the way, isn't necessarily true for fascism.


@AllTheBitz the point is they both ruled authoritarian states. The rhetoric may be different, but not the methods or goals.

[MichaelBliss]

Fascism is the merger of corporate and government power, so obviously, yes, the United States and other Western countries are already fascist by definition.

Nazism is also gaining popularity it seems: 

"At UN General Assembly Russia proposed a resolution on condemning attempts to glorify Nazism ideology. US, Canada & Ukraine were the only countries voted against the resolution. "

http://newswire.net/newsroom/news/00086201-only-three-nations-voted-against-anti-nazism-resolution-us-canada-ukraine.html

[Pagan]

The difference between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, is a matter of degrees, only.

eg;...

A Marxist will scream at you, argue and fist-fight you down the road to his dream, as he carries your belongings and says, "They belong to the collective".

A Socialist will grab you by the hand or the hair, and beat you on the head with a stick and drag you along, as they make you carry your own belongings and tell you they, "Belong to the collective".

A Communist will get behind you and make you carry your own belongings to his dream, as he points a gun to the back of your head, and kicks you in the back and screams at you, "They belong to the State"... as in the collective.

A Fascist will will have your nieghbor carry your belongings, and shoot you if you do not agree with his dream of "Centralized Authority, and it all belongs to the State",... the collective".


http://tmmason.hubpages.com/hub/Whatt-is-Communism-Socialism-Marxism-Are-They-All-the-Same

[Gronthaing]

The difference between Marxism, Socialism, Communism, and Fascism, is a matter of degrees, only.

eg;...

A Marxist will scream at you, argue and fist-fight you down the road to his dream, as he carries your belongings and says, "They belong to the collective".

A Socialist will grab you by the hand or the hair, and beat you on the head with a stick and drag you along, as they make you carry your own belongings and tell you they, "Belong to the collective".

A Communist will get behind you and make you carry your own belongings to his dream, as he points a gun to the back of your head, and kicks you in the back and screams at you, "They belong to the State"... as in the collective.

A Fascist will will have your nieghbor carry your belongings, and shoot you if you do not agree with his dream of "Centralized Authority, and it all belongs to the State",... the collective".


http://tmmason.hubpages.com/hub/Whatt-is-Communism-Socialism-Marxism-Are-They-All-the-Same

In that case, you can define democracy the same way. Your belongings belong to the collective... I mean 51%. And by the way, socialism isn't inconsistent with democracy. It seeks to have workers control the means of production, and the economy.

edit: don't have time to read everything in your link, but there are several errors and obvious biases there. For example, Marx and Engel didn't maintain that socialism always had to be achieved through violence: "We know that the institutions, customs and traditions in the different countries must be taken into account; and we do not deny the existence of countries like America, England, and...I might add Holland, where the workers may achieve their aims by peaceful means. But this is not true of all countries." Then your link goes on to say "and whether Socialism is compatable with political pluralism, or must be implimented through a ideologically dedicated one party system, -(as we have had in America for decades now with the Leftists and Progressives, all under the guise of a two party system.)"... what? Did I get that right? Is it saying that the one party American system is serving leftists and progressives instead of big money interests? You can't possibly believe that, right?