Just substitute the word COMMUNIST for the word FASCIST and you get what happened in the 1950’s with McCarthyism. Tail Gunner Joe ran around with a briefcase full of “evidence” that didn’t exsit. Honest decent people were caught up and ruined, or driven out of the country. Anyone who did not turn against and testify against the “victim of the moment” was himself accused of being Commie. There were Commies everywhere, even hiding under our beds. McCarthy was feeding a national hysteria to build himself up and crush anyone else, whether they were a Commie threat or not.
Why? Because Commies are evil. Commies are godless. They hate America. They hate freedom. They want to exterminate us. After all, the other side is SO BAD (they’re COMMIES for crying out loud!), it justifies any sort of slippery manuevering on the part of us good people.
Ah yes, the “They posted something so outrageous that I had no choice but to foam at mouth” defence.
As for self-censoring to avoid upsetting one particular poster who seems to be eternally upset about a remarkably large number of things, I’ll pass on that.
I was in New York back then. The fight you talk about was only one of many. It was a common occurrence for some group of heroic hardhats to beat up anyone they suspected of being a “commie hippy pinko fag”. The greater the disparity in physical size or numbers, the more heroic they were. Somehow, most of them were not heroic enough to enlist and go fight the war they were so violently in favor of :dubious:
During World War II, the U.S. set up interment camps for anyone who was “one of them” - Asian with a Japanese name (Nisei (?)).
anna: As one of the few posters here who asked a serioius question (see post #38 on page 1), I’m disappointed to come back into this thread and see that you have chosen to igore it.
Ah, sorry. Wait, I’m not sorry. You didn’t mean to compare Bush to Hitler? I understood your initial ritual protestations and caveats to be equivalent to, “I don’t want to compare the Republicans to Nazis, but aren’t the Republicans an awfully lot like Nazis nowadays?”
You knew the way this thread was going to head, please spare me the innocent act. You honestly ask me to believe you thought this thread wasn’t going to be a partisan pissing match? You’re smarter than that.
You might want to go back and demand your money back for that course. One can plot a spectrum or continuum of political thought that uses that as a beginning for discussion, but politics, like the people from which it gets its energy, is much more complex and convoluted. There are aspects of both socialism and capitalism in fascist countries. That spectrum completely ignores anarchists and libertarians. It fails to consider how power is derived and wielded. It places an economic theory (communism) at one end of a spectrum anchored at the other by a theory of governance (fascism). (It also makes an assumption that the “middle” is where we probably “want” to be without actually addressing the issue of what are the economic, political, and social aspects of the middle.)
.
Unfortunately, that approach limits the discussion to specific events or policies. If the actual concern is social movement, then your suggestion (valid for many discussions) becomes a way to avoid the larger discussion by insisting on examining every tree while ignoring the forest.
.
I am not sure that that is true. In 1939, the gas chambers were three years in the future and Germany and Italy were already miserable places to live (from our 21st century perspective.) I think that the question of whether we are recreating situations that resemble 1920s Italy or 1930s Germany are legitimate. Certainly, nothing in our current situation looks like Russia in 1905 or 1917 or China after 1945, so those models do not offer any warning to us, now.
It is unfortunate that when we wish to examine the direction of the country, the most alarming parallels from one perspective are found among the Nazis. As it should be clear in this thread, I do not believe that we are headed toward a repitition of Fascism. However, Polycarp has raised serious concerns that can be discussed. If the discussion follows that irection and begins to wean itself from the flashpoint word “Fascism,” we may get a better discussion.
I regret that you completely missed the point. A brief summary:
The cited tenets of fascism can easily be applied to non-fascist governments over a wide period of history.
Being at war or under perceived attack promotes restrictions on civil liberties.
Godwinesque language invites contempt.
To clarify even further - the phrase “setting oneself up for contempt and one-liners from Brutus” referred to a) the eye-rolling and disgust that mark many people’s responses to knee-jerk invocations of “fascism”, as well as one-liners from the likes of Brutus. While one need not be particularly concerned with pleasing him, one should think about whether displaying gross ignorance of history and minimizing historical atrocities with mind-numbingly trite accusations is likely to a) win converts, or b) immediately alienate a huge chunk of one’s target audience.
Hope that makes things clearer for you.
Yeah, I knew there would be posters like you who would accuse me of shit. But I also knew there would be posters who would understand what I was asking and give me a valuable perspective. If everyone posting so far misunderstood my OP, I’d rethink it and try to explain it better. But in this case the burden falls on you to actually read the OP - you’re completely missing my point, a point that seems clear to many others here. Sorry (Here’s a hint: It’s not about Republicans. It’s not about party politics. Think sociology, rather than poli sci, and maybe you’ll get it).
John, since when do I ignore you? I can’t really answer your question, since I didn’t write the article where it was mentioned. I was hoping someone with more experience would tackle it - that’s why I posted the article - to get feedback from better minds. I’m curious about that myself. Here’s your question reposted, in case someone missed it:
BTW, laigle asked you for a cite re “minority” - have you got one? I’d be interested in knowing just how many people have that mentality too…
It would be a mistake to limit the definition of fascism to “Nazis”. I agreed it’s a loaded word, but how else can you frame a question about fascism without using the term - without “missing the forest”, as you say? Anyway, I was asking about pre-fascism (proto-fascism?), so I’m still not sure exactly why you’re ruling it out.
You’re right, that scale is over-simplified and it wasn’t a very good class.
I do think it’s relevant to point out that my definition of fascism isn’t the history of Nazi Germany, et al, but the extreme end of the right-wing. In which case, if we keep moving farther to the right of center, then we are indeed in the early stages of fascism. Where we stop, nobody knows.
It’s a charicature, so of course there isn’t a cite. The point I was making was in response to this in the OP (my bolding):
There are a lot of assertions being made in the OP, and it is incumbent on the those doing the asserting to provide evidence. So far, there hasn’t been any to speak of.
While this is a “popular” definition, it really is not a very good one (for the same reason that it is unfortunate that some people identify the far left as “communist”). These words have actual meanings relevant to history, politics, economics, and society. The issue of defining those terms has already had a negative effect on getting this discussion off the ground.
Further to what **Tomndebb **posted, would it be correct to assume that if the Democrats win the WH next time and the politics of this country moves leftward, that we will be in the early stages of communism?
Do you see how silly statements like this are and how they do not lend themselves to serious debate?
I guess you’re one of those who didn’t read the OP.
I wasn’t asserting, I was asking, same as you. If I were sure enough to be asserting anything, I wouldn’t waste my time, knowing that there’d be no shortage of posters (like you?) who apparently have nothing to offer me in terms of broader knowledge - of either the terminology, or the national mindset.
FTR, do you know what “totalitarian statist nationalism” even means? Do you really care to know? If someone should reply to your question, will you be able to compare it to your own previously held knowledge of the definition (I ask because you didn’t know what corporatism meant)… or are you just playing games, because you are missing the point of my OP, or just like to play “gotcha” with certain posters here? I’m not sure that it’s the crux of the argument, as you say (and I’m the OP) - perhaps you could expand on that in some way?
I could give you a WAG at what Rockwell meant, but I’m after something a little more substantial than my own WAG. Enlighten me, John. Either you’ve got something to add here, or you’re just stirring up shit. If it’s the latter, I’m done with you in this thread. Sorry.
I’m going for a definition to apply to this country, not so much the history of others.
What I’m apparently not saying very clearly, is that we are more fascist than we were 4 years ago, and still moving in that direction. I think that’s why people are bringing it up lately. Because it feels that way in comparison to what we’re used to.
(If the trend went the other way then yes, we would be more communist.)
I said IN the OP, not BY the OP. Do you know the difference?
Apparently it’s everyone else except you, here. I’ve given you the benefit of the doubt for a long time now. Apparently I was mistaken. Enjoy your thread.
I think you’re right. And I wish I could convince some posters here that it isn’t just about partisan mud-slinging or party politics.
If it makes any of you feel better, I engaged in a political protest, for the first time in my life, against a Democrat - my Senator here in NY, Chuck Schumer - because of his position on torture (“that it was ‘reasonable’ under certain circumstances” - according to his statement during a hearing in June 2004). So much for my “partisan” agenda…
But the “Us” v. “Them” mentality lives on. And it’s nothing to worry about, right? I’m just preaching hate by posting this thread. Right.
What flippin’ accusations? The only accusations I’ve seen here are the ones made by those who have taken take personal affront that this topic has even come up. Specifically, the OP has stated repeatedly that this thread was opened as a discussion, not to “win converts”, nor specifically to bash the Bush administration. Even if it turns out the OP is a bald-faced liar, it is still possible to discuss this subject calmly and and to stick to facts. Each person who replies to this thread has the choice of discussing the topic or not discussing it, and I am quite sure that most readers are able on their own to determine whether the topic is valid or not. Hurling insults and declaring the topic off-limits, doesn’t really cut it.
And that’s as far as I ride with this particular hijack.