Friendly Fascism

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Velocimaniac, Oct 24, 2002.

  1. Velocimaniac


    Jun 14, 2002
    This is a quite interesting article on the state of the US I found while searching on the internet for the "war on terror" and the like. Check it out at

    Edit: Quite interesting, in my humble opinion anyway...
  2. superfreak

    superfreak Unregistered

    Aug 18, 2002
    Clarksville, TN
    JMO, I think the article is wrong, however interesting it may be...again I will state that this is just my opinion.
  3. Wow, that is so true. Too many people are waving the flag as a symbol of American firepower, not American willpower.

    Rock on
  4. Duh.. that's what i've been yelling for years..
  5. dkmonroe


    Jul 3, 2002
    Atlanta, GA
    IMO, all of these people crying, "Facism", have no idea what it's like to live under a REAL facist government. To them, all expression of patriotism is facistic by definition, and CERTAINLY any attempt to tighten security in any capacity is facistic. I get really bored with this line of argument.:oops:
  6. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    I reject the premise that Facism is a product of the extreme Right.

    Facism is a government regulated society; business, medicine, army, constitution, press, speech, wages, and the right of self determination.

    Facism is socialism or communism.

    What is typically described as "right wing" in America today is: less taxes, less government, less regulation, more individual liberty, and a strict interpetation of our constitution.

    About the only "liberty" argument (or question)associated with the right these days is abortion.
    It took the right in America to get the Civil Rights Act passed. (AlGore's dad voted against it, as did Robert Byrd KKK. West Virginia)

    The "extreme Right-Wing" label that accompanies Facism is misplaced, facism is a form of socialism-leftism.

    Look to the left to completely enjoy the depravation of your liberty, tax dollars, freedom of speech, and right to self determination.
  7. FretNoMore

    FretNoMore * Cooking with GAS *

    Jan 25, 2002
    The frozen north
    There's really very little difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. Both are totalitarian dictatorship systems, and whether you want to call it communism or facism doesn't really matter, IMHO, the end result is the same.
  8. fascism

    n : a political theory advocating an authoritarian hierarchical government (as opposed to democracy or liberalism)
  9. temp5897

    temp5897 Guest

    How do you figure this? People on the extreme right want as little government as possible. There is a HUGE difference between people on the extreme right and the extreme left.

    I'm glad someone else in this thread identified robert byrd for what he is...a former KKK member. If this guy were a member of the GOP he would be dragged out of washington. I also do not get the gay bashing going on in that one campaign (the state eludes me right now). The GOP candidate dropped out, it hurt his campaign so bad. Just because the democrat commercial ALLUDED to him being gay. I get a real kick out of hearing people like Al Gore and Joe Lieberman saying we need to end the politics of personal destruction and yet their party has ads BASHING the very lifestyle they claim to endorse. I just don't get how people can let this stuff slide...the media would never let republicans get away with that sorta thing...I just honestly do not comprehend.
  10. Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson Commercial User

    Mar 8, 2000
    Gaithersburg, Md
    Boom Bass Cabinets, DR strings
    Is the religious right part of the extreme right?
  11. FretNoMore

    FretNoMore * Cooking with GAS *

    Jan 25, 2002
    The frozen north
    Maybe in theory and ideology. In practice both systems are dictatorships, suppressing their own people and dissidents. Both extremes of the political spectrum are anti-democratic.
  12. temp5897

    temp5897 Guest do you figure? We have already seen examples of the extreme left in play. Look at any socialist/communist nation. It's no big secret the american communist party endorses Democrats. They know what they are doing...they straight out state that socialism will never happen under that name but under the name of liberalism they can get their ideas and agendas through. I don't think it is the same party that once belonged to Thomas Jefferson and JFK sadly enough.

    I would like to know how less government and more freedom IN PRACTICE produces dictatorships suppressing their own people.

    Talk about a non sequiter...

    Is the religious 'right' part of the extreme right? I dunno what is your definition? Are you talking about Christians? African American Christians? Muslims? You have religion all over the place I am afraid...
  13. Brad Johnson

    Brad Johnson Commercial User

    Mar 8, 2000
    Gaithersburg, Md
    Boom Bass Cabinets, DR strings
    I'm sure the term is as vague as you make it.

    Way to stick to an agenda. Later.
  14. FretNoMore

    FretNoMore * Cooking with GAS *

    Jan 25, 2002
    The frozen north
    BassSaxMan, I think we're maybe talking about different scenarios, yours is when the good ideas of ideologies work, mine is when some ruthless guy (I'm talking Stalins and Hitlers, but smaller players do damage as well) go out on a limb under cover of the ideology in question. There have really been no working communist or facist regimes, they both produce elitist societies where some guys have all the fun and the masses suffer. I'm maybe more cynical than you are, but I think the only system that works for most people in reality is a democracy based on a broad center politics. Where that center is percieved to be probably differs a lot from country to country, in the US it's more to the right than it is in Sweden.
  15. DanGouge


    May 25, 2000
    This is somewhat of a mis-characterization of fascism. The left-right spectrum is not really a good way of deliniating fascism. There is another spectrum involved here: authoritarian vs. libertarian. There are left and right wing libertarians (anarchists, militias) as well as authoritarians (communists, rightist military juntas). Neither side of the political spectrum has a monoploy on government intrusion into private life. Look at the war on terror people with impeccable conservative credentials are support all sorts of government intrusion in the name of "security". Another example is work-for-welfare usually instituted by right-wing gov'ts, that sure is government involvement in the economy. The fascists may have regulated many aspects of the economy (and yes, I know that the full name of the Nazi party translates to something like "National Socialist German Workers Party") but at the same time they made a lot of room for private business to profit. Bayer, BMW, Siemens, Daimler-Benz, and a host of other German companies prospered under the Nazis (try getting a holocaust survivor into a Benz, a lot of them won't touch the things). It's not as simple as left and right.
  16. DanGouge


    May 25, 2000
    Here's another thought about government in the west: right now the US is starting to look like the waning Roman Republic. No one woke up one day decided to have an Empire. Power was concentrated in the hands of a few powerful families and then eventually one family held hegemony over all the offices of Roman power. By the time people realized what had happened it was too late to really do anything. The republican system of government had already been surrendered. The forms of republicanism were maintained in Rome but everyone knew where all the power really lay.

    Fast forward to this century: the last election featured the son of a President (and grandson of a Senator) versus the son of another Senator. The current President has a slim political resume and his main credential seems to be that his daddy was the President. How else would a major political party nominate a one(?) term governor with no national or overseas political experience and a pretty pathetic career as a businessman (mostly wasting daddy's money). If his name was not Bush do you really think he would have even been on the primary ballot? Watch the 2004 race, I bet that once again there will be a slew of people whose main credential will be their last name. (Equal time for the Republicans: Hillary Clinton is an equally excellent example of this, how else would and out-of-state lawyer with no experience in political office win a senate seat in New York? Face it, her hubby was her main credential.)

    One day the US will wake up and find itself an empire where there is an illusion of democracy if it is not careful. Things like terrorism will be used to clamp down on dissent. People will be diverted by the false dichotomy between the Democrats and the Republicans (who look a lot like the same party with different branding these days).

    I hope that this sort of scenario can be averted but I don't know...
  17. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    Political names will come and go. Kennedy's, Bush, Clinton, Roosevelt.

    The pop world seems to dismiss G.W. Bush as a lightweight. They said the same about Reagan.

    Everyone who disagrees with what he says, disagrees in a meanspirited, insulting way.

    Kind of a acerbic reaction for words from a lightweight.

    When Clinton, Carter say something, the same intelligensia swoon, and wax prolifically without holding them at thier word. Never mind that history is yeilding a very different result from Carter-Clinton foreign policy versus that of Reagan/Bush.
  18. Wxp4759cb


    Nov 23, 2000
    Kansas City, MO
    What that article is describing seems more totalitarian than facist.

    I thought according to the original meanings of the words totalitarian was something like Nazi Germany, or Oceana in 1984 (Orwell). Where the state has complete control of the peoples lives with secret police and what not.

    I thought facism was the system of state-capitalism, where the state/leader (tyrant) owns all industry and production, sets prices wages etc. as in Italy under Mussolini.

    However facisms usually quickly become totalitarian.

    Communism in theory would be the people owning the industry collectively, but since the power is concentrated in a few people it is more or less the same as facism.

    The United States is what would be a Conservative Socialism, where social programs are instituded by the sovergn(sp?)/people, and thusly the wealth is somewhat distributed.

    The term dictator originally was an elected official given complete power for a short time to prevent crises. A Tyrant would be a dictator who then kept power after the set time unlawfully. (according to Rousseau)

    Finally America is not a Democracy. (or a republic). A Democracy is where over 50% of the citizens serve as magistrates of the government. (executive branch). The Government is seperate from the Law and is to enforce it. The law SHOULD be made through the soverngty(sp?) of the people, but that would require all citizens to assemble and vote on issues, and unfortunatly we are to lazy, and thusly hire mercaneries to create our laws.

    Has anyone read "The Social Contract of Political Right" from Rousseau. That would be an interesting discussion in another thread.
  19. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    America was a republic for about 6 minutes. Today it is a mixed econmy with too much govt. interference. A republic is a long way off. Sadly not to return.
  20. DanGouge


    May 25, 2000
    In my post I was referring to the classical definition of republic coming from the Latin res publica or roughly "that of the people". In other words a system of government where the state was not viewed as the private domain of one ruler. Republican Rome included various degrees of public input including elections. It was nothing really to do with the degree to which the government interacts in the economy.