Democratic Party = The True Fascists

I'm getting beyond tired of this "Anti-fa" and "Trump is a fascist" business. It's a bunch of hooey.



First, we have to understand what fascism is other than an insult. Fascism is nothing more than government-controlled capitalism. It's socialism with that veneer of private industry--the government controls through regulations what the people own. "Where socialism abolished all market relations outright, fascism left the appearance of market relations while planning all economic activities. Where socialism abolished money and prices, fascism controlled the monetary system and set all prices and wages politically." (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html)



Let me give you some examples of fascism: The New Deal. Obamacare. The Clean Air Act. etc. -- the big ticket items from the Democratic Party throughout history.



Fascism is not racism, it's not naked authoritarianism (although that is a piece of the larger puzzle)--it's the government distorting markets "for the greater good" or "for the good of the country".



What's most ironic about Anti-fa is their backing. Anti-fa is funded by George Soros, who admits without apology to have been at best a Nazi-sympathizer in Hungary, and at worst a brownshirt himself. So, we have a demonstrated Nazi-supporter who now is funding the "Anti-fascist" movement that is in fact fighting the one political party standing its ground against the tide of DNC/Progressive fascism.



And as far as the red-herring race-baiting of Antifa, maybe they ought to remember that the only US president to ever single out a race or nationality and put them behind fences was Franklin Delano "Nothing-to-Fear-But-Itself-and-the-Japanese-but-not-the-Germans-or-Italians-for-some-reason" Roosevelt, hero of the progressive movement.



Blows my mind that they get away with this crap by changing definitions.

It depends upon the definition we choose for the term. Most I've seen define the term as a form of extreme authoritarian nationalism that uses dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce to further their goals. I. think it dilutes the term of much of its meaning to equate democratically enacted provisions like the Clean Air Act to fascsim. There isn't a nationalism component in the CAA, although it does impose limits on commerce. Otherwise every act of Congress that regulates commerce, whether environmental, consumer protection, or antitrust qualify as fascist, yes? In the end, calling something fascist doesn't help decide whether it is a good idea or not. It's become a pejorative thrown about. So there's no misunderstanding, I am not a supporter or defender of intifa in any way. They seem to be anarchists to me. And what Roosevelt ordered regarding Japanese American citizens was so wrong and the US Supreme Court's decision upholding that decision the 20th century's version of Dred Scott.

BoiseBYU wrote:

dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce to further their goals.

This is the definition of what Obama performed, or at the least attempted, for 8 years.



I totally agree with Sno. The current Antifa movement and the left crying about "fascism" is really an attempt to maintain their political advantage that they, as real fascists, gave themselves for nearly the last decade.

Though dictators DO usually attack and attempt to weaken the media. They don't like to be questioned, you see.

BroncoBot wrote:

dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce to further their goals.

This is the definition of what Obama performed, or at the least attempted, for 8 years.



I totally agree with Sno. The current Antifa movement and the left crying about "fascism" is really an attempt to maintain their political advantage that they, as real fascists, gave themselves for nearly the last decade.

Please don't twist and confuse. The part you quoted above are bad things and wrong, but you conveniently missed the part that connects those things to nationalism. Fascism includes that component. I make that point NOT to excuse the other bad things you chose to mention, but to properly label the movement. If fascism can mean whatever you say it means, then it loses its meaning. It becomes just a label that one can hurl at their enemies at will.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Most I've seen define the term as a form of extreme authoritarian nationalism that uses dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce to further their goals.

And therein lies the problem -- the definition has been hijacked by the left to mean something entirely different in an attempt to pin Mussolini and Hitler on the right when both ascended from the left. What you describe is not fascism, that's authoritarianism.



Fascism is an economic philosophy.



Authoritarianism is a governing philosophy.



Ironically, neither find basis in the political right, but both fascism and authoritarianism are leftist ideologies.

So what you're saying is everyone who is bad is a Leftist?



It's a lot like pointlessly arguing that the the KKK was founded by the Democrats, it really no longer matters now, they almost universally voted for and support Donald Trump, that makes them a Trump supporting organization, not a Democrat organization.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce to further their goals.

This is the definition of what Obama performed, or at the least attempted, for 8 years.



I totally agree with Sno. The current Antifa movement and the left crying about "fascism" is really an attempt to maintain their political advantage that they, as real fascists, gave themselves for nearly the last decade.

Please don't twist and confuse. The part you quoted above are bad things and wrong, but you conveniently missed the part that connects those things to nationalism. Fascism includes that component. I make that point NOT to excuse the other bad things you chose to mention, but to properly label the movement. If fascism can mean whatever you say it means, then it loses its meaning. It becomes just a label that one can hurl at their enemies at will.

I still find it interesting that "nationalism" is so offensive. Do I think it can become a negative? sure. But, I can appreciate any people being proud of the country they live in.

BroncoBot wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce to further their goals.

This is the definition of what Obama performed, or at the least attempted, for 8 years.



I totally agree with Sno. The current Antifa movement and the left crying about "fascism" is really an attempt to maintain their political advantage that they, as real fascists, gave themselves for nearly the last decade.

Please don't twist and confuse. The part you quoted above are bad things and wrong, but you conveniently missed the part that connects those things to nationalism. Fascism includes that component. I make that point NOT to excuse the other bad things you chose to mention, but to properly label the movement. If fascism can mean whatever you say it means, then it loses its meaning. It becomes just a label that one can hurl at their enemies at will.

I still find it interesting that "nationalism" is so offensive. Do I think it can become a negative? sure. But, I can appreciate any people being proud of the country they live in.

Good point. I do not think nationalism in and of itself is bad. Fascism is defined, in part, as "extreme authoritarian nationalism." It is thus an extreme and dictatorial sort of nationalism that is part of the definition of fascism, not just nationalism in general. At least that's how I'm understanding the term.

You can bet if the republicans had started the Klu Klux Klan the democrats would never let up on it. I don't see them as innocent in this matter.

snoscythe wrote:

Most I've seen define the term as a form of extreme authoritarian nationalism that uses dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce to further their goals.

And therein lies the problem -- the definition has been hijacked by the left to mean something entirely different in an attempt to pin Mussolini and Hitler on the right when both ascended from the left. What you describe is not fascism, that's authoritarianism.



Fascism is an economic philosophy.



Authoritarianism is a governing philosophy.



Ironically, neither find basis in the political right, but both fascism and authoritarianism are leftist ideologies.

Again it comes down to the way you want to define the term. The definition I used is common and links economic control and authoritarianism WITH an extreme form of nationalism. You apparently do not. It is not surprising then that we will not agree on what or who is a fascist. Your definition apparently sweeps in the Clean Air Act for example as fascist, while mine would not.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Again it comes down to the way you want to define the term.

I laughed out loud (literally) when I read this. The entire original post was about how the definition has been changed. We're on the same page, but evidently not in the same book.

The definition I used is common and links economic control and authoritarianism WITH an extreme form of nationalism. You apparently do not. It is not surprising then that we will not agree on what or who is a fascist. Your definition apparently sweeps in the Clean Air Act for example as fascist, while mine would not.

The entire point of the OP is that the left has changed the definition of fascism over the course of the last 30 years to pin Mussolini and Hitler onto the right, when in fact they were leftist leaders implementing leftist ideologies.



If you insist on using the altered definition to argue otherwise, what's the point? No one is arguing how the term is used today by most--that's kind of part and parcel of my argument. I'm simply arguing that this is an intentional bastardization of the term by the political left that incubated these regimes.



In 1944, you know, when fascism was an actual thing, they identified six traits of fascism:

1. Anti-capitalist, but with capitalist features;

2. Direct economic planning, reconciled with partial economic autonomy through corporatism;

3/4. Economic demand management through budget deficits;

5. Militarism and imperialism; and

6. Suspension of rule of law.



It's a definition that applied rather well to all the fascist governments of the time -- Portugal, Spain, Norway, and others in addition to Italy. Portugal and Spain were under fascist systems until the mid-70s, but were never really marked with the authoritarian nationalism that was not part of the original definition.



But since that time, the definition has moved from that initial reading of the commonalities of the fascist economies of Europe to a definition hallmarked with references to nationalism, which was never an element of fascism prior to the 60s. To further the point, this year, Google actually re-wrote the definition of fascism and inserted the words "right-wing" into both the primary and secondary definitions. You can pull old dictionaries at your local library and compare the definitions side-by-side and then ask yourself -- why is the definition of something that has been extinct for 40 years still evolving?



So yeah, you can throw around current understandings and definitions all you want, but you're not really participating in this conversation.



(and P.S. -- as someone who comes head-to-head with the CAA and the EPA's implementation of it on a daily basis, I stand by my assessment 1000% -- it's just as fascist and economically controlling as Obamacare is.)

Sno, laugh all you want. Not as easy to have a discussion though, if you ask me, but I understand you're not. Nationalism as a component of fascism has been around and in the literature for over 100 years. SO your decision to decouple the two concepts is certainly your right, but it is just your view, just as my thought that fascism at least in the view of some has a nationalistic compotent to it is mine. If labelling the EPA's efforts as fascism makes sense to you, so be it. I don't support much of what the EPA does either, but I don't feel a need to label it fascism.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Nationalism as a component of fascism has been around and in the literature for over 100 years.

Okay--show it to me. Show me where nationalism is described or listed in literature as an essential component of fascism prior to 1917.



Be mindful, we're talking about fascism that includes all fascist systems including Spain, Portugal, Norway, and Hungary, not just Mussolini, and not Nazi (socialist, not fascist) Germany. If it doesn't embrace all fascist countries and omit Germany, it's not an honest assessment of fascism, but rather a description of one variation on the theme.

snoscythe wrote:

Nationalism as a component of fascism has been around and in the literature for over 100 years.

Okay--show it to me. Show me where nationalism is described or listed in literature as an essential component of fascism prior to 1917.



Be mindful, we're talking about fascism that includes all fascist systems including Spain, Portugal, Norway, and Hungary, not just Mussolini, and not Nazi (socialist, not fascist) Germany. If it doesn't embrace all fascist countries and omit Germany, it's not an honest assessment of fascism, but rather a description of one variation on the theme.

I'm taxing my memory, but my memory of the history I have read ( and I'm no expert), is that in France and Italy in the early 1900's leading up to 1919 were people advocating nationalism as a component of the movement that came to be fascism. It was thus in 1919 that Mussolini declared:



"We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism" I pulled this off of Wikipedia. So that at least is where I'm coming from in stating what I've said.

PS. Did you change your post because since I started my response your post reads different? Not accusing but I think my response above now does not come accross as fully responsive?

BoiseBYU wrote:

PS. Did you change your post because since I started my response it reads different? Not accusing but I think my response now does not come accross a fully responsive.

I don't think I did--what you quoted matches the post. Feel free to revise your response if you want.

snoscythe wrote:

PS. Did you change your post because since I started my response it reads different? Not accusing but I think my response now does not come accross a fully responsive.

I don't think I did--what you quoted matches the post. Feel free to revise your response if you want.

Ok. My bad. Sorry. Well, I think my post makes the point that nationalism as a component of fascism has been around for a long time. Fascism has many faces in different areas and is not so monolithic as some other ideologies. Not sure there's much left to say on this issue. Peace out.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

Nationalism as a component of fascism has been around and in the literature for over 100 years.

Okay--show it to me. Show me where nationalism is described or listed in literature as an essential component of fascism prior to 1917.



Be mindful, we're talking about fascism that includes all fascist systems including Spain, Portugal, Norway, and Hungary, not just Mussolini, and not Nazi (socialist, not fascist) Germany. If it doesn't embrace all fascist countries and omit Germany, it's not an honest assessment of fascism, but rather a description of one variation on the theme.

I'm taxing my memory, but my memory of the history I have read ( and I'm no expert), is that in France and Italy in the early 1900's leading up to 1919 were people advocating nationalism as a component of the movement that came to be fascism. It was thus in 1919 that Mussolini declared:



"We declare war against socialism, not because it is socialism, but because it has opposed nationalism" I pulled this off of Wikipedia. So that at least is where I'm coming from in stating what I've said.

So, all you have is a Mussolini quote from Wikipedia that backs up your assertion that literature has acknowledged nationalism is an essential component of fascism for over 100 years?



No one is arguing that Mussolini is was a nationalist. No one is arguing that Mussolini was a fascist. That does not mean that all fascists are nationalists, nor does it mean that all nationalists are fascists. Show me your literature -- you said it's out there and its more than 100 years old. Your statement -- just asking you to back it up.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

PS. Did you change your post because since I started my response it reads different? Not accusing but I think my response now does not come accross a fully responsive.

I don't think I did--what you quoted matches the post. Feel free to revise your response if you want.

Ok. My bad. Sorry. Well, I think my post makes the point that nationalism as a component of fascism has been around for a long time. Fascism has many faces in different areas and is not so monolithic as some other ideologies. Not sure there's much left to say on this issue. Peace out.

All your post proved was two things = 1) Mussolini was a nationalist, which no one has argued otherwise, and 2) you're relying on Wikipedia....