Democratic Party = The True Fascists

I am sure that I will get ripped by people on here but as someone who has taught European history for many years, the modern coinage of Fascism comes from Mr. Benito himself. He didn't write the Doctrine Fascism until 1932 but he did promote many of the principles tying nationalism of Italy and using the glories of the Roman Empire as a backdrop to why Italy had fell so low and what it could again achieve (Clingan, 2011). He was an authoritarian and rode to power on the backs of his black shirts through intimidation, promises of a strong capitalistic Italy, while promoting Italian nationalism. I am no PHD but that is the gist of it and I am sure I missed a ton. Looking for how the term "fascism" was used before 1917 is pretty funny because even the dictionary has it as the meaning Benito created and no other. Every history book will have a slant but when it comes to Mussolini and Fascism there is no slant unless a modern person is trying to use a first level slippery slope to prove a point or sell a book.



I hate when stupid people compare modern American political ideologies to movements like Fascism and Communism. I hate when liberals compare Bush and Trump to Hitler and I hate it when conservatives compared Obama and Clinton to Hitler. Either all presidents are Hitler (I have read books from both sides that are pretty convincing) or each modern party has some elements that are similar to past historical figures or groups. I just wish someone would be creative and compare presidents to Pol Pot, Micombero, Enver, or heck even use Brezhnev. People on both sides get Nazi turrets and the laziness from them annoys me. That is my worthless 2 cents and I am sure I am wrong on multiple accounts.



"Politics reminds me very much of the measles. The measles don’t hurt much if you will take a little saffron tea or something else to keep them on the surface. But if they once set in on you, they turn your hide yellow and sometimes make you cross-eyed. So do not let politics set in on you". Heber J. Grant

snoscythe wrote:

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.

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.

You're changing the goalposts. You asked for evidence of a nationalism component to fascism prior to 1917. I said my memory of the history I've read does include French and Italian writings forming the basis of fascism as including a nationalism component. Not all did but some did. You can choose to believe me or not. If you really want the evidence you'll have to wait because I've got more pressing matters than running down cites to satiate your curiosity. You make fun of my citing Mussolini from Wikipedia. Do you dispute the quote? Seemed a convenient spot to cite to. Do you think he got that out of a vacuum? No. Nationalism was in the fascist mindset of at Italian fascists back in that time. It is emblematic of the milieu that was going on back then as it came to the forefront in Europe. It refutes the notion that nationalism is a more recent component.

uncoug wrote:

I am sure that I will get ripped by people on here but as someone who has taught European history for many years, the modern coinage of Fascism comes from Mr. Benito himself. He didn't write the Doctrine Fascism until 1932 but he did promote many of the principles tying nationalism of Italy and using the glories of the Roman Empire as a backdrop to why Italy had fell so low and what it could again achieve (Clingan, 2011). He was an authoritarian and rode to power on the backs of his black shirts through intimidation, promises of a strong capitalistic Italy, while promoting Italian nationalism. I am no PHD but that is the gist of it and I am sure I missed a ton. Looking for how the term "fascism" was used before 1917 is pretty funny because even the dictionary has it as the meaning Benito created and no other. Every history book will have a slant but when it comes to Mussolini and Fascism there is no slant unless a modern person is trying to use a first level slippery slope to prove a point or sell a book.



I hate when stupid people compare modern American political ideologies to movements like Fascism and Communism. I hate when liberals compare Bush and Trump to Hitler and I hate it when conservatives compared Obama and Clinton to Hitler. Either all presidents are Hitler (I have read books from both sides that are pretty convincing) or each modern party has some elements that are similar to past historical figures or groups. I just wish someone would be creative and compare presidents to Pol Pot, Micombero, Enver, or heck even use Brezhnev. People on both sides get Nazi turrets and the laziness from them annoys me. That is my worthless 2 cents and I am sure I am wrong on multiple accounts.



"Politics reminds me very much of the measles. The measles don’t hurt much if you will take a little saffron tea or something else to keep them on the surface. But if they once set in on you, they turn your hide yellow and sometimes make you cross-eyed. So do not let politics set in on you". Heber J. Grant

Thanks! You obviously know a lot more than me on this. I appreciate your input.

BoiseBYU wrote:

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.

You're changing the goalposts.

Goalposts never changed. I said in the initial challenge (which you even quoted) that it has to embrace all of fascism, not just Italy and Mussolini. A quote from the Italian Mussolini about his Italian system doesn't quite get you there. It just makes you look evasive.



I'm still waiting for sources of literature prior to 1917 discussing a word that wasn't invented until 1915. That should narrow down your window for you. You're the one that said "literature for over 100 years" supported your position. I'm just asking you to prove it. I've already given you the 6 components of fascism as set forth in 1944, none of which include nationalism, and which do embrace non-Italian fascist nations.



Now, if you're wondering about my sources, you can try reading Stanley Payne's books like "A History of Fascism" that examines all fascist regimes, not just Italy. You'll find he is one of the best-versed scholars of fascism in our time, especially the Spanish regime, and his list of characteristics of fascism expressly exclude nationalism because it is absent in nearly all the European fascist regimes other than Italy. I'm sure you can find his list of characteristics on Wikipedia.



You can also try reading Ira Katznelson's "Fear Itself" -- a Bancroft-prize (an award from Columbia University that stamps it as legitimate history and not Glenn Beck-level analysis) winning book that, among other things, examines the cozy relationship of FDR and the Democratic Party with the Fascist regimes and the roots of the New Deal in fascist philosophy and Southern-Democratic racism.



I don't know if you think I'm just listening to Rush Limbaugh and spouting off half-cocked here, but that's not who I am, especially not in politics. I'm not firing off unresearched opinions here that I get from truckers on my CB radio, and I'm not relying on popular currents or vague recollections of what I learned in high school or GE classes at the Y. That's why I'm confident in the challenge -- because I've already done the looking and the reading.

uncoug wrote:

the modern coinage of Fascism comes from Mr. Benito himself. He didn't write the Doctrine Fascism until 1932.

Angel Olivetti is the one who is credited with coining the term in 1915 -- he led the Fasci d'Azione Internazionalista before joining forces with Mussolini in the Fasci d'Azione Rivoluzionaria.



Mussolini wrote The Doctrine of Fascism in 1932, but his newspaper published the Fascist Manifesto in 1919. The one possible nod to nationalism in 1919 was the call for peacefully furthering the Italian national culture in the world, but that line was never adopted by the other European countries that adopted fascism--they took most of the other 16 tenets from the manifesto (progressive tax structures, minimum wages, government-backed labor unions, limits on work-week hours, national trade councils to regulate commerce, universal suffrage, etc.), but left out Mussolini's call for export of culture (Mussolini himself didn't exactly abide by the "peacefully" qualifier).

Sno, you are changing the goalposts. Earlier you said



"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."



I pointed out that I remember some French and Italians articulating what came to be fascism as expressing a nationalism component and they were saying that in the early 1900's. I then quoted Mussolini, an Italian fascist who, building upon what others had been advocating, expressly talked about nationalism as one component. So it is not correct to say that "authoritarian nationalism" was "not part of the original definition." It was at least part of Mussolini's in 1919. Am I advocating that it was in every form of fascism? No. Did I ever say so? I did not mean to imply that it is. I frankly do not know the breadth or scope to have a view. I remember the French and Italians and Mussolini to say what I said. Given how country specific fascism can be. I'd be suprised if there was a one size fits all uniform definition that was the same in each and every country.



Finally, I do not think you are spouting off in any way and respect your opinion, and there is absoutely nothing in any of my posts that suggest that in any way. I am not sure what prompted you to go off on this tangent. I do not think I know more than you. You strike me as very well read, no doubt more so than I. My most recent read on the subject is Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism, which I found mostly informative and stimulating. Frankly, you have not returned the favor of a respectful dialogue, laughing at me, describing me as someone caught up in the popular currents, and denigrating me as someone who is only bringing to the table things I "learned in high school" or in some "GE course." (If the informatino is correct, does it matter where it was learned I wonder?) In the end, I do not think I have erred in what I have said, but am always willing to stand and be corrected. Even so, I'm not sure of your need to demean.

People redefine things all the time and a word can mean anything you want it to these days. Everyone has accepted the redefinition of the word liberal.



Do you guys consider Spain's refusal to allow Catalonia to succeed imperialism? Just wondering because if you do (and everyone should), I think Spain qualifies as a current fascist state. And the western state probably closest to what the Italy of the past that most people consider fascist.



And are you guys are arguing whether the US is a fascist state? If so, I think you're right using any of the definitions you've used.

jvquarterback wrote:



And are you guys are arguing whether the US is a fascist state? If so, I think you're right using any of the definitions you've used.

however, I assume that your correlation of "fascist" state and the USA didn't start since the election of donald trump. If true, I also agree.

The biggest move towards a fascist state probably occurred with Abraham Lincoln, though you could argue for either of the Roosevelts as well. Trump's an amateur at this stuff.

Most of Steve Bannon's "economic nationalism," as he himself refers to it, are based on leftist ideas. None of these ideas have really been applied yet under Trump, although there are hints he wants to move in that direction. The deregulation and talk of tax cuts are traditional republican ideas. So far so good. But I do think if the protectionism and economic isolationist (international trade is bad!) ideas of Bannon and the Breitbart crowd do get pushed through it will wreck the economy in a pretty severe way.

Trump really just tweeted out that NBC should have its license pulled because he didn't like a story they put out? Geez.



First of all, networks aren't licensed. Only local channels are because they operate on the "limited" public airwaves. Or so the theory was in the early 20th century when broadcasting began. So you can't pull a network's license because there is nothing to pull



But never mind that, but what the heck? What country is this? Trump's absolute lack of respect for the First Amendment is kind of alarming if not revolting to me. Censoring media based on the government not linking what they are saying? That's pretty dang communist/fascist/dicatorial/authoritarian/unamerican -- insert your adjective here. But what do i know, I just vote Libertarian.



By the way, no one should be surprised by Trump saying something like this. He's not much of a fan of the FIrst Amendment. We've known that for a long time.



Please read my signature.

As mentioned before, fascists hate a free press. Though also, the American press hates conservatism.

Mars wrote:

As mentioned before, fascists hate a free press. Though also, the American press hates conservatism.

You can find plenty of right-leaning media also. I use realclearpolitics a lot and probably 60% of the articles posted on there are conservative-leaning -- many from "traditional" sources, like an op-ed from a conservative columnist from a major newspaper, or something like that. I don't like the characterization of the media as a monolithic entity that hates only one side. That idea just too simplistic and too easily manipulated by rabble-rousing politicians for their own greedy objectives. The truth is you can find anything you want out there. And despite the way they lean, you can find both credible and very not credible sources on both sides. It's our job to use our brains to sift through it. I lament that Trump seems to be of the mindset that if he doesn't like the reality he lives in, he gets to change it: the real truth becomes whatever "dear leader" says it is. In fact, it's dangerous for politicians to demonize the press because it sets the tone for making it seem acceptable to us to take away that freedom at some point.



The problem is he has been caught in lies so many times, it's absurd. A republican would never accept this nonsense from a democrat president. I wish so many didn't lose their principles. This is where I respect the Republican "never Trumpers" like Jeff Flake of Arizona (LDS incidentally) who isn't going to give up his principles and call it like it is when the president is off his rocker. Not ironically, Trump hates him even more than any democrat who might take that seat instead. What a joke.



Trump just digs too many of his own holes to expect the same kind of free pass leaders of totalitarian countries get from their press. And he's not really a conservative anyway except for the socially conservative bones he throws out to the evangelical crowd.

Places like Hollywood definitely do seem to adopt a monolithic group-think. L.A. and New York control a lot of our media, and conservatives don't seem to last long there.

And to date, any journalist can express any opinion he/she wants. It's not even close to Russia yet where putin has killed who-knows-how-many reporters.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia



I think what trump said was dumb. But the press acting like they are being herded up and killed doesn't make me feel even a little sorry for them. The press has been irresponsible and certainly has favorites (both sides). It's the emotional driven inconsistency that drives me crazy.

The 90+% of negative stories for Trump (with most of them being "fake news" - read out and out lies) adds to the perception. But here is a suggestion. Take all his tweets with a bit of patience. He has an agenda with each of them and have led him to being the most successful president since Ronny despite a congress that has done virtually nothing but fight him. He's like a magician, he has the world looking in one direction while he oversees the dismantling of all the "fascist" rules and regulations that have been stifling our country. Did you know that under his direction, fed regs have been drastically cut which has led to the huge gains in employment and wealth to all the people? Just one agency has gone from over 90,000 pages of regs to just over 40,000 pages of regs and they are still being reduced. Gentlemen, brethren, Don understands what is going on with the media and what "we the people" really want and is using a strategy to keep the first occupied so he can meet the expectations and desires of the second.

BTW - latest fake news "Trump stated he wants to increase our Nukes by 10x". This has been proven false and an out and out lie of a story.

Never put more thought into a Trump tweet than Trump does.

SpiffCoug wrote:
Never put more thought into a Trump tweet than Trump does.

And he falls asleep while writing them.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Never put more thought into a Trump tweet than Trump does.

Fair enough. But he is the President of the United States of America. Our country has for a long time been the leader of the free world and in numerous ways, not just militarily, the most powerful nation in the world. I can give the short shrift Trump’s tweets deserve, but they still embarrass the office of the Presidency and this nation. The tweets undercut our causes, and put our nation in a tougher spot in various ways. Any sane person would recognize that and stop. I can ignore his tweets but the world is not and as a result our position is weaker. And as conservative writer David French said in the National Review today, Trump’s tweets are doing long term harm to the Republican Party and principles of liberty.

BoiseBYU wrote:

Never put more thought into a Trump tweet than Trump does.

Fair enough. But he is the President of the United States of America. Our country has for a long time been the leader of the free world and in numerous ways, not just militarily, the most powerful nation in the world. I can give the short shrift Trump’s tweets deserve, but they still embarrass the office of the Presidency and this nation. The tweets undercut our causes, and put our nation in a tougher spot in various ways. Any sane person would recognize that and stop. I can ignore his tweets but the world is not and as a result our position is weaker. And as conservative writer David French said in the National Review today, Trump’s tweets are doing long term harm to the Republican Party and principles of liberty.

I agree. Trump's twitter account is awful for his administration and awful for the nation. It adds to the irreconciliable political divide currently infesting our nation. It is poisoning conservatism. It is a blight on the office.



But Trump still doesn't - and likely never will - understand the gravitas required of his current position.