Antifa rocks!

[brennan]

That's not the claim being made Lex as i'm sure you are aware, but i'm used to you applying the least charitable possible interpretation to everything people say so w/e.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

"A highly regimented, militaristic society. The right generally rejects this essential feature of fascism because it is socialist in origin."

Please suggest a more charitable interpretation of that.

 

[Lexicus]

That's not the claim being made Lex as i'm sure you are aware, but i'm used to you applying the least charitable possible interpretation to everything people say so w/e.

I'm not aware, at all. What is the claim being made, if not that this "essential feature of fascism" is being rejected by "the right" because "it is socialist in origin"?

What, specifically, does the "it" refer to there?

Please suggest a more charitable interpretation of that.

Forget "more charitable", how about "another sensical interpretation"?

 

[Senethro]

I think the US is militaristic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Forget "more charitable", how about "another sensical interpretation"?

Well, yeah, that too.

 

[brennan]

"A highly regimented, militaristic society. The right generally rejects this essential feature of fascism because it is socialist in origin."

Please suggest a more charitable interpretation of that.

That ideas & policies got into fascism specifically via socialist influences. Not that socialism is responsible for those ideas everywhere and for all time.

You guys are i'm sure aware that the fascist manifesto had a load of socialist stuff about unions and workers' rights in it, yes? That Mussolini tried to ally the fascists with the labour unions in Italy?

Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalistswho drew upon both left-wing organizational tactics and right-wing political views.

I'm going to note here that we're ignoring 95% of what has been said to quibble about a word or two again. The usual evasion tactic.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That ideas & policies got into fascism specifically via socialist influences.

So...you were saying that the general supporter of fascism really is a libertarian, but threw in militarism and authoritarianism as a sop to the socialists?

That may be more charitable, but as Lexicus predicted it is nonsensical.

How about you just acknowledge that you said something stupid in the heat of the moment and we can move on?

 

[Traitorfish]

You guys are i'm sure aware that the fascist manifesto had a load of socialist stuff about unions and workers' rights in it, yes? That Mussolini tried to ally the fascists with the labour unions in Italy?

I mean, he had a bunch of trade union leaders murdered. Are you suggesting that he was just coming on a bit strong?

 

[Lexicus]

That ideas & policies got into fascism specifically via socialist influences.

Right, and this is exactly what I'm saying is wrong.

You guys are i'm sure aware that the fascist manifesto had a load of socialist stuff about unions and workers' rights in it, yes? That Mussolini tried to ally the fascists with the labour unions in Italy?

I know that. And I'm sure you know that these early affinities were rather quickly completely abandoned, and that Mussolini promptly aligned himself with the conservatives, smashed the unions, presented himself as the protector of business from the socialists, and in fact governed as a fairly mainline conservative (balanced budgets, deregulation, privatizing state assets) until the crisis of the Depression forced him to take a more radical turn?

In any case, you're not really making your case. Saying there was a "load of socialist stuff about unions and workers' rights" in the original fascist manifesto does not actually substantiate the claim that the idea of a "militaristic and highly regimented society" was introduced to fascism by socialists or taken by the fascists from any existing socialist political tradition.

In fact I think if you study the history immediately preceding the March on Rome, you will find that the socialist left was largely pushing back against the militarism that they saw as leading straight to the disaster of World War I. Socialists have also had a lot to say on the subject of regimentation, mostly that it is an unavoidable and undesirable byproduct of capitalist society. None of these facts really squares with what you're trying to say here.

 

[brennan]

So...you were saying that the general supporter of fascism really is a libertarian, but threw in militarism and authoritarianism as a sop to the socialists?

Ah, another stupid misrepresentation. How dull. And here we have a weird sort of denial that an ideology can have multiple influences.

There is a straightforward link between the fascist left and syndicalism - which includes the desire to get rid of the democratic state. This is all stuff you can check easily on wiki.

The "Fascist left" included Michele Bianchi, Giuseppe Bottai, Angelo Oliviero Olivetti, Sergio Panunzio and Edmondo Rossoni, who were committed to advancing national syndicalism as a replacement for parliamentary liberalism

A number of Italian fascist leaders began to relabel national syndicalism as Fascist syndicalism. Mussolini was one of the first to disseminate this term, explaining that "Fascist syndicalism is national and productivistic… in a national society in which labor becomes a joy, an object of pride and a title to nobility."[12] By the time Edmondo Rossoni became secretary-general of the General Confederation of Fascist Syndical Corporations in December 1922, other Italian national syndicalists were adopting the "Fascist syndicalism" phrase in their aim at "building and reorganizing political structures… through a synthesis of State and labor."

I mean, he had a bunch of trade union leaders murdered. Are you suggesting that he was just coming on a bit strong?

The communist party shot Orwell. Lenin and Trotsky probably had hundreds of thousands of unionists killed. Does this mean none of them were socialists?

I know that. And I'm sure you know that these early affinities were...

That's an admission that you know it's true. Conversation over.

 

[Lexicus]

Does this mean none of them were socialists?

Wait, so now you're shifting from a claim that fascism got the idea of a "highly regimented, miltiaristic society" from socialists, to outright claiming that fascists are socialists?

That's an admission that you know it's true. Conversation over.

I'm starting to think all your accusations of people deliberately misrepresenting what you say are simple projection...

 

[Patine]

This thread is equivocation central.

Two different applications of the term are at play, and both are only partially correct. Fascism is a mix of right and left wing ideologies as i'm sure everyone here knows:

"Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism,[1][2][3][4] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and strong regimentation of society and of the economy,"

"Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties."

Berzerker has been quite clear about how is applying the phrase - with respect to the suppression of opposition through intimidation and violence, both of which Antifa embraces enthusastically. In my view this matches the most frequent casual use of the term as an epithet, along with pretty much any sort of authoritarianism. Bullies and authoritarians are generically called fascists without much thought; in fact a certain type of person will refer to more or less any authority figure as a 'fascist' irrespective of how much or how little their policy platform matches the fascist manifesto (usually very little).

But those arguing against this usage are themselves only applying part of the full description. Applying it to the authoritarian, nationalist right in the US misses the rather important part about a highly regimented, militaristic society. The right generally rejects this essential feature of fascism because it is socialist in origin. Meaning the term should no more really be applied to them - to Trump for example - than to Antifa - if we're being strict. And if we're not, then a group whose MO is to intimidate and violently repress their opponents is as deserving of the label as those they themselves apply it to.

I, myself, haven't called anyone in the modern era with any real political power or clout, American or otherwise, a Fascist, or claimed anyone in the modern era to be so. I have only corrected @Berzerker's clumsy, uninformed, and ill-thought-out reference to all violent suppression of free speech through thuggery and intimidation, regardless of whose doing such, what such people believe, or their motives for doing such, as all being inherently and SPECIFICALLY Fascistic in such behaviour, and not a more broadly- and expansively-, and thus appropriately-defined term.

 

[brennan]

Lex: I'm going to be real charitable here and assume that you've got threads mixed up somehow.

No: i'm pointing out that doing nasty things to socialists is a long way from proving you aren't a socialist. Socialists have probably killed more socialists than anyone else has.

Quite how that becomes 'fascists are socialists' is anyone's guess. I was at pains to point out that the matter is more complicated than that. Fascism is a mix of right and left. Mostly right, but the leftie bits are important.

 

[Lexicus]

No: i'm pointing out that doing nasty things to socialists is a long way from proving you aren't a socialist. Socialists have probably killed more socialists than anyone else has.

Well, that's precisely my point: baked into this is the idea that any of us would even need to prove Mussolini isn't a socialist. If we all agree he was not, why would anyone need to try to prove that? It makes no sense.

 

[Traitorfish]

The communist party shot Orwell. Lenin and Trotsky probably had hundreds of thousands of unionists killed. Does this mean none of them were socialists?

Lenin didn't shoot trade unionists as a matter of principle, is the difference.

 

[Patine]

Democrats are so upset by white supremacy they joined the party of Jim Crow and the KKK. The courts said you cant do that so Democrats replaced Jim Crow with a war on drugs - the New Jim Crow - and the KKK approves. Libertarians opposed both Jim Crows...

So how do the Democrats defend their support of white supremacy?

You're a towel

The "party of Jim Crow and the KKK," long ago abandoned that platform, just like the "party of Emancipation and Opportunity for All" abandoned theirs. I would think these facts would be blatantly obvious.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Conversation over.

Promises, promises.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The "party of Jim Crow and the KKK," long ago abandoned that platform, just like the "party of Emancipation and Opportunity for All" abandoned theirs. I would think these facts would be blatantly obvious.

They are. Berzerker purposefully ignoring them doesn't change that.

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: the trolling, counter-trolling and generally discussing other users instead of the thread topic stops right here...
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[brennan]

Lenin didn't shoot trade unionists as a matter of principle, is the difference.

I look forward to you providing evidence that Mussolini systematically had trade unionists killed.

Mussolini actually had the same policy wrt unions as Lenin did:

Initially, the non-fascist trade unions and later (less forcefully) the fascist trade unions were nationalized by Mussolini's administration and placed under state ownership, conforming to Vladimir Lenin's earlier policies to eliminate independent labor unions in the Soviet Union.[25][26] Under this labor policy, Fascist Italy enacted laws to make union membership compulsory for all workers.

The Italian fascists also nationalised more of their economy at the time than any country except the Soviet Union.