Fascism is a violent and non-humanistic sub-set of Socialism

[IrezumiKiss]

If you want to claim that this is not original, why not show where it was derived from? There are search engines for just that purpose.

Kybele did a bit of this in the other fascism thread, but Karen never got back to her about it.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=31797606&postcount=64

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Kybele did a bit of this in the other fascism thread, but Karen never got back to her about it.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=31797606&postcount=64

That's very likely why Kybele was put on ignore by Kraft. The usual repertoire of namecalling having been exhausted by that point.

 

[Karen Kraft]

...and Whittaker Chambers was a Communist Party member who redeemed himself by denouncing Communism and blessing us by putting his pen to paper with Witness, becoming an editor of Time magazine, and being vindicated by the Venona Papers. He influenced Reagan as well.

Then there is David Horowitz, a son of two card carrying Communist Party members, steeped as a youth in their totalitarian dogma, becoming a major player in the New Left only to eventually see the light to denounce it's evil. Yes, some can be redeemed.

I disagree. People are born with a propensity to have what many of us call (as an inaccurate shorthand) libertarian ideals, while others of us are predisposed to having collectivist control ideals. Our environment, if sufficiently free to permit heathy development of either mode of thought, will not influence said thought. When the environment subconsciously coerces us to be something that, in a more free setting we would not be, once we have broken free of said environment we will gravitate to our pre-wired proclivities.

But don't listen to me. The above paragraph was a C+P from The Barney Frank Web Site. Nothing like a dancing queen, they alwath say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctzIEjjOfd4

 

[firespin]

Kybele did a bit of this in the other fascism thread, but Karen never got back to her about it.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=31797606&postcount=64

I can't really keep up with all the fascism threads, but in the thread where Kybele posted that, KK didn't post anything longer than a sentence or two...?

 

[Karen Kraft]

Kybele did a bit of this in the other fascism thread, but Karen never got back to her about it.

http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=31797606&postcount=64

Okay. You win. It was all lifted from WORLD BOOK for Middle Schoolers.

You want to find a string of words and google them? Great.

Let's do that.

Oh, and I did respond to the KillBill alt whore about that. Don't lie when it is so easy to catch you in your lies.

"did a bit of this"

Uh-oh:

So we did a bit of this and a bit of that: SEATO, PL 480 food assistance, the Peace Corps and mutual defense agreements, and some economic assistance. Mostly, however, in the 1960's we went to war in Vietnam. We picked up the gauntlet we thought had been thrown down. We were ready to pay the price of being free men.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_6/marks.html

Don't read for content. No, read for strings so you can pretend others steal the same way you stole this snippet. Good job.

 

[firespin]

The opening post was heavily influenced by this:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html

Which includes a couple of sentences lifted pretty much verbatim:

"For example, in the late 1930s, while in Spain during the civil war, George Orwell lamented at the fighting between fascists and socialists because, after all, "Aren't we all socialists?""

"In his, The Coming American Fascism, 1936, Lawrence Dennis—noted American economist and anti-Semite—boasted that classic liberalism—that is, "18th-century Americanism"—would soon become a "laughing stock", and that, "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights", would be replaced by fascism, that is, "the enterprises of public welfare and social control." And, Dennis stated further... "

"During the 1920s and 30s, because such little practical difference existed between fascists and Bolsheviks, critics of Hitler's National Socialism routinely called it, "National Bolshevism""

 

[IrezumiKiss]

Okay. You win. It was all lifted from WORLD BOOK for Middle Schoolers.

You want to find a string of words and google them? Great.

Let's do that.

Oh, and I did respond to the KillBill alt whore about that. Don't lie when it is so easy to catch you in your lies.

"did a bit of this"

Uh-oh:

So we did a bit of this and a bit of that: SEATO, PL 480 food assistance, the Peace Corps and mutual defense agreements, and some economic assistance. Mostly, however, in the 1960's we went to war in Vietnam. We picked up the gauntlet we thought had been thrown down. We were ready to pay the price of being free men.

http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_6/marks.html

Don't read for content. No, read for strings so you can pretend others steal the same way you stole this snippet. Good job.

Where did you reply to her directly about her challenge? I just saw you acting bitchy and doing a AJ sing and dance routine yelling about personal attacks. Something about "KillBill" or whatever.

I told you before during your Birther addiction that playing the junior Orly Taitz and throwing temper tantrums when people disagree with you will always backfire on you when you want to be taken seriously.

 

[Karen Kraft]

The opening post was heavily influenced by this:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html

Which includes a couple of sentences lifted pretty much verbatim:

"For example, in the late 1930s, while in Spain during the civil war, George Orwell lamented at the fighting between fascists and socialists because, after all, "Aren't we all socialists?""

"In his, The Coming American Fascism, 1936, Lawrence Dennis—noted American economist and anti-Semite—boasted that classic liberalism—that is, "18th-century Americanism"—would soon become a "laughing stock", and that, "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights", would be replaced by fascism, that is, "the enterprises of public welfare and social control." And, Dennis stated further... "

"During the 1920s and 30s, because such little practical difference existed between fascists and Bolsheviks, critics of Hitler's National Socialism routinely called it, "National Bolshevism""

And your point is what?

Do you read? Did you read what I posted?

Or shall we spend the remainder of the year searching for strings?

I can do that.

 

[where]

Where did you reply to her directly about her challenge? I just saw you acting bitchy and doing a AJ sing and dance routine yelling about personal attacks. Something about "KillBill" or whatever.

I told you before during your Birther addiction that playing the junior Orly Taitz and throwing temper tantrums when people disagree with you will always backfire on you when you want to be taken seriously.

AJ? this is more like le jerk when he's off his meds.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Where did you reply to her directly about her challenge? I just saw you acting bitchy and doing a AJ sing and dance routine yelling about personal attacks. Something about "KillBill" or whatever.

I told you before during your Birther addiction that playing the junior Orly Taitz and throwing temper tantrums when people disagree with you will always backfire on you when you want to be taken seriously.

Yes, she cited to WIKI about Mosca, a philosopher I have been discussing on this very board for over half a decade; she also cited to a broken link but it was to a work specifically named and italicized in my original post.

But it's okay.

I get the point.

You all only want people to post who agree with you.


YES! FASCISM IS A DESCENDANT OF CAPITALISM
SOCIALISM COMES TO US FROM MOTHER EARTH

FASCISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM
HITLER'S NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY WAS NAMED THAT TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TRICK THEM INTO THINKING THE GUYS MARCHING IN THE STREETS WERE THE GOOD GUYS - - YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE NAME.

ALL THE BAD GUYS IN U.S. HISTORY WERE REPUBLICANS.

OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG.

HEALTH CARE IS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY 99.99946 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION. THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T IN LOVE WITH IT WERE BUSED IN BY BUSH.

NOW WE CAN ALL AGREE AND BE HAPPY.

FROM NOW ON, I WON'T BOTHER READING WHAT PEOPLE POST, I WILL ONLY DISCUSS THEIR SEX, BODY STYLE, SEXUAL PREFERENCES, AND DO A STRING SEARCH AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF STEALING.

BUT AS LONG AS EVERYONE ON THE GENERAL BOARD AGREES TO AGREE ALL THE TIME, IT WILL BE A WONDERFUL PLACE. WE CAN ALL AGREE TO THAT.

WOW. IMAGINE HOW NICE IT WILL BE WHEN NOBODY TAKES THE TIME TO DISAGREE !!!! IT WILL BE JUST LIKE DRYER LINT. MOST EXCELLENT. IN FACT, WE CAN EVEN BAN PEOPLE WHO DARE TO DISAGREE WITH THE GENERAL BOARD PARTY LINE.

THERE'S THE TICKET.

 

[where]

Yes, she cited to WIKI about Mosca, a philosopher I have been discussing on this very board for over half a decade; she also cited to a broken link but it was to a work specifically named and italicized in my original post.

But it's okay.

I get the point.

You all only want people to post who agree with you.


YES! FASCISM IS A DESCENDANT OF CAPITALISM
SOCIALISM COMES TO US FROM MOTHER EARTH

FASCISM IS THE OPPOSITE OF SOCIALISM
HITLER'S NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY WAS NAMED THAT TO CONFUSE PEOPLE AND TRICK THEM INTO THINKING THE GUYS MARCHING IN THE STREETS WERE THE GOOD GUYS - - YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE NAME.

ALL THE BAD GUYS IN U.S. HISTORY WERE REPUBLICANS.

OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG.

HEALTH CARE IS OVERWHELMINGLY SUPPORTED BY 99.99946 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION. THE PEOPLE WHO AREN'T IN LOVE WITH IT WERE BUSED IN BY BUSH.

NOW WE CAN ALL AGREE AND BE HAPPY.

FROM NOW ON, I WON'T BOTHER READING WHAT PEOPLE POST, I WILL ONLY DISCUSS THEIR SEX, BODY STYLE, SEXUAL PREFERENCES, AND DO A STRING SEARCH AND THEN ACCUSE THEM OF STEALING.

BUT AS LONG AS EVERYONE ON THE GENERAL BOARD AGREES TO AGREE ALL THE TIME, IT WILL BE A WONDERFUL PLACE. WE CAN ALL AGREE TO THAT.

WOW. IMAGINE HOW NICE IT WILL BE WHEN NOBODY TAKES THE TIME TO DISAGREE !!!! IT WILL BE JUST LIKE DRYER LINT. MOST EXCELLENT. IN FACT, WE CAN EVEN BAN PEOPLE WHO DARE TO DISAGREE WITH THE GENERAL BOARD PARTY LINE.

THERE'S THE TICKET.

thing is, it's YOU who rant and rave when people don't agree with YOU.

your behaviour is childish in the extreme.

 

[Karen Kraft]

The opening post was heavily influenced by this:

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/27/075.html

Which includes a couple of sentences lifted pretty much verbatim:

"For example, in the late 1930s, while in Spain during the civil war, George Orwell lamented at the fighting between fascists and socialists because, after all, "Aren't we all socialists?""

"In his, The Coming American Fascism, 1936, Lawrence Dennis—noted American economist and anti-Semite—boasted that classic liberalism—that is, "18th-century Americanism"—would soon become a "laughing stock", and that, "liberal norms of law or constitutional guarantees of private rights", would be replaced by fascism, that is, "the enterprises of public welfare and social control." And, Dennis stated further... "

"During the 1920s and 30s, because such little practical difference existed between fascists and Bolsheviks, critics of Hitler's National Socialism routinely called it, "National Bolshevism""

Yeah, you're right. National Socialism is the opposite of Socialism. Now that we all agree, it's a much better day.

 

[firespin]

And your point is what?

Do you read? Did you read what I posted?

Or shall we spend the remainder of the year searching for strings?

I can do that.

You made a well thought out post in support of your idea, and liberally used the writing of others, not in a coincidental juxtaposition of words, but in using their research, opinions and conclusions as part of your own. That's not a crime..in fact, it's the underpinning of any liberal arts college course of study...but you could be more forthcoming on the influences.

Your attempts to ridicule others with non-contextual string equivalences makes you look a bit defensive...why go there?

 

[Karen Kraft]

thing is, it's YOU who rant and rave when people don't agree with YOU.

your behaviour is childish in the extreme.

NO, ASSHOLE, IT'S WHEN YOU ACCUSE ME OF STEALING.

LIKE I SAID: GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Ah, but wait. We all agree now. You're right. Although you never addressed the content of my post, I concede that whatever you would have said is 100% correct. That way, we can keep the General Board a happy, unified place where everyone agrees.

That's so nice.

 

[where]

NO, ASSHOLE, IT'S WHEN YOU ACCUSE ME OF STEALING.

LIKE I SAID: GO FUCK YOURSELF.

Ah, but wait. We all agree now. You're right. Although you never addressed the content of my post, I concede that whatever you would have said is 100% correct. That way, we can keep the General Board a happy, unified place where everyone agrees.

That's so nice.

I accused you of plagiarism, yes. that's what you did. you plagiarised. you got called on it, big deal. I catch students doing it all the time. I can spot it a mile off.

not my fault you get into a hissy fucking fit, but it clearly touched a nerve. Did you fail a module for the same thing when you went to uni?

 

[Powertone]

I am not claiming moral equivalence between Benito Mussolini and Ronald Reagan, but Reagan voted for Franklin Roosevelt four times.

and he said " I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party left me"

 

[Sayyid]

Thank you for that quote from Orwell. It was very insightful.

I’m bored enough to respond to this post.

Besides the ideals of equality, social programs, and the abolition of private ownership and control over the means of production, both socialist theory and fascist theory were in agreement.

If only these weren’t the ideological fundamentals of socialism itself, this might make sense.

Like a monster born with hidden but hideous birth defect, the logic of National Socialism, once its initial premise is accepted, flows smoothly and naturally as a nearly perfect socialist system: essential collectivism, but one in which progress is no longer fettered by inconvenient notions of individualism. Thus, fascism is the exact antithesis of individualism, is the antichrist of capitalist thought, substituting a nation-state based socialist social and economic system for a capitalist or state-capitalist (“Communist”) system and, lacking all sense of individualism, becomes the more brutal section of the socialist movement.

The fallacy here is obvious: if it’s not individualist and capitalist, it must be collectivist and socialist. To wit, I invite you to look up the numerous individualist forms of socialism: libertarian socialism, social anarchism, left-libertarianism and mutualism to name a few.

If we can call the Soviet Union “state capitalist” with any degree of equanimity (and this classification was devised by leftists themselves, notably Trotsky) then why not fascist Germany and Italy?

Well, the Nazis called themselves The National Socialist German Workers Party, not, The National Capitalist German Plutocrats Party, and the National Socialists boasted that Hitler had created in Germany, the most modern socialist state in the world.

Right, and I take it, by your logic, that the German Democratic Republic was democratic and a republic.

Also, Ernst Roehm, a dedicated socialist, leader of the SA, second only to Hitler in power in the National Socialist Party, in a letter to a friend, observed how often his street thugs switched back and forth between Roehm's National Socialist gangs and the Communist gangs, uncertain on whose side they rightly belonged.

This says more about the propensity for violence from extremist groups in general than any ideological similarities between the two. (Note that Communism hardly represents all socialism any more than General Pinochet’s Chile represents all capitalism.) Eric Hoffer, author of the seminal sociological text The True Believer noted that fanatics of one camp tend to switch rather easier to another: the ideals themselves don’t matter but rather the fervent commitment to them does.

While you are thinking about it, consider that in Mussolini's early days, before his rise to power, many of his Marxist critics viewed his fascism as a curiosity and recognized it as more of a heresy from, rather than a mortal challenge to revolutionary Marxism. (See Agursky's, The Third Rome, 1963.)

Consider how his Marxist critics came to revile fascism as a bitter foe of Communism and proletarian internationalism in general (read: the working class). Fascism was not a fixed set of beliefs but a constantly evolving, sometimes contradictory ideology; these are the principle reasons why attempting to precisely determine its position on the political spectrum remains a monumental task to this day.

Beginners stop. Advanced may continue:

Thank you.

During the 1920s and 30s, because such little practical difference existed between fascists and Bolsheviks, critics of Hitler's National Socialism routinely called it, National Bolshevism. Needless to say the Bolshevists got all pouty and pissed off to have to share the same bed with the fascists and invented their very own “agency theory” of fascism.

Pointing out the operative similarities between two authoritarian ideologies? Valid. Slurring socialism by association with Communism (which again is only one facet of socialist ideology)? Not so much.

(Any of you ever take this stuff in school? No? Okay, let’s continue.

Yes, actually. My major is political science.

So the Comintern established the 1930s version of “inherited from Bush;” “end of the day” mantra that fascism must immediately and forever more be associated with capitalism and thereby, per formal Stalinist/Leninist dogma, fascism became the open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinist, and most imperialist elements of finance capital. That dumb tune played over and over and over again and is still popular with the left today! Imagine that! Although there is nothing to suggest it is true, leftists insist (via snark and ad hominem fallacy, of course) that fascism is a necessary component of capitalism. Needless to say the critics of the socialist gospel get tagged as fascists through this little joke for half-wits.

I don’t think we need Communist public relations to tell us that fascism was reactionary, chauvinist and imperialist. The “finance capital” angle comes from the fascists themselves, to whom it was a coded euphemism for “international Jewry.”

Incidentally I don’t know what leftists you’ve been reading but the insinuation is not that fascism is an integral part of capitalism but the other way around: that fascism is fundamentally capitalist despite its superficial similarities to socialism.

In his book, The Road to Serfdom, Friedrich August von Hayek (recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences in 1974), Hayek remarks that, during the 1930s, the propagandists of both parties recognized the relative ease with which a young communist could be converted into a Nazi or vice versa and how university professors in the U.S. and Britain noticed that students returning from study in Germany could not decide whether they were Marxists or fascists, but were certain only that they hated, Western Civilization. But I guess that’s one of those Nobel Prize LOL moments. What does Hayek know, right? If he’s so smart, why’s he dead, right? RIGHT?

Much as I respect the memory of the man, I hate to inform you that this is as clear-cut an ipse dixit fallacy as I’ve ever seen. The term is Latin for “he said it” as in: Person X said this, so it must be true! Unfortunately that isn’t the case. Hayek’s arguments are not more valid for his winning a Nobel Prize, as much of an accomplishment as that is. To address them, I return to my above point about the tendency of extremists shifting their allegiance between extremist movements far more easily than moderates of any persuasion. Examples have already been suggested here, such as David Horowitz (former radical leftist, current neoconservative hawk for the Israel lobby).

 

[firespin]

oopsie...somebody posted here, so it won't be buried under all the bumped threads. Ah well.

 

[Sayyid]

It was near the top of the forum and I couldn't resist. Despite all the flaming and personal attacks in here, it has potential for a decent discussion, albeit not a very original topic.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Thank you for that quote from Orwell. It was very insightful.

I’m bored enough to respond to this post.
If only these weren’t the ideological fundamentals of socialism itself, this might make sense.
The fallacy here is obvious: if it’s not individualist and capitalist, it must be collectivist and socialist. To wit, I invite you to look up the numerous individualist forms of socialism: libertarian socialism, social anarchism, left-libertarianism and mutualism to name a few.

If we can call the Soviet Union “state capitalist” with any degree of equanimity (and this classification was devised by leftists themselves, notably Trotsky) then why not fascist Germany and Italy?
Right, and I take it, by your logic, that the German Democratic Republic was democratic and a republic.
This says more about the propensity for violence from extremist groups in general than any ideological similarities between the two. (Note that Communism hardly represents all socialism any more than General Pinochet’s Chile represents all capitalism.) Eric Hoffer, author of the seminal sociological text The True Believer noted that fanatics of one camp tend to switch rather easier to another: the ideals themselves don’t matter but rather the fervent commitment to them does.
Consider how his Marxist critics came to revile fascism as a bitter foe of Communism and proletarian internationalism in general (read: the working class). Fascism was not a fixed set of beliefs but a constantly evolving, sometimes contradictory ideology; these are the principle reasons why attempting to precisely determine its position on the political spectrum remains a monumental task to this day.
Thank you.
Pointing out the operative similarities between two authoritarian ideologies? Valid. Slurring socialism by association with Communism (which again is only one facet of socialist ideology)? Not so much.
Yes, actually. My major is political science.
I don’t think we need Communist public relations to tell us that fascism was reactionary, chauvinist and imperialist. The “finance capital” angle comes from the fascists themselves, to whom it was a coded euphemism for “international Jewry.”

Incidentally I don’t know what leftists you’ve been reading but the insinuation is not that fascism is an integral part of capitalism but the other way around: that fascism is fundamentally capitalist despite its superficial similarities to socialism.
Much as I respect the memory of the man, I hate to inform you that this is as clear-cut an ipse dixit fallacy as I’ve ever seen. The term is Latin for “he said it” as in: Person X said this, so it must be true! Unfortunately that isn’t the case. Hayek’s arguments are not more valid for his winning a Nobel Prize, as much of an accomplishment as that is. To address them, I return to my above point about the tendency of extremists shifting their allegiance between extremist movements far more easily than moderates of any persuasion. Examples have already been suggested here, such as David Horowitz (former radical leftist, current neoconservative hawk for the Israel lobby).

Thank you for your on-topic and thoughtful reply to my post.

You are correct that not all of what later came to be considered "socialist" dates back to the formation of socialist thought. Some ideas were changed to reflect European realities in the run-up to WWII, for example, and educated people understand that it is difficult to believe that any worthwhile thought has but one origin. Things develop and change over time, reflecting the ever-changing realities as they present themselves.

Whether we need or don't need communist catechism to tell us its opinion of fascism the point is that it did so. There was an attempt on the part of the Social Democrats and others to distance themselves from National Socialism and, in doing so, they tried to revise history to make fascism the child of the bourgeoisie, not the socialist -- trying to marry the Nazi movement not to its socialist underpinnings but to the notion that it was the child of greedy capitalists.

As for fascism being labeled an integral part of capitalism, see, for example:
http://books.google.com/books?id=j6...esult&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Adding: and, of course, the Soviet twist, which we all know is not Socialism, but State Capitalism.

 

[Karen Kraft]

It was near the top of the forum and I couldn't resist. Despite all the flaming and personal attacks in here, it has potential for a decent discussion, albeit not a very original topic.

I agree.

I am reading your post and addressing it as best I can.

 

[Karen Kraft]

oopsie...somebody posted here, so it won't be buried under all the bumped threads. Ah well.

C'mon fs, you should take an on-topic whack at all this.

Richard_D had a good idea to discuss fascism, and we just had to get the tolls out of here to be able to get back to reality.

How does my doing the Obama thing help, you ask?

Easy: they put me on ignore and then they don't troll about all day.

People who have seen this happen before realize that the purge of the toll-alts must happen once in a while or they will pollute every thread with their nana crap.

 

[Sayyid]

Thank you for your on-topic and thoughtful reply to my post.

You are correct that not all of what later came to be considered "socialist" dates back to the formation of socialist thought. Some ideas were changed to reflect European realities in the run-up to WWII, for example, and educated people understand that it is difficult to believe that any worthwhile thought has but one origin. Things develop and change over time, reflecting the ever-changing realities as they present themselves.

Whether we need or don't need communist catechism to tell us its opinion of fascism the point is that it did so. There was an attempt on the part of the Social Democrats and others to distance themselves from National Socialism and, in doing so, they tried to revise history to make fascism the child of the bourgeoisie, not the socialist -- trying to marry the Nazi movement not to its socialist underpinnings but to the notion that it was the child of greedy capitalists.

Social Democrats of what country? There are many parties with this name. Having said that, I do not blame genuine socialists for not wanting to be associated with fascism (who would, save fascists themselves?) nor Communists for spewing vitriolic contempt against their sworn enemies.

What I prefer to state instead is that fascism may have contained working-class roots, but these were subsumed into an all-encompassing nationalism and ever-growing corporatism. What began as a radical movement of the underclass became a completely different animal in practice.

As for fascism being labeled an integral part of capitalism, see, for example:
http://books.google.com/books?id=j6...esult&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

That may be the case for some, but it's not an argument I've encountered often, nor is it one I agree with. The argument that fascist is essentially capitalist, perhaps with some traits of socialism (the position I'm taking right now) is more widespread. I think anyone with an interest in the topic can agree that fascism was not a single defined ideology but a mixture of disparate, sometimes conflicting elements.

 

[Karen Kraft]

Social Democrats of what country? There are many parties with this name. Having said that, I do not blame genuine socialists for not wanting to be associated with fascism (who would, save fascists themselves?) nor Communists for spewing vitriolic contempt against their sworn enemies.

What I prefer to state instead is that fascism may have contained working-class roots, but these were subsumed into an all-encompassing nationalism and ever-growing corporatism. What began as a radical movement of the underclass became a completely different animal in practice.
That may be the case for some, but it's not an argument I've encountered often, nor is it one I agree with. The argument that fascist is essentially capitalist, perhaps with some traits of socialism (the position I'm taking right now) is more widespread. I think anyone with an interest in the topic can agree that fascism was not a single defined ideology but a mixture of disparate, sometimes conflicting elements.

In some cases, Germany, in other cases, England, depending on the context being discussed. I agree that it is reasonable for sincere socialists to want to distance themselves from national socialism -- that goes without saying -- but the implication is that it was (in Germany) the bourgeoisie who steered an otherwise grass-roots socialist movement toward the logically inevitable anti-humanistic ends - the fascist faction of socialism. And to a large extent, one also has to realize that Hitler's appeal to Germans was more than mindless militarism. As we study the dynamics at work there, we see that, more than anything, the emergence of a middle class boosted National Socialism tremendously. When you read Hitler, you see what one might call the "Jacoby and Meyers" sales job: The rich are lazy and decadent, produce nothing, and live off the sweat of the Workers, while the [peasants] lower classes [poor] don't pay any taxes, are essentially untrustworthy Bolshevik-leaning idiots with questionable levels of national spirit, so it is left to the Middle Class Germans to carry the heavy burden these non-producing sectors. The Nazi movement was many things, as we all know. But among them, I think we can agree, it was one of the very first middle class movements.

 

[Karen Kraft]

oopsie...somebody posted here, so it won't be buried under all the bumped threads. Ah well.

You didn't want this thread to be addressed?

Why is that?

Don't you have something to contribute to the discussion?

If not, why would you want it to go away?

Only the trolls should go away.

.... and now, they pretty much have.

Thus, if you have a point of view that you would like to share on the topic, I would love to read it.