Healthcare (or "I have a right to your time and money!")

[StruckingFuggle]

I would like you to please define how you're using the term "fascist".

[Springy]

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Hmmm doesn't sound anything close to "dependency-creating, smiley-face fascist welfare programs".

[adciv]

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[10][11] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").
.......
Generally fascist movements endorse social interventionism dedicated to influencing society to promote the state's interests. Some scholars say that one cannot speak of “fascist social policy” as a single concept with logical and internally consistent ideas and common identifiable goals.

I don't think businesses don't pay taxes (as irritating as that might be), and governments don't go bankrupt from losing one form of taxes, they just shift the cost around. Though, yeah, unless (and maybe even then) cig-tax revenue goes into the health system, there's something kind of sick about cig-taxes, almost as much as just profiting on selling them (almost).

Consider the government probably collects more in taxes on cigs than the companies make, by a good margin.

[StruckingFuggle]

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[10][11] This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour (Mussolini called his nation's system "the corporate state").
.......
Generally fascist movements endorse social interventionism dedicated to influencing society to promote the state's interests. Some scholars say that one cannot speak of “fascist social policy” as a single concept with logical and internally consistent ideas and common identifiable goals.

Having one thing somewhat in common with something does not make the first thing the second.

I don't think businesses don't pay taxes (as irritating as that might be), and governments don't go bankrupt from losing one form of taxes, they just shift the cost around. Though, yeah, unless (and maybe even then) cig-tax revenue goes into the health system, there's something kind of sick about cig-taxes, almost as much as just profiting on selling them (almost).

Consider the government probably collects more in taxes on cigs than the companies make, by a good margin.

What would be more by a good margin?

[Dr. Tower]

Consider the government probably collects more in taxes on cigs than the companies make, by a good margin.

You are also comparing revenue to profit. If you compare revenue to revenue, the tobacco companies do better (in general >$2 per pack ). If you do profit to profit, I'm not sure. State and federal governments do incur tobacco related expenses, mostly in health care expenses, but also in tobacco cessation programs. In fact, in Ohio the tobacco tax is only allowed to fund tobacco prevention and cessation programs. If the state eventually has no smokers, then the need for those programs are removed and the state isn't really losing money if this revenue stream dries up.

[collegestudent22]

I would like you to please define how you're using the term "fascist".

The actual, historical definition - not some prettied-up, academic definition. You know, "Third Way" non-Marxist socialism, welfare programs, populist youth movement, totalitarianism (in the ORIGINAL sense of the word Mussolini created - "Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"). The term has commonly (by the left) been moved away from by equating it to the Nazi Holocaust, as well as the Communists equating it to right-wing anti-Communism. The term social Darwinism (a philosophy that was actually OPPOSED to the eugenics and social engineering of the fascists, but somehow has become synonymous to the ideals behind the Holocaust) has also been treated this way. The ridiculous rewrite of history is a blight on the actual history that confuses many - seeing as how it is indoctrination taught in history classes across America.

a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

Hmmm doesn't sound anything close to "dependency-creating, smiley-face fascist welfare programs".

I am using this definition:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem’ and therefore defined as the enemy. I will argue that contemporary American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism.

Under this definition, things like environmentalist policies, healthcare policies, and all this anti-capitalist populism is quite fascist. However, the "smiley-face" is there because the government doesn't do it to oppress, these idiots truly believe that the government not only can fix all your problems, but MUST - something akin to, I dunno, a religion.

Also, no common and concise definition exists for fascism and historians and political scientists disagree on what should be in any concise definition.

[Dr. Tower]

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem’ and therefore defined as the enemy.

Except for the line about health and well being, this sounds a lot like the government during the previous administration (except that W. wasn't tuned to the will of the people, at least by the end of his 2nd term).

[StruckingFuggle]

I notice you're completely ignoring the part of the definition of fascism that includes militarism / military aggression, which, y'know, is a big part of what makes fascism, well ... fascism.

[collegestudent22]

I don't really recall a concerted effort by the Bush administration to block opposing points of view - although I will admit Obama (except for declaring "War on Fox News" - a common fascist tactic is to make things the "moral equivalent of war", when they realized that once each World War was over, the impetus for their radical agenda faded away and people stopped approving of it) hasn't done either.

Also, YES, Bush was a proponent of the idea of "compassionate conservatism" - basically taking progressive thought in the vein of fascists like Wilson and FDR, watering it down a bit, and passing it off as conservatism. McCain is also a part of this problem. Classical liberalism has instead been passed off to so-called "fringe" parties like the Libertarians.

I notice you're completely ignoring the part of the definition of fascism that includes militarism / military aggression, which, y'know, is a big part of what makes fascism, well ... fascism.

That is yet another lie told by the "fuzzy historians" that try to paint fascism as a right-wing movement. Militarism is not a necessary part of fascism, nor is it unique to fascism. In fact, it is an entirely separate ideal, one that can coexist with fascism or any other number of political ideologies. The most important part is what is BEHIND the militarism/aggression. Fascists would use that militarism as a way to push their social reform agendas.

[StruckingFuggle]

Does it maybe ever cut through your extreme political bias filter that MAYBE you're the one who's in cozy with fuzzy historical revisionism? I mean, your source is "liberal fascism"? Really?

[collegestudent22]

Right, Fuggle. My source is a highly researched, highly sourced book that HAPPENS to have a specific point of view. As opposed to vague assertions that anything to do with fascism is the realm of the "right-wingers", which doesn't even make any kind of sense - since the "right-wing" has always been the realm of classical liberalism and libertarianism, which are almost the EXACT OPPOSITE of fascism.

For example, the fascist takeover of Cornell University in 1969 had nothing to do with militarism - as the fascist youth ideologues of the 1960s (people that idolized Che Guevara, Mao Tse-Tung, and Benito Mussolini) were decidedly anti-war for the most part. From the book Liberal Fascism:

The self-styled revolutionaries had grown increasingly brazen in their campaign to force concessions from the university. Students and professors who were labeled race traitors received death threats. Enemies of the racial nation were savagely beaten by roaming thugs. Guns were brought onto the campus, and the students dressed up in military uniforms. Professors were held hostage, badgered, intimidated, and threatened whenever their teaching contradicted racial orthodoxy. But the university administration, out of a mixture of cowardice and sympathy for the rebels, refused to punish the revolutionaries, even when the president was manhandled by a fascist goon in front of an audience made up of the campus community.
The radicals and their student sympathizers believed themselves to be revolutionaries of the left - the opposite of fascists in their minds - yet when one of their professors read them the speeches of Benito Mussolini, the students reacted with enthusiasm. Events came to a climax when students took over the student union and the local radio station. Armed with rifles and shotguns, they demanded an ethnically pure educational institution staffed and run by members of their own race. At first the faculty and administration were understandably reluctant; but when it was suggested that those who opposed their agenda might be killed, most of the "moderates" quickly reversed course and supported the militants. In a mass rally reminiscent of Nuremberg, the professors recanted their reactionary ways and swore fidelity to the new revolutionary order. One professor later recalled how easily "pompous teachers who catechized about academic freedom could, with a little shove, be made into dancing bears."
Eventually, the fascist thugs got everything they wanted. The authorities caved in to their demands. The few who remained opposed quietly left the university and, in some cases, the country, once it was clear that their safety could not be guaranteed.
The University of Berlin in 1932? Milan in 1922? Good guesses. But this all happened at Cornell in the spring of 1969. Paramilitary Black Nationalists under the banner of the Afro-American Society seized control of the university after waging an increasingly aggressive campaign of intimidation and violence.

[StruckingFuggle]

My source is a highly researched, highly sourced book that HAPPENS to have a specific point of view.

The link between those and "validity" and "accuracy" is dubious at best, especially as it has a specific and, we can gather, rather strong point of view.

[collegestudent22]

The book makes great pains to use actual events, speeches, and other sources to show that its assertions are valid. And again, it makes sense when you view the political spectrum in the terms that most would actually define it - libertarianism/classical liberalism on the right, and modern liberalism (involving "positive rights" and the welfare state) on the left. Ideas like government intervention in the economy, government providing education, and welfare programs ORIGINATED with the fascists. Hell, the idea of a "kindergarten" was originated by the Nazis as a way to indoctrinate the children.

Fuggle, try reading the book. At least then, you can try refuting the actual arguments. For example, have you even heard of the NRA's (that is National Recovery Administration, not the modern NRA) "Blue Eagle"?

The Blue Eagle was the patriotic symbol of compliance that all companies were expected to hang from their doors, along with the motto "We do our part", a phrase used by the administration the way the Germans used "Gemeinnutz geht vor Eigennutz". Now largely airbrushed from popular awareness, the stylized Indian eagle clutching a band of lightning bolts in one claw and an industrial cogwheel in the other was often compared to the swastika or the German Reich eagle in both American and German newspapers. Johnson demanded that compliance with the Blue Eagle program be monitored by an army of quasi-official informants, from union members to Boy Scouts. His totalitarian approach was unmistakeable. "When every American housewife understands that the Blue Eagle on everything she permits to come into here home is a symbol of its restoration to security, may God have mercy on the man or group of men who attempt to trifle with this bird."

In urban centers the plight of blacks was little better. By granting new collective bargaining powers to unions, FDR also gave them the power to lock blacks out of the labor force. And the unions - often viscerally racist - did precisely that. Hence some in the black press said the NRA really stood for the "Negro Run Around", the "Negro Removal Act" and "Negroes Robbed Again". At a rally in Harlem a protestor drew a picture of the Blue Eagle and wrote underneath: "That Bird Stole My Pop's Job". Meanwhile, under Johnson's watchful eye, policemen would break down doors with axes to make sure tailors weren't working at night and - literally - yank newsboys from the street because they didn't work for big corporations.

[StruckingFuggle]

And again, it makes sense when you view the political spectrum in the terms that most would actually define it - libertarianism/classical liberalism on the right, and modern liberalism (involving "positive rights" and the welfare state) on the left.

Bipolar spectrumism seems to set this up to fail from the beginning.

Ideas like government intervention in the economy, government providing education, and welfare programs ORIGINATED with the fascists.

Then why did 2/3 of them crop up shortly after WWI as a reaction to it in England?

[yeah]Hell, the idea of a "kindergarten" was originated by the Nazis as a way to indoctrinate the children.[/quote]
Yeah, there weren't any before the 1930s, nope, not at OH WAIT.

[collegestudent22]

And again, it makes sense when you view the political spectrum in the terms that most would actually define it - libertarianism/classical liberalism on the right, and modern liberalism (involving "positive rights" and the welfare state) on the left.

Bipolar spectrumism seems to set this up to fail from the beginning.

It might, but "right" in America typically means "more freedom" in both economic and social areas, while "left" typically implies more government control: regulation economically, and social measures (Cap and trade, anyone?) to control behavior. There is some ambiguity in any classification - not everyone fits into the "right/left model", but it works fairly well.

Ideas like government intervention in the economy, government providing education, and welfare programs ORIGINATED with the fascists.

Then why did 2/3 of them crop up shortly after WWI as a reaction to it in England?

Hah. That's cute. You limiting the meaning of the word fascist to WWII. Woodrow Wilson was a fascist. That was during WWI. Remember the Sedition Act? How about the "war planning" of the economy and society? His reelection slogan was "We planned in war." The term fascist may not have existed before Mussolini's rise to power (which was started less than a year after WWI ended), but the ideals did. Wilson believed that America's intricate system of checks and balances was the cause of the problems in American governance. "No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere vague sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle." If that isn't a fascist point of view....

Furthermore, the basics for fascism existed in the model of Otto von Bismarck's interpretation of Realpolitik, something that evolved into Pragmatism, one of the key ideals of both the Progressive movement in America (symbolized by Wilson and TR) and the fascist European movements. This included the welfare state model.

]Hell, the idea of a "kindergarten" was originated by the Nazis as a way to indoctrinate the children.

Yeah, there weren't any before the 1930s, nope, not at OH WAIT.

1) Before the Nazi and fascist movements, kindergartens were not run by the government - which was my point.

2) Kindergartens before 1930 did not actually teach anything, and were more akin to modern preschools.

Probably should have added the word modern in there, seeing as how, before the Nazis, they existed, but were really more like daycares and preschools that were separate from the government run schools, even in countries (like the US) that had government run schooling.


Really, Fuggle, I would recommend that you read the book. It really does a better job of explaining the connections then I can. You may not agree, but there is no intellectual discovery in reading things that already have your point of view, right?