A common tactic of the progressive left is to call people who disagree with them a hate-loaded term such as racist, bigot, or fascist. The definition of these terms have broadened recently to basically mean "bad person". The term "fascist" has the extra punch of visualization of Mussolini and Hitler and them demanding militant adherence to their causes... using totalitarian force. Conservatives often counter that they see fascism coming from the Left. Is one side more right than the other? How to know?
Dictionary definitions of "fascism" include the following (some thoughts from the left and right):
As it's easy to see the flaws in others and overlook ones own flaws, is it possible to self-assess if you're a fascist? How could someone else convince you that you promote fascist ideas?
Terms like fascist, socialist and communist are used in today's climate just for the easy way out of discussion. Most people I see using those terms don't really understand what they are or understand how both parties are identical once the election is over and it's time for policy. People can believe the left is this or the right is that or blah blah blah. From my experience the people who understand political ideologies, and are also informed about what policy is getting passed with teamwork from both parties, have checked out and just don't engage folks be wise it is useless. I've had a person tell me that the congress.gov website was fake news because I showed them how the democrats actually voted completely opposite of what they thought on bills. Nothing will ever change if people refuse to believe their congress person's public vote record. I've basically given up even showing people the actual truth. When MSNBC reporters are more trusted than the public confessional record we are in serious trouble.
“The further Fascism receded into history and the fewer visible fascists there were on display, the more self-proclaimed anti-fascists needed fascism to retain any semblance of political virtue or purpose. It proved politically useful to describe as fascist people who were not Fascists , just as it proved politically useful to describe as racist people who were not racists.” ― Douglas Murray, The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam
“In Italy, Fascists divide themselves into two categories: Fascists and Anti-Fascists.”
— Ennio Flaiano
The term "fascist" has been used as a pejorative, regarding varying movements across the far right of the political spectrum. George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".
Communist states have sometimes been referred to as "fascist", typically as an insult. For example, it has been applied to Marxist regimes in Cuba under Fidel Castro and Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. Chinese Marxists used the term to denounce the Soviet Union during the Sino-Soviet Split, and likewise the Soviets used the term to denounce Chinese Marxists and social democracy (coining a new term in "social fascism" ).
In the United States, Herbert Matthews of The New York Times asked in 1946: "Should we now place Stalinist Russia in the same category as Hitlerite Germany? Should we say that she is Fascist?". J. Edgar Hoover, longtime FBI director and ardent anti-communist, wrote extensively of "Red Fascism". The Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s was sometimes called "fascist". Historian Peter Amann states that, "Undeniably, the Klan had some traits in common with European fascism—chauvinism, racism, a mystique of violence, an affirmation of a certain kind of archaic traditionalism—yet their differences were fundamental....[the KKK] never envisioned a change of political or economic system."
Professor Richard Griffiths of the University of Wales wrote in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".
"In short, “fascist” is a modern word for “heretic,” branding an individual worthy of excommunication from the body politic. The left uses other words—“racist,” “sexist,” “homophobe,” “christianist”—for similar purposes, but these words have less elastic meanings. Fascism, however, is the gift that keeps on giving. George Orwell noted this tendency as early as 1946 in his famous essay “Politics and the English Language”: “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable.
American Progressivism—the moralistic social crusade from which modern liberals proudly claim descent—is in some respects the major source of the fascist ideas applied in Europe by Mussolini and Hitler."
Words have a specific meaning and should be used judiciously in communicating ideas. In reading responses to many different posts it appears that there are those who do not understand the definition of words they use. Communist, fascist, freedom, liberty are some. The way they are used in the posts or comments indicate that all they mean is bad, bad and good, good.
For years now both political extremes have and continue to concern me, as extremes of any sort are generally not a positive thing for society as a whole. A fascist mentality can manifest from either extreme, on the left when it comes to pushing communism, and on the right when it comes to pushing theocracy, as both communism and theocracy are authoritarian in nature. Embracing concepts such as individualism, free markets, free speech/expression, and the freedom to own weapons in which to protect oneself can help deter authoritarianism, as the true power mongers out there are opposed to all of those.
As with almost all -ists and -phobes, fascist is just another word hijacked by the Left for use in creating a false narrative. The common misconception that it's a right-wing ideology is laughable. I see more fascist-like behavior on the left, but I don't look at it literally as fascism...I just think they'll do almost anything to get what they want.
The modern ENGLISH definition is state controlled production and centralized society. which is the definition that was adopted by the west via the UK post World war 2 under the influence of the KGB in Oxford and Cambridge. This has been well documented.
Facismo is a strange bird. As it shares certain things with Socialism and yet there is a very strong difference that has been from what I can tell intentionally over looked in the West and most heavily in English and German speaking countries.
Historical fascism as it was functioning in Italy (the only actual fascist country in history, Franco was a socialist dictator) Had these ideological points:
This created a society that had government influence in production but not as much government control as most folks wish to make it seem. Not until the war did the Italian government start controlling production to any great extent and both the US and Britain di more in direct influence and control of production during the war then Italy did and the UK's controls went on for over 10 past the end of the war (mainly under socialist governments).
While I don't support fascism and do point out that as with all authoritarian forums of government it is prone to abuse, I would not put it in the same camp as Socialists and communists as is the current fad among academics who are simply repeating the lie that Stalin sold to the west to save the face of Socialism due to the damage that Hitler did to it.
The modern left is like most of the left in history; they have little to no actual understanding of history nor of their own nature. Which means they are very good fodder for those who wish to gain power and control over others.
It is one of the reasons to read and speak at least two languages though three or more is better.
I sign birthday greetings to my daughter-in-law, "with love from your favorite fascist." She went to the University of Vermont Law School, is a Bernie Gal and believes fervently in the gospel of systemic racism.
The word "fascist" has been so devalued that giving insufficient Halloween treats can earn you that status. Meaningless...
Most fascist governments are Radical Left/Socialist. Trump is against the establishment that wants to control by strong central government. Look at the amassed wealth of the Democrats while in office. Vermont, land of Bernie is an excellent example...he is one of the wealthiest people in a very, very poor state where there is a huge divide socially, economically and politically between the rich and poor.
I find it more than a little bit interesting to observe how "fascism" has somehow attained its negative connotations (rightfully so) while "socialism" and "communism" have not. Glaring incongruity IMHO.
Incongruous in the fact that all Socialist regimes (especially Nazi Germany - the 3rd Reich) wielded fascistic tactics in order to impose their authority.
Seems from the well informed posts I think we can conclude that Fascism never was put into practice. It also appears that the only thing socialists are opposed to is anything that isn't socialism. Maybe it would be better to add descriptive terms such as Gentilé Fascism, Nazi Socialism, Marxist Communism, Soviet Communism, U.S. capitalism, etc. anytime were tempted to assign political labels.
It seems that everyone calls everyone else fascist. But in fact a true fascist would be very nationalistic, anti-communist, anti-socialist and anti-democratic. The true socialist would despise the whole notion of equality as it is preached from the political pulpit these days. As far as equality is concerned I think a thoughtful fascist would say it means that everyone gets to play but not everyone is qualified to be the captain of the team. Like it works with every other "ism," elitism has given the elite a bad name. However bad the reputation may or may not be, the elite are still elite.
State control of production. That is the definition of fascism. Constitutionalists are opposed to that. The Soviet Union and its satellites, Cuba, Venezuela, China, the Congo and many others are examples of state control of production. They are all some form of socialism.
Those ignorant of history, and claiming anyone is facscist who disagrees with them, are not worth engaging in intelligent discussion. It would be pointless.
Many people who have not bothered to read much and depend on the media to tell them what to think, believe there is nothing wrong with socialism, even though throughtout history it has been imposed at the barrel of a gun, and millions of humans have died in its maintenance.
I have no respect for the closet leftists living the capitalist dream and insisting on tearing the system down.
Can these people be convinced that someone else sees what they cannot, when they believe they are being fed the most intelligent and true stream of information from the media? Probably not. Will we be unique in history to avoid falling onto the abyss of destruction that comes from socialism? The odds are hugely against us.
I picked something else, but I'm actually I'm really not sure. The wokest clan mentality would like you to adhere to the rules unquestionably. Their more extreme tactics are eerily similar to historical facism. Yet, there seems to be a lack of leadership coming from them. For me, the majority of the outrageous behavior is closer to a real life "copy paste" techniques used online only mirrored in real life. When I hear someone speak, it's just the same few declarative statements without real depth or thought put behind them.
Clueless, aimless, and only concerned with instant gratification, these extreme leftist groups come off as more like a blob of empty headed idiots who are more interested in causing violence rather than achieve a goal of opposition conversion. They actually seem to get more pleasure out of getting a rise out of people and capturing it on their phones for social media clout.
I don't see the same kind of extremism coming from the right that the left keep saying. Which is troubling coming from Democratic politicians who I thought would be more centered than that. It does make me wonder just how much is condoned by these Democratic officials, and how much they shy away from in order not to rock the boat this close to election.
I think it's all about the middle class: left=hating the middle class right=loving the middle class. Those who hate the middle class don't want majority rule, are fundamentally anti-democratic which is fascistic. So I think the left is leaning toward fascism by nature.
The core issue here is how post-modern skepticism is rapidly stripping the language of any and all meaning. How can we make sense of a complex term like “fascism” when simple concepts like “man” and “woman” no longer have meaning?
A lot of this is pure leftist ignorance. When Trump, for example wanted a points system for immigrants — favouring those with job and language skills — he was denounced as a racist. Yet, he was describing the exact same system in place for decades in Canada, which is viewed as highly progressive on immigration.
So when a Canadian does it, it’s viewed as empathetic and progressive. WhenTrump suggests exactly the same policy, he’s condemned as a monster.
Why is the left never called on this?
There are certainly elements of fascism on left and right. In fact, the self inflicted death by a thousand cuts the dems have been experiencing makes me wonder if we are seeing some sort of Hegelian dialectic puppet show.
As far as the hammer and sickle, Che Guevara idolizing, leftist crowd goes, if they accuse the right of fascism the best response is a little communist wake up call.
I have always thought National Socialism was the best system yet. Now I’m not talking about the anti Semitic part at all (people can not separate the racism from the social system, it’s a totally different debate). i believe the top intelligence should lead.
The only thing about this discussion that I feel I can add that is not mentioned is the fact that socialism is as much a process as it is the objective. Most define it in terms of its final objective - A centrally engineered socio/economic state with ownership of production, blah, blah, blah. The process to achieving that state is, however, the most important aspect of it and why it is so insidious. States tend to centralize power and control not decentralize. It takes great effort to decentralize the State once it starts to concentrate power and control.
I include all forms of socialism in my definition that are defined as communism, fascism, nazism, or whatever -ism it is labelled, democratic socialism, Marxist/Leninism, Trotskyism, Maoism...whatever. They all followed a process and became centrally engineered socio/economic states. The final stages of the process are the total seizure of power and the elimination of all politically competitive opponents. Communism seizes power through revolution with a short evolutionary period. Most forms of socialism work to erode a nation's constitutional fundamentals and gain power over time. Communism is also an international movement and global in nature. Most forms of socialism are nationalist in nature but socialism tends to spread like a cancer. All a nation needs to move further towards the total state is a socialist politician or party. Obama was a socialist, he succeeded, by lying to the people mind you, in establishing a centralized health insurance scheme - one that would eventually evolve into a single payer system. This is an example of how a nation moves towards the final objective. America, to its credit, only established a national education department in 1978 under socialist politician Jimmy Carter. These things all look like they are progress and are helping those who are more in need so they can become popular. In reality citizens are voting for their own erosion of freedoms.
I hope this adds to a greater understanding of socialism. The process is dual purposed, it is designed to centralize power and condition the populace to more control over their lives