"When Fascism Comes To America It Will Be Wrapped In The Flag And Carrying A Cross."

[AzDar]

-- Sinclair Lewis

Bears repeating on this fine American afternoon...
:patriot:

[Warpy]

1. With a doughy white guy using a preacher's cadence pushing it

Oh, yes.

[ixion]

2. And drinking 'Bud' and watching NASCAR

don'cha know.

[backwoodsbob]

15. why nascar?

I'm as left as they come socially and I watch nascar...went to to sharpies 500 last weekend.

Do you want me to quit voting because I watch nascar?

[backwoodsbob]

16. as much as I hate repukes

I hate elitest dems as bad.The whole *you're a NASCAR southern boy so we dont need your opinion* shit gets old

[ixion]

18. Then work to change the NASCAR culture

because it's about as un-green and un-environmentally friendly as you can get.

[Synicus Maximus]

23. That is a very bold statement. Do you have any data to back it up ?

I prefer golf to NASCAR but then a lot of people here are opposed to golf as being un-green.

[Mnpaul]

28. Oh really ?

Who uses more fuel NASCAR or MLB?

Pure nonsense
From sponsors upping track-side recycling programs to Pocono Raceway's decision to build a solar farm, the sport is growing increasingly cognizant of its carbon footprint.
http://www.nascar.com/2009/news/opinion/07/31/splash.go.rswan.going.green/index.html

Liberty Tire is currently the premier provider of tire recycling services in North America, reclaiming more than 1.5 billion pounds of rubber each year for innovative, eco-friendly products. The recycled rubber produced by Liberty Tire is used as crumb rubber and industrial feedstock for molded products and rubberized asphalt; as tire-derived fuel for industrial kilns, mills and power plants; and as rubber mulch for landscaping and playground safety surfacing.
http://inhabitat.com/2010/08/24/is-nascar-going-green/

Recently FOXSports.com reported that NASCAR will begin using E-15 fuel in 2010. Lee Spencer wrote that Hendrick Motorsports has already begun testing for the transition and Roush Yates will begin preparing in the near future.
http://www.hardcoreracefans.com/nascar-cup-news/5597-nascar-fuel-going-green-next-year

[Grinchie]

44. Elitest to hate the Corporate Propaganda?

Your fucking NASCAR is homage to the God of Oil.. Just tell me how many people have been killed in this modern age Gladiator sport that does nothing for you or me?

Has it increased our gas mileage, increased the safety of your family car, or made advancements so the car you own lasts a lifetime or more, like the Model T, or vehicles made in World war 2 that still function today as they did in 1941?

Fuck your Nascar, plastered with Corporate logos for AT&T, Stihl, Stae Street Bank, J.P Morgan, Prudential, GE, Motorola, ad nauseum, and a thousand other Too Big to Fail sycophants to the Military Industrial Complex.

Elitist... You are a fucking consumer.. That's all. Instead of sitting in a bleacher drinking beer and breathing toxic fumes, along with 100,000 other stooges, how about you spend some time on the land and plant something and make sure it survives to produce some food, despite drought, hungry animals, insects, and inclement weather. How about you grow a tree and see how long it takes to produce something of value.

You are walking on thin ice, and maybe you better look up what elitest means in the Disctionary.

[PJPhreak]

48. Yes it has....

Increased the safety of your car.

Seat Belts

Crumple Zones

Side impact Durability

Fuel Cells

Roll Over Safety

As far as Fuel Economy...

Who started the Aerodynamics in Autos?

Nascar! back in the late 60's

More durible engines,transmissions,rear ends.

I could go on for hours,but please don't Bash us Gearheads...It has not been all R.Nader!

And no J.P.Morgan Does NOT Sponsor A NASCAR race Team...its more like Food City Grocery Stores,NAPA Auto Parts and Yes even Loveable Bra's!
I will admit some sponsors like Budwieser,Home Depot,Dupont may not be the best in the world either.

[Grinchie]

54. You've been snorting too much Nitromethane...

I guess seeing whole families wiped out by a tire has me a little miffed.

Family Fun for sure... How about planing a garden and looking at an Earthworm.

Nah, Truck-a-Saurus and a 12 pack of beer and a few foot longs while watching useless vehicles go round and round for a few hours.

NASCAR is the epitome of elitest, tailored for Johnny Lunchbox to make it look cool.

[PJPhreak]

58. "I guess seeing whole families wiped out by a tire has me a little miffed."

Please tell me what incident you are refeering too...Yes one can get hurt by flying debris,but "Whole Families" being wiped out by a tire...I don't think so.

Monster Trucks maybe...that takes place indoors,but as far as I know there never has been a Whole Family killed at a NASCAR Event.

Edit to Add: Nitromethane is used in Drag Racing...Top Fuel and Funny Cars,Not Nascar.

[Enthusiast]

60. Why alienate a huge block

of voters because you personally don't approve of NASCAR? Keep it to yourself.

[Grinchie]

112. When NASCAR goes Electric, I'll back off.

Until then, you guys are a bunch of kids that use cars instead of a football, which would be a lot healthier for you and the planet.

When the Brand becomes more important than the Product, that's when I get pissed.

[Vickers]

82. Please tell me more about "planing" a garden.

Oh, and kudos for Dumbest Post of the Week© !!!

:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:

"I guess seeing whole families wiped out by a tire has me a little miffed."

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Grinchie]

113. Ohh, better get back to the spelling Bee vickers...

Is that the best you can do?

[Vickers]

116. Is "whole families wiped out by a tire" the best YOU can do, Grinchie?

:rofl:

Holy shit, that is one boneheaded comment!

:rofl:

[Grinchie]

118. You saying it never happened? Nobody has ever been killed at a NASCAR race?

Here's your boneheaded answer.

I guess that your last spelling bee was a few months ago hmmm? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzI6YgTD21w

Enjoy.

[Vickers]

119. OMG, a whole family was killed by a tire????!!??!??!????

Ewe fell!

[Grinchie]

120. Get back to your Hotwheels Toy Collection set.

Your Strawman is about as obvious as your age, and it exploded and burned on the first post you made.

[Vickers]

121. *sniff* These tears are real.

:(

Your eBravery is not to be trifled with.

[Speed8098]

71. I've never had a post deleted here

But this might be the first one.
Your fucking NASCAR is homage to the God of Oil..
But I'll bet you don't mind flying you and yours thousands of miles so you can enjoy a pleasurable vacation somewhere

Just tell me how many people have been killed in this modern age Gladiator sport that does nothing for you or me?
Sure, when you tell me how many people have been killed, maimed, or paralyzed playing the game of football, soccer, or hockey, etc.

Has it increased our gas mileage, increased the safety of your family car, or made advancements so the car you own lasts a lifetime or more, like the Model T, or vehicles made in World war 2 that still function today as they did in 1941?
As a matter of fact, it is the direct result of testing by NASCAR engineers that HAS led us to better gas milage. You've obviously just decided to puke up your rage over a sport that you don't like.
You show me anything that hasn't been restored and runs like it did in 1941 and I'll show you and old person who drove it once a week for pleasure. Other than that your sentence only proves your ignorance. It's due to NASCAR that we have many safety features on our vehicles today. Like one poster said, crumple zones to absorb the energy in a crash, safety belts are another piece of technology that has come from NASCAR. And obviously you've not bothered to learn about the MANY charities that drivers and owners sponsor that help those less fortunate then your snide ass self.

Fuck your Nascar, plastered with Corporate logos for AT&T, Stihl, Stae Street Bank, J.P Morgan, Prudential, GE, Motorola, ad nauseum, and a thousand other Too Big to Fail sycophants to the Military Industrial Complex

I guess you would rather see them advertising by lining the pockets of your beloved politicians. Like it or not, we do live under a Capitalist system and if you don't like Nascar that's your perogative but if you ever call me or anyone else an idiot for supporting nascar, you'd better go look into a mirror and you'll see the idiot that just opened his mouth when he shouldn't have.

:spank:

(edited for typo)

[SmileyRose]

85. I wonder

how many people have cancer because of the chemicals left in the ground water from all grass at golf courses, baseball stadiums, football and soccer fields... or laying asphalt for basketball courts... or from the pollution caused by all the people driving and flying to play in and attend all these games and tournaments.

And do you really want to talk about corporate money in sports?? Really? I'm no nascar fan but come on........

[Jackpine Radical]

94. "Elitest?"

as the superlative form, meaning maximally elite, in contrast to the comparative form "eliter?"

I'm not a NASCAR junkie (even though you might expect me to be one on the basis of my pickup truck, John Deere tractor, old farm house,, guns, chain saws and the like). Nevertheless, I'm at least as put off by all the ad placements surrounding big-time sports of any kind, and by their intrusion into college sports, as I am by anything NASCAR does.

[truebrit71]

130. I'm sorry but that's just too damned funny.."look it up in the Disctionary"...

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[Myrina]

89. +10 and i'm a GIRL.

So I guess that makes me extra southern-redneckish even though I'm a college educated liberal from Wisconsin. ;-)

[SargeUNN]

109. interesting reaction. Reminds me of another

I encountered a "christian" at progressive chat. I told him that those who were not speaking out against these people who preach all the hate in the name of christianity was allowing them to hijack their image. The person got mad and instead of getting my message took it as a slam on all christians. What impression he left on me was yep they were as much representative of christianity as those who were opposite, which I found disturbing because that adds to them stealing it.

[Brickbat]

3. "It Can't Happen Here."

Haven't read it lately; might as well dust it off this afternoon and peruse it.

[AlinPA]

8. Sara Palin = Buzz Windrip, Lee Sarason = Karl Rove, "Minute Men" = Teabaggers.

"Buzz" wrote a book that quoted during his campaign, Palin wrote a similar book......

[HillbillyBob]

90. Here is the link to gutenbergAu..to the text of It Can't happen here

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks03/0301001h.html

[Javaman]

124. I just read it for the first time about a month ago...

chilling.

In some ways, it's as if the tea baggers are using it as a manual.

[Douglas Carpenter]

4. kick and recommend!!

[Papa Boule]

5. And the only serious resistance to it: a few comedians and some bloggers n/t

[Nostradammit]

30. And hundreds of millions of sane American citizens

[datasuspect]

6. Hatred and fear of obama will do more damage to the democratic party

than any resurgence of a leftist or progressive movement in the democratic party could do.

it's time for the sane people left in this country to start doing something instead of pandering to bipartisan chickenhawk wall street pimps.

these radical, ultra-extremist, batshit religiously insane right wing tea partiers are completely galvanized and united in their primary cause: hatred and fear of a black president.

they will never be mollified; they don't even recognize the lawful president of this country as the legal executive.




i know it sounds crazy to say "they" have planned all this shit out, but i think those who own us want to make the real differences in both political parties negligible to the point that any actual difference between parties can be determined by clearly delineated stances on wedge issues they manufacture and manipulate us with through the compliant and complicit media.

[Initech]

9. The batshit crazies are doing more harm than good for our country.

[datasuspect]

11. that's my point

and the expression of their rage because there is a black president is bringing them together in coordinated action. and this is what our owners want.

[Initech]

13. What sucks is there's no way to shut them up.

I was hoping with Obama they'd at least go back to their hiding places. But they've just been crawling out of the woodwork.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CTLawGuy]

69. wow

you have no idea what you're talking about.

But I bet this post will get deleted before yours... (I was wrong - credit goes to the mods)

[CTLawGuy]

70. racist much?

NT

[HillbillyBob]

92. Some of us have been tryin to warn of the extremists for years

but we got called crazy doom and gloomers plus much worse.

[AspenRose]

7. .

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/07/24/right-wing-america-racism-and-religion/fascism-sarah-palin-flag-fascist-cross-republican-demotivational-poster-1224893113/

[JerseygirlCT]

10. Yes nt

[ShockediSay]

12. AND it will come from the right wing, fueled by propaganda, by the relative

few who have so much money and power, and don't want to pay a nickel's taxes for their nation, who are backed by big corporations and who control the "mainstream media" and on and on it goes.

We are being hit hard by Fascist Funded Propaganda. These Fascists are calling us Socialists. Can somebody out there hit back? If not the Fascists will take over.

The first free election of the Weimar Republic was determined in large measure by propaganda.

[bobbolink]

14. that ship docked a LONG time ago in the U.S.

Its just now getting photographed.

[Turborama]

17. K&R n/t

[Lifelong Protester]

19. Wow! just shared that same quote elsewhere. Bears repeating.

and thinking about.

[northofdenali]

20. Yup.

[Grinchie]

46. I'm Blind. Isn't Pornography on DU Prohibited?

[krabigirl]

21. yep, and it's been here for a while now..the crusaders are just starting to get more fired up imo

[whatchamacallit]

22. Lewis had it nailed. K&R (nt)

[BrklynLiberal]

24. Yep.

[malaise]

25. He was right

Rec

[MellowDem]

26. Look up what fascism is and you'll see it ain't American conservatism...

much less the tea-party brand. All of these rather ignorant comparisons between fascism, socialism, and communism to American politics is getting old. Libertarianism is scary enough without false references to fascism, not to mention conservative economic policy, which, once again, is decidedly un-fascist, as well as un-socialist. Then there is the theocratic wing of conservatism. Once again, un-fascist, but scary in its own right.

Stick to the facts and stop the fear-mongering, please.

[OrwellwasRight]

27. Tea Partiers are not libertarians.

They are certainly much closer to fascists. Let's compare:

Demonization of all points of view other than that that being promoted? Check.
Corporatism? Check.
Merging of private and public sphere? Check.
Scapegoating a particular group and attempting to take away their liberties? Check.
Fear-mongering to promote their own views? Check.
Nationalism? Jingoism? Check, check.

What exactly is it about the the theocratic tea partiers that doesn't lean toward fascism?

[cheapdate]

29. True. n/t

[MellowDem]

33. I never said (all) tea partiers were libertarians...

Demonization of all points of view other than that that being promoted?
- How is this "fascist"? Lots of ideologies have done this.

Corporatism? Check.
- Considering corporatism can be considered a socialist concept, no, not at all. There is a lot of confusion about corporatism on DU. People think it refers to rule by corporations because of the way it looks. It doesn't mean that. Regardless, fascism has had socialist economies, at least it did in the forms it took in Europe. Hence the term "National Socialism".

Merging of private and public sphere? Check.
- Couldn't you argue that socialism does this as well? Either way, not something that is exclusively "fascist".

Scapegoating a particular group and attempting to take away their liberties? Check.
- I could list off a ton of ideologies that have done just that. Including socialism and Communism.

Fear-mongering to promote their own views? Check.
- That's a tactic that has been used by every ideology since the beginning of time.

Nationalism? Jingoism? Check, check.
- Communist and Socialist nations have used these as well.

Hard to see where any of the things you listed are exclusively fascist, and some of the things you listed aren't really about fascism at all, but rather they are just tactics that can be used by any government, no matter what type, to gain power.

Your last line is kind of funny in that a theocracy would be fundamentally opposed to fascism in many ways.

You can pretend that they're just fascists, but it's not the truth, and you're going to have a hard time convincing others with that kind of logic.

[Hannah Bell]

50. lol. the nazis didn't run a socialist economy; private profits were very much in evidence, & the

workcamps were run by corporations.

and the teapartiers are funded by murdoch, koch, verizon, & others -- private corporate interests.

[MellowDem]

81. Socialist economies can be mixed economies....

If you think the primary objective of fascist nations was to make profit for corporations, then nothing that they did really makes any sense at all. Those corporations were controlled by an authoritarian government, which made decisions in the interest of the "nation". The government had lots of control over corporations. Private corporate interests, much like religion, are just another impediment to the goal of fascists. They are seperate interests that have to be controlled.

[Hannah Bell]

105. fascism was brought to power by corporate interests, & they were in no way "controlled" by the

fascists.

i notice you don't dispute that the workcamps were run by corporations.

[MellowDem]

122. I honestly don't know the history of who ran the workcamps...

and think it is irrelevant to the argument anyways. Of course the corporate interests were controlled by fascists. You pretty much had to be a fascist to control it. Kind of like how you had to be a member of the Communist Party to have any sort of high ranking position of authority. And if you didn't show proper resolve, you would be hunted down by the gestapo, regardless of whatever profits you were making.

[Grinchie]

125. It's true, you Honestly don't know a thing...

It's not that hard to find books at the library, or perhaps even go to NetFlix and stream the first few episodes of the "World at War" documentary.

Instead, you spout off this nonsense like it was gospel, spreading propaganda all over.

The Corporate interest were controlled by one thing -- Profits. They saw a gold mine in the rebuilding of Germany and dove in with Bibs on for a piece of the Pork. They were ready, willing and able to do it of their own volition, and the Fascists strung them along until the Ponzi scheme broke down, and Germany had to repay their unsustainable debt to the Bankers that financed the bubble.

The fact was that they could not pay it back, so they just proceeded to take over the world while they had a chance, and while their neighbors were still weakened from the Great Depression.

Nobody ever asks the real question as to "Where" all the money spent by Germany in the 1930's came from, even though it was in the middle of the great worldwide depression. Someone had to pay off all those workers that produced the largest modernized war machine known on earth. It's amazing that this question is almost never posed in regards to Hitler's rise.

It's no different than Haliburton, Boeing and all the rest of the MIC feeding off the Iraq/Afgan conflict, but all the people that remember WW 2 have died off, gotten alzheimers, or have been medicated into history.

No, you are trying to pose a rosy picture of the poor Corporations that were suddenly forced to work for the Fascists, who wouldn't know how to run a company if they were born to it. Yes, Corporations are inherently Fascist organizations, it's just that they are driven by money instead of ideology or social control.

[MellowDem]

129. Your post makes no sense...

You complain that corporations played a ponzi scheme on Germany, but the fascists didn't gain power until, as you put it, after the ponzi scheme broke down, and people were desperate.

The truth is that the fascists did build up the economy, especially militarily, and of course they knew quite a bit about how to run an economy. It's a lot of the reason they, like their Communist counterparts in Russia, retained power. The fascists controlled the economy, not corporations. I'm not painting a rosy picture of corporations. I understand that corporations can feed off of other's misery and conflicts around the world. But fascism was a whole seperate breed and had many non-economic factors as well. Do you think labor is inherently evil because Soviet Russia tried to take over the world? How did Soviet Russia build up its huge war machine, what with no corporations to fund them? You know, the one they used to partition Poland and attack Finland with? Kind of destroys your theory. Communism and Fascism are not black and white ideas that can be easily compared to present day political ideologies.

[Grinchie]

131. You really need to learn how to read. Mouthing the words is not the same as comprehension.

I suggest you re-read the post, unless your Strawman friend is actually your real intent on playing stupid.

[RaleighNCDUer]

73. So now we have to worry about scary socialist teabaggers?

WTF have you been smoking?

[MellowDem]

83. The point is teabaggers aren't fascists...

Fascism had a lot of socialist ideals and policies. There is a reason it was called National Socialism.

[RaleighNCDUer]

91. You're right - most teabaggers are not fascists.

They are stupid tools of the fascists - they are being used by the Becks and Kochs to scramble our democracy so that fascist policies can be brought in in a wave of pseudo-populist hysteria.

And your fascism = socialism is getting tired. Ask any person with a degree in political science and they will lay out the differences between the origins and goals of these diametrically opposite systems.

Of course, that would require an interest in the facts.

[Hannah Bell]

114. the only people who equate nazis w/ socialists = righties

[Caliman73]

127. The reason it was called National Socialism was about the time period

Socialism was in vogue as a backlash against monarchies and plutocratic regimes that dominated the last several decades from the 1880's leading to WWI. Fascist regimes dressed themselves up in the language of Socialism to compete with Communist and Marxist movements of the time period but they were far from socialism. Do you consider China to have a Republican form of government? Is North Korea a Democratic Republic, I mean, they have it right there in the name? According to you logic it must be so.

I agree that teabaggers are not fascists, they are just stupid angry people that have gotten suckered into promoting the very interests that have kept them down all these years. They have been manipulated by racial and economic fears to look at government as the major problem rather than the corporate culture that has invaded and utilized government to keep wages down and people in debt.

[Grinchie]

47. The Teapartiers seem to be on a roll.

I don't know the first thing about them, other than the batshit crazy stories that have been posted on DU. However, with the reent win by so called Tea Party candidates, one has to wonder if they actually arent a force that threatens the status quo, which happens to be equally batshit crazy Republicans and the current Administration.

If that were the case, then I could see why there would be a concerted effort to demonize the teapartiers because they threat the 2 party system in some way.

If that's the case, then more power to them. My Democratic party is all too willing to throuw it's constituents under the buss, so the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

The quicker this Ponzi scheme fails, the better.

[OrwellwasRight]

75. Research shows that Tea Partiers

are people that have always voted Republican and conservative anyway. They tend to be older and whiter than the average American. (Frankly, it is another what's the matter with Kansas problem because their support of anti-tax, anti-regulation candidates won't help improve their lives but it will help the large corporations.) They may not be registered Republican voters, but they are certainly not this non-partisan movement pulling disaffected voters from the right and the left (which was the mainstream media party line until the research disputed this wacko notion).

I agree that the two-party system is dysfunctional and doesn't serve the interests of the people. But I am not sure the tea party is the answer. Because we have a plurality electoral system (aka, first past the post or winner-take-all), when a new party or movement rises, it doesn't fundamentally add to our choices. The new movement is either eventually subsumed by one of the existing parties (as the Democrats subsumed the progressives by the 1920s) or it displaces one of the prior parties (as the Republicans eventually displaced the Whigs). I believe that will continue to be the case until we change our system to allow some form of proportional representation. Unless we do, the money and activity will continue to coalesce around the strongest opponent to the incumbent (reaffirming a two-party system) and will crowd out and marginalize "third-parties" like the Greens, Socialists, and others.

[Grinchie]

126. Agree. Something about the Teaparty smells

Too many extremophiles living within the organization, as well as the sickly taint of Corporate money. The incredibly visible lunatic fringe is disturbing as well.

However, it may be a necessary trigger for the dynamic change America needs. It's just another straw on the Camels back, and since I don't see any real policy coming from this Big D Democratic administration, populated with Corporate American Stooges that seem to think that maintaining the Ponzi Scheme is a good thing, I am willing to watch and observe.

There is no evidence so far that my vote has meant anything to the Democrats so far, so that being the case, they can fend for themselves.

[rhett o rick]

31. Ok if you think differently then tell us what it is instead of what it aint.

You say American Conservatism isnt fascist and you may be right, but what's your point. Who today is an American Conservative?

Now the tea-party looks to me to be a tool of fascism (maybe if they wore Brown Shirts). Almost everything Bush did was quasi-fascist. Corporatism has literally taken over our government and that is 100% fascist.

And why arent the radical right wing Christians fascist supporters? They are willing to be used if they think they can prevail. Again like the Brown Shirts.

You say conservative economic policy isnt fascist. Yes, so what? There aint anyone in Congress that is pushing conservative economic policy.

The OP may not have said it as clear as possible, but we are well into a fascist state. If you dont agree, please elaborate.

[MellowDem]

37. Corpratism is not "fascist"

and does not mean what you think it means. You can look it up. Corpratism is not control by corporations. And as it is, fascism would be opposed to a society controlled by corporations. They were about combining labor, business, and government interests to work together for the good of the "nation", which always turned out to need an authoritarian type of government, one with power over the corporations and others. Some of the economies of fascist nations were fairly socialist. Hence National Socialism.

The Tea Party, as far as I can tell, is a tool of corporations. They are in this way tools of an interest group. Corporations don't want a fascist nation, whose economy is fairly socialist and whose government has lots of power and authority. It's much better for them to be in a democracy where they can control the populace through propaganda. All of the culture wars and everything are secondary to the primary purpose: profit for corporations and less government regulation. They are just a means to an end. In fascism, the "culture war" is the priority, and corporations are controlled to win it. And it is literally a war of the "nation" however that is defined.

Fascism is a secular ideology and religion is a nuisance to it, much like Communism.

I don't know what you consider American conservative economic policy, but to me, it is deregulation, which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what fascism is about. Maybe you mean conservative fiscal policy? That is very different.

American conservatism is very different from fascism. It's better for us to understand it as its own unique political ideology to fight it.

[Hannah Bell]

51. "deregulation" = rule by the rich.

[Anakin Skywalker]

57. You Got It! "Deregulation" Is a Codeword

[MellowDem]

84. And?

Fascism isn't about rule by the rich. So I guess you make my point?

[Hannah Bell]

107. fascism *is* rule by a segment of the rich.

[donheld]

32. -1000 I agree with Rhett

Tell us what you think it is If you think Mr Lewis is wrong.

[MellowDem]

36. It'll just be easier for me to list the ways American conservatism...

as generally defined disagress with certain fascist ideas.

1. The economy of fascist nations had many aspects of socialism, and in some cases, were forms of socialism. Hence national socialism. It is the merging of labor, the government, and the business interests to serve the "nation", however that is defined. We all know how conservatives think of socialism. In this regard they are much more libertarian, advocating for the individual over the state. In fascism, the state always comes before the individual.

2. Religion. There is quite a sizeable chunk of conservatives that advocates theocratic principles in government. Fascism is a secular ideology, where the nation always comes first, not religion. Religion would be an impediment to the goal of putting the nation first. Indeed, during WW2, it was theocratic governments that had good reason to oppose both Communism and Fascism.

3. Authoritarianism. Rank and file conservatives are all about individual liberties and freedoms, even to the point of putting those freedoms before the interests of society at large sometimes. That's a big no no in fascism, and requires a strong, authoritarian government to run things. American conservatism is an intensely democratic ideology, and you can tell by the myriad of interests, some of them competing, that make up American conservatism, in order to participate in a democracy. The history of democracy in this country has shaped American conservatism into what it is today. A coalition of interests, essentially. The problem with extreme conservatives, in fact, is too little authority, as we saw under Bush, where strong interests can take advantage of the lack of government to get their way at the expense of society at large, which, once again, is a big no no in fascism.

4. The modern and technology. Conservatives are generally considered slow to change or embrace the modern. Fascism is all about embracing the modern and indeed fascists view themselves as creating a whole new, better society stripped of the traditions of the past. They feel they are progressives in a sense.

5. The idea of nationalism and patriotism and what makes the "nation". Here is where most people find the comparison between fascists and American conservatives to match up. The fact that fascists had an inherently racist worldview (and many think conservatives do as well) based on the faulty science of eugenics etc. IMHO, the ideas of "nation" are very different in a couple respects. Fascists believed the way they did partially because, as viewing themselves as very modern and technology and science-driven, they trusted the science of eugenics. The vast majority of modern day conservatives don't believe in Eugenics anymore, it is a discredited science. Indeed, they define their own "nation" in the past, rather than the future, looking to some sort of "golden age" of yesteryear and the demographic shifts they see scare them because they view their identity in terms of culture and a very American idea of "race". I do think there is some crossover ideas here of fascism and conservatism, but not as much as some make of it, and even if you don't agree, that's one out of five so far.

There are more differences, but hopefully this illustrates that there are fundamental differences.

[donheld]

38. Make this an thread of it's own.

[OrwellwasRight]

41. "National Socialism" was not any type of socialism at all.

1) Hitler and his cronies used the word in the name of their movement to attract more followers because "socialism" was actually quite popular in Germany during the Weimar Republic. "Socialism" in general is a theory of government where the means of production are used by and for the benefit of the people--not to benefit a single class of people. This is what is what distinguishes socialism from fascism and many other types of governments. The only people I know who think that fascism is a form of socialism are the people who listen to Glenn Beck and his tea partiers repeat that lie.

2) Fascism is not a secular ideology. Fascism used the church in both Italy and Germany to expand its aims--binding people to one central religion is just another way to control their behavior and to bind then together to support the government and to oppose competing ideas. Atheists were condemned as immoral, outsiders, the "other." And do I need to mention the attitude toward the Jews?

3) American conservatives are not about "individual liberties and freedoms." They want to control women's reproductive rights, they want to prohibit every drug except alcohol, they have abolished habeas corpus, and they certainly are all about taking away the right to practice one's own religion unless it is Christianity (um, heard about the mosque problem in lower Manhattan????). Under American conservatism, we got the USA PATRIOT Act, which unlawfully curtails our right against unreasonable search and seizure. I haven't heard one tea partier oppose that. In fact they applaud it. Authoritarianism is most certainly on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and it is the preferred government of tea partiers, who hate the freedoms gained in this country in the last 50 years. Phyllis Schlafly is hardly a defender of "individual liberties and freedoms."

4) I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but this statement is way off. Mussolini invented Fascism, and he named it after the "fasces," a Roman symbol of strength that was branches tied around an axe. All of his hype harkened back to the glory days of Rome and trying to rebuild Italian society in that image. Likewise, Hitler named his regime the Third Reich, again to remind people of the two prior golden ages of Germany. Fascists are certainly not progressives.

5) Again, this is incorrect. Patriotism and nationalism are two different things. Patriotism is a respectable love of country that motivates you to be a good citizen and do your duty to defend your country. Nationalism is not respectable -- it is aggressive and not defensive. Nationalism is what Hitler used to claim "ownership" of Austria and the Sudetenland, and it was a leading cause of the mess in the former Yugoslavia. It is a destructive "my people are superior to your people" feeling, and it is certainly what American conservatives are all about with their negative attitudes toward immigrants (legal or not), and toward Muslims (as in "911 is their fault" and similar drivel), and their nonsense statements about "this is the only country in the world that is free." Really? Ever been to Britain, France, Holland, Sweden? People are free there as well--and in many ways more free than here. Read any history of World War I and you'll find that one of the causes was "nationalism." You'll never see "patriotism" listed as a cause of that war.

[tomp]

59. thank you for exposing mellowdem's perpetuation of wrong ideas. nt

[MellowDem]

93. Sure it was...

1) Hitler and his cronies used the word in the name of their movement to attract more followers because "socialism" was actually quite popular in Germany during the Weimar Republic. "Socialism" in general is a theory of government where the means of production are used by and for the benefit of the people--not to benefit a single class of people. This is what is what distinguishes socialism from fascism and many other types of governments. The only people I know who think that fascism is a form of socialism are the people who listen to Glenn Beck and his tea partiers repeat that lie.

- The fascist governments did indeed control the corporations and used them for what they deemed the benefit of the people.

2) Fascism is not a secular ideology. Fascism used the church in both Italy and Germany to expand its aims--binding people to one central religion is just another way to control their behavior and to bind then together to support the government and to oppose competing ideas. Atheists were condemned as immoral, outsiders, the "other." And do I need to mention the attitude toward the Jews?

- All ideologies, including Communsim, try to incorporate the culture of the people to win them over, including religion, but that doesn't change that the ideologies themselves and their goals are inherently secular. Jews were a convenient scapegoat and religion a convenient tool, but they are not part of the ideology of fascism. If you could point out to me what religion fascists are or how they're goals are spiritual, it would make some sense.

3) American conservatives are not about "individual liberties and freedoms." They want to control women's reproductive rights, they want to prohibit every drug except alcohol, they have abolished habeas corpus, and they certainly are all about taking away the right to practice one's own religion unless it is Christianity (um, heard about the mosque problem in lower Manhattan????). Under American conservatism, we got the USA PATRIOT Act, which unlawfully curtails our right against unreasonable search and seizure. I haven't heard one tea partier oppose that. In fact they applaud it. Authoritarianism is most certainly on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and it is the preferred government of tea partiers, who hate the freedoms gained in this country in the last 50 years. Phyllis Schlafly is hardly a defender of "individual liberties and freedoms."

- I won't try to explain the contradictions of American conservatism, but a lot of the aspects that they oppose in terms of individual liberties is because of their ideas of religion in government. The reality is that they think they are for liberty and freedom. Doesn't mean I agree. But even here you point out some contradictions to fascism. Conservatives oppose abortion on religious grounds, whereas fascists would see it as a potentially useful tool and would not want to make it illegal. Conservatives oppose stem cell research on religious grounds whereas fascists would have embraced this advancement in technology to use it for the state. This is where religion is coming into conflict with the interests of the state. As I said, some conservatives advocate for a theocracy of sorts, which will in fact have to be somewhat authoritarian, which of course contradicts some of their other points. I never said American conservatism was a very coherent ideology.

4) I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but this statement is way off. Mussolini invented Fascism, and he named it after the "fasces," a Roman symbol of strength that was branches tied around an axe. All of his hype harkened back to the glory days of Rome and trying to rebuild Italian society in that image. Likewise, Hitler named his regime the Third Reich, again to remind people of the two prior golden ages of Germany. Fascists are certainly not progressives.

- Using old symbols and even old cultural ideas to win people over doesn't mean that the ideology itself is about restoring the past as much as making a new future. Fascists viewed themselves as progressives in this sense. They were utopians in a way.

5) Again, this is incorrect. Patriotism and nationalism are two different things. Patriotism is a respectable love of country that motivates you to be a good citizen and do your duty to defend your country. Nationalism is not respectable -- it is aggressive and not defensive. Nationalism is what Hitler used to claim "ownership" of Austria and the Sudetenland, and it was a leading cause of the mess in the former Yugoslavia. It is a destructive "my people are superior to your people" feeling, and it is certainly what American conservatives are all about with their negative attitudes toward immigrants (legal or not), and toward Muslims (as in "911 is their fault" and similar drivel), and their nonsense statements about "this is the only country in the world that is free." Really? Ever been to Britain, France, Holland, Sweden? People are free there as well--and in many ways more free than here. Read any history of World War I and you'll find that one of the causes was "nationalism." You'll never see "patriotism" listed as a cause of that war.

- Depends on your definition of patriotism/nationalism, both of which could be defined either way. Hence the "Patriot" Act. The Nazis were good patriots according to your definition and to themselves. The idea of American exceptionalism could be compared to the ideas of how fascists view their nation and people as the best somehow. However, it is interesting to note that American exceptionalists always list off the good ol' days of American dominance in the military, economy, etc. as proof that we are the best and bemoaning the change. For fascists, it is about creating a utopia from decadance.

[OrwellwasRight]

98. Not even sure where to begin.

Fascism is not and never was about the good of all the people. It is about business and government merging together to take and hold power and benefit the state (and, by extension, those deemed worthy). While claiming the unity of the people to support the state, there is no attempt to provide an freedom, equality, or liberty to individuals as socialism at least promises to do. That's why they have a need for scapegoats and outsiders--if you don't follow along, you are suppressed, oppressed, and silenced.

Just deeming some government action for "the benefit of the people" does make a government socialist. Every politician everywhere claims that his or her actions are for the benefit of the people. Fascism is not and never will be close to socialism on political scale. If you don't believe me, try taking a political theory 101 course. Any political theory 101 course.

Your point #3 refutes your own point #2. Of course American conservatives conflate religion and government, and so did Fascists. Fascist goals do not have to be spiritual for Fascism to be non-secular. Fascism in Italy and Germany was Christian, but any Fascist government could adopt any religion to its purposes. The point is that it isn't secular. It uses and promotes religion in order to promote its aims and define outsiders.

Your point #5 refutes your own point #4. Hearkening back to some golden age or glory days is certainly what American conservatives do, and it is what Fascists did. They certainly did want to recreate some real or imagined culture of the past to get rid of the corrupt present in which the old rules, order, and morals have fallen apart. This is very clearly true with respect to the Nazi criticism of the decadent Weimar Republic.

Nationalism and patriotism are words with actual meanings. It does not "depend on your definition." There are specific definitions for each, as they are different and distinguishable concepts. Again, I refer you to any political dictionary. "American exceptionalism" is indeed a form of nationalism--there is no factual basis to believe that the US is the best country in the world, that god smiles on us, or that we have the right to invade any country we want to get whatever we want. These are myths propounded by those who want us to believe that we are special, better, different, and that American lives matter more than lives in Rwanda, Iraq, Angola, or Mexico. They don't. And believing that they do is not patriotic. It's nationalistic.

Here are a couple of links that might help you if you are really interested in learning more about what distinguishes fascism from socialism and what American right-wingers have in common with fascists:


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:q-SONi5oKQ8jtM:&t=1
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/
http://www.politicsdefined.com/content/fascism.htm

Excerpt from the last link: " While certain types of socialism may superficially appear to be similar to fascism, it should be noted that the two ideologies clash violently on many issues. The role of the state, for example: Socialism considers the state to be merely a "tool of the people," sometimes calling it a "necessary evil," which exists to serve the interests of the people and to protect the common good (in addition, certain forms of libertarian socialism reject the state altogether). Meanwhile, fascism holds the state to be an end in of itself, which the people should obey and serve (rather than the other way around). Fascism rejects the central tenets of Marxism which are class struggle and the need to replace capitalism with a society run by the working class in which the workers own the means of production."

And: "However, the fact that fascist states, on the one hand, and the USSR and the Soviet bloc, on the other, were police states does not mean that their commonality is a product of socialism. While all one-party states can be said to be police states, there is no correlation between socialism and police states as all one-party capitalist states, such as the Republic of China under Chiang Kai-shek's Kuomintang or Afghanistan under the Taliban as well as monarchist police states such as Iran under the Shah have also been police states."

[Hannah Bell]

108. baloney.

1) "The fascist governments did indeed control the corporations and used them for what they deemed the benefit of the people."

you have it backwards. the fascists didn't control the corporations, the corporations controlled the fascists.

george seldes:

http://www.american-buddha.com/seldes.factsfascism2.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/seldes.factsfascism3.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/seldes.factsfascism4.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/seldes.factsfascism5.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/seldes.factsfascism6.htm
http://www.american-buddha.com/seldes.factsfascism7.htm


2) "All ideologies, including Communsim, try to incorporate the culture of the people to win them over, including religion, but that doesn't change that the ideologies themselves and their goals are inherently secular."



http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,796696,00.html

"inherently secular" is meaningless. conservatism can also be said to be "inherently secular". the fact is, fascists use religion for their own purposes & so do conservatives, and in fact, religion is everywhere a tool of power except in explicitly anti-religious states -- which no fascist state ever was.



3) "whereas fascists would see it as a potentially useful tool and would not want to make it illegal."

contrafactural. the fascists encouraged & celebrated childbirth (for germans) & gave prizes for it, in fact. Abortion policy had been liberalized during Weimar: the Nazis tightened it by reinstituting imprisonment for abortionists & in 1943, the death penalty. There was a "Reich Central Office for the Combatting of Homosexuality & Abortion," & public anti-abortion campaigns.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IHoCE8WnETcC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=Paragraph+218+of+the+German+penal+code&source=web&ots=OpJRv7R5lN&sig=5mMPeN-3aFnSW7XsW7WXH8-idro&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=5&ct=result#v=onepage&q=Paragraph%20218%20of%20the%20German%20penal%20code&f=false




4) "Fascists viewed themselves as progressives in this sense. They were utopians in a way."

They were reactionaries, & fascism is a reactionary ideology, as you implicitly acknowledge when you talk about creating "a utopia from decadence".

[Vinnie From Indy]

43. I have to admit that your post made me laugh out loud

Your post is mildly amusing. Your understanding of fascism and the historical examples of fascist governments is so wildly ignorant that it is hard to know where to start. It appears that your exposure to the history of Nazi Germany comes directly from Hollywood and the right-wing lie machine.
Cheers!

[Hannah Bell]

56. ...

1. "The economy of fascist nations had many aspects of socialism, and in some cases, were forms of socialism."

- what "aspects" would those be?


"Hence national socialism. It is the merging of labor, the government, and the business interests to serve the "nation", however that is defined."

A theoretical notion contra actual practice; in fact, business & state merged to promote ruling class & corporate interests, & the people paid the price. Fascism is anti-left.

It's because of historical experience Niemoller wrote: "First they came for the communists, then they came for the trade unionists..." Not the jews, not the gays, as revisionists have rewritten the quote. The left was the first target of the fascists.

"A key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a rightist mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. This strategy is variously called Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State <2>, all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders, often in ways chosen to minimize the power of labor unions. Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of an imminent Socialist revolution <3>, finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment. In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners. The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists. Fascism also met with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the lumpenproletariat."




2. "Fascism is a secular ideology, where the nation always comes first, not religion."

- Contrafactual to actual historical fact. Both mussolini & hitler collaborated with religious leaders & used religion to consolidate power. there was no crackdown on religion per se (only on dissidents who happened to be religious).



3. "American conservatism is an intensely democratic ideology"

- "democratic" in what sense? conservatism is in practice & theory dedicated to conserving existing hierarchies, properties, & the ideologies which justify them.


4. "Conservatives are generally considered slow to change or embrace the modern."

- which conservatives are those? groups & individuals espousing conservative philosophies are quick to embrace modernism when it makes them a buck. Supporters of fascism included some of the biggest industrialists & modernizers of italy & germany.


5. "The fact that fascists had an inherently racist worldview"

- More so in Germany than Italy. There is nothing *inherently* racist in fascist ideology; "nation" need not be constructed racially.

[MellowDem]

96. Communists were the main competing ideology of fascists...

"A key distinguishing feature of fascism is that it uses a rightist mass movement to attack the organizations of the working class: parties of the left and trade unions. This strategy is variously called Corporatism, Corporativism, or the Corporative State <2>, all terms that refer to state action to partner with key business leaders, often in ways chosen to minimize the power of labor unions. Mussolini, for example, capitalized on fear of an imminent Socialist revolution <3>, finding ways to unite Labor and Capital, to Labor's ultimate detriment. In 1926 he created the National Council of Corporations, divided into guilds of employers and employees, tasked with managing 22 sectors of the economy. The guilds subsumed both labor unions and management, but were heavily weighted in favor of the corporations and their owners. The moneyed classes in return helped him change the country's laws to raise his stature from a coalition leader to a supreme commander. The movement was supported by small capitalists, low-level bureaucrats, and the middle classes, who had all felt threatened by the rise in power of the Socialists. Fascism also met with great success in rural areas, especially among farmers, peasants, and in the city, the lumpenproletariat."

- Whether creating a socialist economy from the left or the right, the economy was still socialist in terms of government control of it for the good of the state. The state had ultimate authority, not corporations. The fear of Communists was a government controlled by corporations. The fear of fascists was a government controlled by labor. However, fascism itself was not controlled by corporations, nor Communism by labor. They were both controlled by authoritarian governments who directed the resources generated for the good of the state. Whether the authoritarian governments enlisted the right or the left to achieve power, the end result was the same. Capitalism and corporations themselves have goals that will often conflict with what is good for society, not to mention an authoritarian government that deems itself to be carrying out what is best for the state. When the US ordered Ford to retool its factories to make instruments of war, was that socialism or capitalism? It's pretty obvious. Plus, you need to look up what corporatism is, because it is not what you are defining it as.

Contrafactual to actual historical fact. Both mussolini & hitler collaborated with religious leaders & used religion to consolidate power. there was no crackdown on religion per se (only on dissidents who happened to be religious).

- Using religion doesn't mean fascism was in any way a religious ideology. Just as using corporations doesn't mean that it was controlled by corporations or advocates the control of government by corporations.

"democratic" in what sense? conservatism is in practice & theory dedicated to conserving existing hierarchies, properties, & the ideologies which justify them.

- American conservatism is the product of a democratic government and is different from the generic idea of "conservatism".

which conservatives are those? groups & individuals espousing conservative philosophies are quick to embrace modernism when it makes them a buck. Supporters of fascism included some of the biggest industrialists & modernizers of italy & germany.

- Many of them, at least the rank and file. Sure, there are those business interests who will use anything to further their interests, but I suppose I'm referring to the cultural "base" of the conservative movement.

More so in Germany than Italy. There is nothing *inherently* racist in fascist ideology; "nation" need not be constructed racially.

- I agree, but many believe fascism is inherently racist because the fascists of history by and large were. Of course, fascism does not have to be racist at all. It is however one defines the "nation", whether through ethnicity or race or just people living within a certain made up border.

[Enthusiast]

62. Taken right out of the right wing handbook.

"Rank and file conservatives are all about individual liberties and freedoms"

And what a load of horseshit.

These Rank and file conservatives are up in arms about Muslims building a community center on their own property-not freedom. They want to impose their specific Christian prayer on public school children-not freedom. They want to teach a distorted version of history that elevates their particular heroes far above their actual contributions-hijacking history is not about freedom. They embraced the Citizens United SCOTUS decision, a decision that will do the very opposite of promoting INDIVIDUAL liberty. I could go on and on but we all know what you call American conservatism is the closest to the fascist ideology we have faced since WWII.

Why are you intentionally injecting this into our conversation? We get enough of Limbaugh telling us that the Nazi were left wing socialists.

[MellowDem]

97. I am just expressing their views...

not what I think of them. I fully agree with you. American conservatism has a lot of contradictions in it. They want their religion in government while also wanting individual freedom above all else.

[RaleighNCDUer]

80. I wish I knew what your agenda here is.

You are a very good writer - as most all propagandists are - and just skimming through what you say makes sense. But...

1. Strawman. We are talking about the rising fascism embodied in the teaparty movement, and your first bullet point takes us away from the movement and into poorly defined economic policies. Again, you posit fascism being socialist because of the misnomer 'national socialism' when in truth what national socialism meant was the people and workers (socialism) working nor for themselves but for the nation which is not "however that is defined" but in the context of national socialist Germany a very specific authoritarian militaristic government' As pointed out many times here, there is, and was, a big difference between the german socialists and the german national socialists. That difference was the socialists are all about empowering the people, not the nation - which is why socialism is an international movement, not a nationalist movement. "The Internationale" is not just a nice tune.

To re-iterate: strawman. You change the subject to a warped view of socialism and attack THAT, not fascism.

2. Religion. Now, I never studied rhetoric and the types of argument, but I don't need to, to see what you are doing here. Yes, there is a small but powerful theocratic element in the teaparty movement, and you use this to argue they are not fascists because fascism is a secular ideology. I don't REALLY need to go to all the quotes of Hitler spouting religiouos imagery, do I? You can hardly have the "god is on our side" argument if you publicly disavow god, can you? The reality is, this is wrong on TWO fronts - 1: fascists have absolutely no problem with co-opting religion to bring in the sheeple, and 2: those who are really into theocracy are NOT interested in religion, but in power, and are, therefore, perfect allies for the fascists. The Nazis used the church, even allied with factions of the Catholic church, to further their cause, and that in no way kept them from throwing thousands of priests into concentration camps.

3. Authoritarianism. "Rank and file conservatives are all about individual liberties and freedoms, even to the point of putting those freedoms before the interests of society at large sometimes." That is a statement about libertarians, not conservatives. It is a versiion of the strawman argument, where you misidentify the subject then make your case based on that misidentification. The conservative worship of the police, the military, of governmental authority is one of the divides between the conservatives and libertarians, and is, at the same time, one point where they are joined at the hip - nothing for social programs, everything for the military. The tensiions between the libertarians and conservatives is over the libertarians' nothing for anybody. If your statement is correct, why are conservatives against womens right to choose, against drugs, against peoples' right to organize in unions?

4. The modern and technology. Nonsense. Conservatives are resistant to new ideas, not to new technologies. If you are using the communications sector for your example (which you very cleverly did not define) it 'sounds' right, but that is only because the conservatives want control over communication - they don't want the people empowered by easy communication through the internet and all the new devices that connect with it. They are not against the technology, only against it's inherently democratic applications. They want to control it. Other technology: ever hear conservatives railing against CAT scans? What are their arguments against high speed rail? It's not the extreme use of eminent domain to create the rail corridors; it's the fact that they can't figure out how THEY can profit from it. The "modern and technology" argument is just a distraction.

5. Nationalism. This is one place where even you cannot deny a match-up, but even here you posit a fallacy in an attempt to weaken the comparison: The fascists, you claim, are all scientific and future oriented (I wonder how the thousands of German scientists who fled Germany in the 30s feel about that), and conservatives look to a "golden age" in the past. Naziism was DEVOTED to a mythical golden age of Aryan supremacy - they were descendents of Atlantis, and Hitler had teams of archeologists (those are scientists, you know) out searching for proof of their golden age myth. American conservatives likewise look to a golden age myth, when wealthy white males controlled everything.

You would to well to remember, the conservatives in Germany looked down upon the Nazis, and invited them into their conservative coalition because they thought they could use them - and all the while the Nazis were using the conservatives. With each side 'using' the other, is it a stretch to make a connection between conservatives and fascists?

[MellowDem]

100. No "agenda", I just am interested in politics...

and pretty passionate about my liberal views.

1. Strawman. We are talking about the rising fascism embodied in the teaparty movement, and your first bullet point takes us away from the movement and into poorly defined economic policies. Again, you posit fascism being socialist because of the misnomer 'national socialism' when in truth what national socialism meant was the people and workers (socialism) working nor for themselves but for the nation which is not "however that is defined" but in the context of national socialist Germany a very specific authoritarian militaristic government' As pointed out many times here, there is, and was, a big difference between the german socialists and the german national socialists. That difference was the socialists are all about empowering the people, not the nation - which is why socialism is an international movement, not a nationalist movement. "The Internationale" is not just a nice tune.

I am addressing where American conservatism and fascism are different, IMHO, which I don't think is a strawman. I agree that there are many different forms of socialism and that they can have different goals. But the economy was socialist in the sense that government ultimately controlled the economy, not private interests. That seems to be a big sticking point for many conservatives, who are all about less government and more power for private interests.

2. Religion. Now, I never studied rhetoric and the types of argument, but I don't need to, to see what you are doing here. Yes, there is a small but powerful theocratic element in the teaparty movement, and you use this to argue they are not fascists because fascism is a secular ideology. I don't REALLY need to go to all the quotes of Hitler spouting religiouos imagery, do I? You can hardly have the "god is on our side" argument if you publicly disavow god, can you? The reality is, this is wrong on TWO fronts - 1: fascists have absolutely no problem with co-opting religion to bring in the sheeple, and 2: those who are really into theocracy are NOT interested in religion, but in power, and are, therefore, perfect allies for the fascists. The Nazis used the church, even allied with factions of the Catholic church, to further their cause, and that in no way kept them from throwing thousands of priests into concentration camps.

Being willing to co-opt religion doesn't make an ideology religious. I think your ideas of theocracy are of the cynical nature, in that the leaders of such movements likely are only concerned with power. I agree with you to a degree, but as an ideology, and the many followers that allow such leaders to run a theocracy, there are quite a few "true believers". The supporters of the conservative movement are true believers by and large; whether or not the leaders are is beside the point.

3. Authoritarianism. "Rank and file conservatives are all about individual liberties and freedoms, even to the point of putting those freedoms before the interests of society at large sometimes." That is a statement about libertarians, not conservatives. It is a versiion of the strawman argument, where you misidentify the subject then make your case based on that misidentification. The conservative worship of the police, the military, of governmental authority is one of the divides between the conservatives and libertarians, and is, at the same time, one point where they are joined at the hip - nothing for social programs, everything for the military. The tensiions between the libertarians and conservatives is over the libertarians' nothing for anybody. If your statement is correct, why are conservatives against womens right to choose, against drugs, against peoples' right to organize in unions?

Well, I suppose the problem is defining American conservatism to the satisfaction of everyone, which is impossible. Libertarians, by and large, are a part of the conservative movement as far as I can tell, and a big part of the tea-party movement. That is why I defined American conservatism in terms of a democratic ideology, because it has so many different and often competing interests and ideologies within it. In terms of economics however, both seem to be for less government. Conservatives, as far as I can tell, don't really care that much about unions as opposed to things like abortion and gay marriage or traditional values. Their opposition to unions may be that they see it as another form of control over the individual. I can't claim that conservative ideology is in any way coherent. They have been co-opted by many different movements for many different purposes after all. I don't deny that conservatives are split in many ways, but yet they still stick together, at least so far, fairly well when voting.

4. The modern and technology. Nonsense. Conservatives are resistant to new ideas, not to new technologies. If you are using the communications sector for your example (which you very cleverly did not define) it 'sounds' right, but that is only because the conservatives want control over communication - they don't want the people empowered by easy communication through the internet and all the new devices that connect with it. They are not against the technology, only against it's inherently democratic applications. They want to control it. Other technology: ever hear conservatives railing against CAT scans? What are their arguments against high speed rail? It's not the extreme use of eminent domain to create the rail corridors; it's the fact that they can't figure out how THEY can profit from it. The "modern and technology" argument is just a distraction.

Once again, kind of an idea of the rank and file vs. the leaders of the movement. New technology is weighed first against how it will effect tradition and "family values" rather than is it good for society among the rank and file conservatives. Indeed, the "degradation" of American youth is often blamed on new technology. Sexting, the internet porn, meda technology in general. Fascists would never put concern for "family values" before the state, because they are one and the same in a sense. And their concern for morality in the religious sense was not nearly as great.

5. Nationalism. This is one place where even you cannot deny a match-up, but even here you posit a fallacy in an attempt to weaken the comparison: The fascists, you claim, are all scientific and future oriented (I wonder how the thousands of German scientists who fled Germany in the 30s feel about that), and conservatives look to a "golden age" in the past. Naziism was DEVOTED to a mythical golden age of Aryan supremacy - they were descendents of Atlantis, and Hitler had teams of archeologists (those are scientists, you know) out searching for proof of their golden age myth. American conservatives likewise look to a golden age myth, when wealthy white males controlled everything.

But even you admit that fascism's own idea of a golden age was based on "scientific fact". The idea was that it had to be proven by scientists. Scientists fleeing has more to do with the inhumanity of Nazi Germany than that fascists didn't like technology. I still think fascist's were much more forward looking in creating a new utopian society. There are important details and differences in their ideas of what makes the "nation" or a "real American" as Palin puts it.

I do agree that conservatism is changing, and the base to which conservatives have always pandered to gain political control may now indeed be taking over the party for themselves.

[OrwellwasRight]

103. Hmm.

"But the economy was socialist in the sense that government ultimately controlled the economy, not private interests. "

Do you have any understanding of what socialism even is??? The idea is that private owners should not take advantage of the bulk of the population--the workers--by paying them as little as possible and keeping the bulk of the fruit of their labors. Instead, the labor that creates the value should share equally in the profits. That is why those who care more about property than people decry lefties for wanting to "spread the wealth" or "share the wealth." There was no sharing the fascist governments. There was certainly public-private (aka government-corporate) collaboration and cooperation, lots of greed, and lots of accumulation of wealth in private hands. So long as the private owners cooperated with the fascist state when and where needed, they were free to abuse workers (and enslave them in Germany's case) and accumulate their own wealth for private use as they saw fit. Government power does not equal socialism. Regardless of how you "feel" about it, equating the two is not correct.

"But even you admit that fascism's own idea of a golden age was based on "scientific fact". "

The poster never said this. The mythical golden age of Aryan supremacy is exactly that---a myth, not scientific fact. Certain German fascists may have used the pseudo-science of Eugenics to bolster and support their "master race" theories, but the master race theories would have existed with or without pseudo-science to back them up. The idea is that there is a mythical golden past in which everything was perfect and that the country would do best to return to. That is a key part, to one degree or another, of all right wing ideologies, from conservatism to Fascism. It is distinguishable from left-wing ideologies from liberalism to communism, which think we can do better than the past and try new ideas instead of returning to old.

Americans are certainly ripe for a Fascist movement, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least bit were a full-fledged Fascist movement to arise of the economy continues the way it is. The left is certainly not currently offering an alternative that is attractive and compelling to the disaffected populace. We must do better.

[MellowDem]

128. Socialism has many different definitions and types...

"Do you have any understanding of what socialism even is??? The idea is that private owners should not take advantage of the bulk of the population--the workers--by paying them as little as possible and keeping the bulk of the fruit of their labors. Instead, the labor that creates the value should share equally in the profits. That is why those who care more about property than people decry lefties for wanting to "spread the wealth" or "share the wealth." There was no sharing the fascist governments. There was certainly public-private (aka government-corporate) collaboration and cooperation, lots of greed, and lots of accumulation of wealth in private hands. So long as the private owners cooperated with the fascist state when and where needed, they were free to abuse workers (and enslave them in Germany's case) and accumulate their own wealth for private use as they saw fit. Government power does not equal socialism. Regardless of how you "feel" about it, equating the two is not correct."

I do have an understanding of socialism, which might be different from your own. We might as well start with a general definition from wikipedia:

"Socialism is an economic and political theory advocating public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources.<1><2><3>"

Fascism is just a political theory. It is not an economic theory, unlike socialism, which is both. Therefore, fascists had to have some sort of economy that really may have little to do with fascist ideology per se. There is no agreed upon fascist economic theory. Fascists did claim they had a third way, between communism and liberal capitalism, and some tried this economic policy, but really in a way the third way is just a mixture of the two other ways. Hence the elements of socialism in their economies, as well as capitalism. The truth is that fascists used whatever economic theory they thought would help them the most politically. To the extent that they thought of the economy, it was that once there was a cultural reawakening, wealth would naturally follow. Doesn't make a lot of sense of course, and it also seems to contradict the American conservative view of the economy, which worships the free market as the solver of all ills, not a cultural reawakening.

Going back to the original definition, fascists did, in many respects, advocate the nationalization of certain industries and encourage cooperative management between business and labor for the means of production and allocation of resources. They really did do this. They also still had private interests; they didn't nationalize everything. BUT, those private interests had to prove they were somehow benefitting the state, something which liberal capitalism does not in any way do. While fascists disagreed with some elements of socialism, in other ways they agreed. For example, fascists believed there should be inequality in an economy, yet felt that the state comes first before private interests. One is abhorrant to socialism, the other conducive to it.

Personally, I can not see American conservatives agreeing with most aspects of fascist economies, all of which used aspects of socialism. Nor do I see the similiarties at all. American conservatives support full-fledged liberal capitalism, whereas fascists were opposed to it. And the idea of the state before the individual, especially in terms of the economy, sickens American conservaties. They believe in social darwinism on an individual level, not on a national level, like the fascists did. American conservatives don't want to have to answer for the mistakes of others or even be bothered with helping others, but rise and fall on their own, as an individual. You could say that the bank bailouts were fascist in nature in that it privatized profit while making loss public. That is, by making the nation as a whole dependant on the success of private interests. In this way, when private interests do well, the state does well, and when private interests fail, the state fails. Of course, the government did require the banks to pay back the loans, which kind of cuts against that argument, but nonetheless, the conservatives were insanely opposed to it. They wanted to let the banks fail individually, which is in keeping with conservative ideology and not in keeping with fascism. Not to mention, the main point behind the bailouts was not to save private interests but to save the US economy, which has become beholden to a couple monolithic banks. But I'm just trying to make an analogy of sorts.

IMHO, fascism and communism won't be coming back. Both are completely failed ideologies based on unworkable utopian dogmas. Yet somehow in the US, Communism or Fascism are always on the rise, always gaining steam among the other side. It's hard for me to take seriously. American conservatism is its own unique ideology and one that I personally believe is quite dangerous in its own right, and for different reasons than fascism.

[Hannah Bell]

115. government control of the economy isn't socialism or socialist.

and please tell me the name of one government that couldn't be said to "control the economy" in some fashion.

including our present government. but it controls on behalf of the rich & the ruling class, not the majority.

[MellowDem]

123. Government control of aspects of the economy is socialism to me...

there are many different forms of socialism. And yes, the American economy is a mixed system. We are all socialists to some degree. And yes, pretty much every nation (I can't really think of one that doesn't) has elements of socialism in their government makeup and economy. And being as that is the case, it's not too far of a stretch to see how fascist governments did indeed have elements of socialism in the way they ran their economies, more so than America does now in my opinion.

I am NOT trying to say socialism is bad or evil or inherent to fascism alone, but I am saying that the right's rather idiotic fear of everything socialist in any way doesn't match up with the fact that fascists promoted certain aspects of socialism, if indeed the right in this country are fascists.

[OrwellwasRight]

101. Great response!!

:-)

[Hannah Bell]

49. in what sense is it not fascism?

[Enthusiast]

61. Check a little closer. nt

[hobbit709]

68. If it has feathers like a duck, quacks like a duck,

waddles like a duck and swims like a duck, it's either a duck or a closely related waterfowl.

[RaleighNCDUer]

72. For your edification.

http://forums.firingsquad.com/t5/Political-Corner/12-Warning-Signs-of-Fascism/m-p/44553

[OrwellwasRight]

74. Great link.

Thanks for sharing. I am not sure why MellowDem is so defensive of American conservatives. Has he met any?

[mmonk]

95. It is nascent fascism. It has as its weapon, eliminationist speech.

At the core of its belief system, it is anti-left. Ignore it at your own peril.

[Odin2005]

117. The Teabaggers talk like Libertarians but ACT like fascists.

[Dystopian]

34. KandR.

Bears repeating indeed.


peace~

[Scurrilous]

35. K & R

:thumbsup:

[David Zephyr]

39. K&R. And it's here.

.

[krispos42]

40. 14 Characteristics of Fascism

14 Points of fascism: The warning signs

1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism: Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights: Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4.) Supremacy of the Military: Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5.) Rampant Sexism: The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6.) Controlled Mass Media: Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7.) Obsession with National Security: Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses

8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined: Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9.) Corporate Power is Protected: The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10.) Labor Power is Suppressed: Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts: Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment: Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations

13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption: Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

[Axle_techie]

42. I find it ironic how many liberal people

use Christians as scapegoats, like republicans use Muslims. I see Republicans called bigots constantly due to their references to, attitude towards, and hatred of Islam, yet as a Christian who is nowhere near like the ones portrayed by so many, I am subjected to basically the same sort of attitude.

If I said that when fascism comes to America it will be building a mosque and carrying a Quran, I would get jumped. Seems a bit hypocritical... Just saying.

[eShirl]

53. any religion can be used as a tool of control

[Enthusiast]

63. You are missing the whole point. nt

[elocs]

64. Here at DU, trashing Islam is a no-no while trashing Christianity is a popular sport.

There is nearly as much venom here concerning Christianity as the right wingers have for Islam as Christians are lumped together the way that Muslims are by the other side.

[martymar64]

66. We are not a nation with a majority of Muslims so that statement would be ridiculous.

Just as using Mr Lewis's statement would be ridiculous if applied to a Muslim country, like Egypt or Indonesia.

Think your analogy through a little more.

[hobbit709]

67. There are Christians and there are loudmouthed self-proclaimed "Christians'

who want to ram their particular version down everyone's throats.

In my experience the more someone goes on about how a good Christian they are, the less likely they really live the words of the carpenter turned rabbi.

[Axle_techie]

76. I definitely agree

[wookie72]

79. As a fellow Christian (sort of) I disagree

It's up to us to reclaim Christianity for what it is.

The reason I don't fear Islamofacism is because it's just not that bloody likely to take over. There are *two* Muslims in Congress, and they are fairly moderate. And they just don't have the sheer number of people to do it.

I realize that Nazi analogies are always dangerous, but it would really be like fearing the minority of German Jews rather than the vast majority of Christian German nationalists.

[RaleighNCDUer]

86. The quote is "When fascism comes to America...."

America is an overwhelmingly majority christian country, and the hot buttons for most Americans are religion and patriotism - as you might have noticed over the past few years.

It is not a statement about christianity, but about the issues which generate stupid, unthinking responses which can be manipulated.

[Axle_techie]

87. I can respect that I guess

[OrwellwasRight]

106. Because a hated minority couldn't make America Fascist.

It doesn't work that way--it has to come from a respected majority.

Fascism will cloak itself in the paraphernalia of patriotism, and use the majority religion (Christianity) to get people to do its bidding (when being a good Christian becomes ousting, ostracizing, and then arresting those who are not "good Christians," we will have overthrown democracy and become Fascist). You have missed the point of the quote. The quote is not that Christians are Fascists, but that, in America, Fascists will use Christianity and Patriotism (two otherwise either admirable or at least benign concepts) to achieve their aims. In another country, Fascists might use other tools, but in America, they will use the ripe tools of Patriotism and Christianity. An accepting, heterogeneous, interfaith society is the best and only defense.

[Axle_techie]

111. That makes more sense

[pam4water]

52. Can I get another Amen? There's a flag wrapped around a score of men!

.
.
.
Another protester has crossed the line (Hey!)
To find, the money's on the other side!


Can I get another Amen? (Amen!)
There's a flag wrapped around a score of men (Hey!)
.
.
.
-- Green Day "Holiday" - Lyrics.

[Enthusiast]

65. Today's American conservative movement,

including their massive propaganda machine, is precisely fascism.

Do not listen to arguments to the contrary. Of course they want to hide their true nature so they employ DU posters to sow doubt in the minds of the uninformed on DU. And they try to dress their ideology up in patriotism and religion. I hope we can see through their masquerade.

[wookie72]

77. One of my Mom's professors had a similar line

"When fascism comes to America it will appear as anti-fascism." Which ties in perfectly with the "Obama=Hitler," "Islamofascism" nonsense.

[wookie72]

78. At this point, would anybody else welcome a Chinese takeover?

They'd probably let us keep most of our stuff.

[pleah]

88. K&R

[av8rdave]

99. Credit to my daughter's college:

"It Can't Happen Here" is required reading in one of the core classes.

[Skidmore]

102. That's the way it brought the Third Reich to Germany.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sam sarrha]

110. carried by the CEO of a Multinational Corporation of the Military Industrial Complex

:patriot: