Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Wrong, and I will prove it.
- Repeal of titles of nobility
- A minimum wage
- End of the draft.
- Forcing landowners to cultivate their lands or have them expropriated .
- A large progressive tax on capital that would amount to a one-time partial expropriation of all riches.
That seems pretty economically fair and equal to me. |
The definition of fascism remains the same, regardless of rare exceptions. First of all, repealing titles of nobility is common sense, as they are unneeded unless you live in a kingdom. A minimum wage in a fascist state is not forced onto corporations, it is done in conjunction with corporations, so its not left-wing. Are you talking about the end of the military draft, because mandatory military service was only abolished in italy a few years ago. I can't speak to the large progressive tax on capital, I don't know the details on it. Given that there was a huge military build-up at the time, it was probably used on the military and not redistributed for "economic fairness" reasons.
When Spain converted to fascism, Franco gave land expropriated by the socialist government back to rich land owners, so suggesting that all fascist governments expropriate things to bring about economic equality is just dead wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Some more - The creation of various government bodies run by the workers.
- Reform of the old-age and pension system and the establishment of age limits for hazardous work.
- The nationalization of all arms and explosives industries.
|
Nationalization of arms industry is right-wing. Its a protectionist measure to ensure that when a war comes, arms companies are run by you for your own interests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
So the left wing believes in small government and life, liberty, and property rights for all citizens?
|
You make the mistake that statism is exlusively left-wing. Its not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Morality in the Nietzscheian sense is not morality, it is simply the "will to power" nonsense and what not.
Fascism requires unswerving loyalty to the state. Anything that gives connections between people and not to the state is bad, and must go. Families were ripped apart by the Hitler Youth movement when parents could not talk freely in their own homes because their loyal children would turn them in. Sounds like a big emphasis on the family to me, as a tool of the state maybe.
Once again, fascism requires unswerving loyalty to the state. Any other institutions that take away loyalty from the state are bad, and must go. However, the pragmatic decision made by Mussolini and Hitler was to use religion as a tool to subjugate people to the state, while reducing and ultimately destroying religion. Hitler used an analogy about how he would destroy Christianity. He would do it like railroad bridges were replaced. You would add a new bolt here and there, and replace old beams with new ones. Eventually you would have an entirely new structure and no one would notice.
|
Exactly, religion was a tool. Franco ruled Spain from 1939 to 1975 and Catholicism was never threatened. The Franco government signed a Concordat in 1953 with the Roman Catholic Church which gave it state funding and exempted it from taxes, to help it prosper in Spain. Abortion Clinics were banned and its still very hard to get an abortion in Spain. The government was pro-life, consistant with right-wing governments in the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
The values fascism held were those of ancient Rome for the Italians and German paganist Teutonic traditions for Germany. They despised the traditional values of capitalist, bourgeois society and sought to overthrow these values. You could say that Communism supports the traditional values held in prehistoric times where all property in a tribe or family was communal, but it wouldn't make any sense.
|
They were against capitalism, but they were for corportism, which is a way more right-wing concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Define "left wing" for me.
|
Left-wing is hard to define. Its more a collection of ideologies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Yes it does, but is that right wing? I seem to recall the most liberal president of all time also glorifying the state. FDR was probably the most nationalistic president of all time. He also wanted to use nationalism as a force for good in the country, the same as the fascists.
|
No, they are different. FDR used nationalism to create economic fairness, which is left-wing use of nationalism. Fascists use nationalism to protect cultural values and protect industries from foreign competition, which is a right-wing use of nationalism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Fascism is nationalist socialism. Its nationalist aspect does include the logic that the home state is superior to all other states. This is a trait inherent to right and left, and is not exclusively right wing. The French Revolution was a nationalist movement.
|
True, nationalism is inherent to the right and left, but that doesn't change the fact that it is rarely ever associated with the left. Stop confusing Fascism and Nazism, although they are both right-wing authoratarian regimes, there are key differences between them. Nazism is based on racism, Fascism is not. Nazism glorifies the nation, whereas Fascism glorifies the state. Nazism seeks a New World Order, Fascism at most is imperialist. Nazism has several snydicates controlled by Germans running the whole economy, Fascism has a neutreally controlled economy, so less central planning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Marxism believes that no state is better than another. The Fascists are national socialists and they support "war socialism" or "socialism of the trenches, not of the factories." Both Hitler and Mussolini realized that class consciousness would not lead to a socialist revolution, you needed to use the nationalism of people's to accomplish that. Wilson in the US used this policy during WWI, and then FDR ran on a platform of bringing it back. Today's liberals have a strong Marxist influence, but Marxists are the only ones who can call fascism right wing.
|
For foreign policy, neo-Liberals do have a strong marxist influence. Liberalists and Marxists both believe that war is not natural, that through global cooperation it can be prevented. Hitler and Mussalini believed that war was inevitable, which is the same belief that neo-conservatives (ie. right wingers) hold. Since Liberals can safely call neo-cons right wingers, they can also call Fascists right wingers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
The only right wing qualities that I am aware of were laid out by Locke, Burke, and Smith.
|
For one, scholars like Locke, Smith, and JS Mill are classic liberals. They are more left-wing than right-wing.
Burke, Hobbes, and Maistre, who are conservative scholars, tend to be what I would regard as "right-wing." Some of their ideas can easily be converted into right-wing authoratarianism, which is what Fascism is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Locke held that every human being was entitled to the natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Fascism did not respect the rights of people to life. Fascism did not respect the rights of people to liberty. Fascism did not respect the rights of people to property.
|
Yet Spain, Italy, and Portugal, the fascists banned abortion, because of their connection to Christianity. They had no problem protecting life.
Private property was allowed in fascist states, as I showed using the example of Spain under Franco where they reversed expropriation of privately owned land by the previous socialist government.
Liberty was trampled on, obviously. Fascist states are police states. That doesn't mean left-wingers are the only ones that use coersive force. A right-winger and Fascist like Franco sucessfully used police to crush illegal unions, mass deport immigrants and strictly control immigration, intimidate people who didn't speak Spanish, and arbitrarily arrest people who violated censorship laws or partook in illegal spiritual or cultural activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Burke held that revolutions were bad and that the established order was the best and that violence was wrong. Fascism was a revolutionary movement. Fascism was an overthrow of the established order. Fascism was a very violent movement.
|
Of course all fascist states are violent, they are police states. Thats why no one wants to live in a fascist state or is argueing for one to be created
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Smith held that the free market was the greatest economic system available to society and that the government's only purposes in economics were to protect the country from foreign invasion and to prevent the formation of monopolies. Fascism was an aggressive movement. Fascism was anti-Capitalist. Fascism desired the formation of state run monopolies headed by the laborers.
|
Fascism desired to align the interest between corporations and the government to further bolster the state. Formation of monopolies is not desired, only collusion between the state and corporations was desired to uphold traditional values, and thus bolster the state. They desired laborers to be involved in decision-making, not to "head" the corporations, much less have anything to do with industrial policy. Workers were considered uneducated and stupid, as a result in Fascist Spain their only level of participation was though government endrosed trade union.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
If you have a different definition of right-wing, then please share.
|
If you look at fascist states they are very socially conservative, economically nuetral, and authoritarian in nature. I see no other way to interpret this as "extreme" right wing.