Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Mussolini did invent fascism. It was his creation. He defined it first with the statement "everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." Later, he gave a more explicit definition that included the point that I gave earlier and more. You can look them up. He took the socialist movement and made it nationalistic. He did not combine it with conservatism at the time. The social conservative climate was one of capitalism and the elite of the golden age. Mussolini despised these conservatives. You fail to understand that fascism is Mussolini's movement. He invented it, he defined it, he was the definition. So to say that he did not fit the definition is to change the definition itself. You also fail to recognize that corporatism is state ownership. You say he supported militarism, which generally had been a right wing pursuit. Does that make Stalin, FDR, Wilson, Castro, Chavez, the Vietcong, the French Revolutionaries, Napoleon, and Kim Jong-Ill of North Korea (which has the highest military budget per capita in the world) all right wingers? It seems your definition falls apart here, while mine is consistent.
|
Just because he said "everything in the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state," doesn't mean that it is by defualt socialism. This is a common mistake people make, that statism somehow equates to socialism. Statism is only a process, the result of statism determines whether or not the process is ultimately left-wing or right-wing. He never said anything about the state having an obligation to abolish poverty, reduce economic injustice, or create a classless society, which is what socialism advocates. Fascist states rarely advocate for any of those things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Mussolini was pure fascist by definition. His definition.
|
He may have been the first to define fascism. That doesn't mean that fascism doesn't evolve, and that new definitions aren't warranted by scholars who have studied it for their whole lives.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Very well. I will explain this. In The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith outlines the principles of capitalism, which include free trade. He had recognized that tariffs and protectionism had generally made all the countries that used them worse off then they would be without them. However, protectionist tariffs do have one valid purpose. This purpose is to help industry develop to the point where it can actually compete in the world market. Without this development of industry, a country would not be able to build its own resources because it would not be profitable. You say that denying access of foreign imperialists from exploiting your resources is a right-wing pursuit? Think about what nation in the world adheres to this the most. Still thinking? Try North Korea, the bastion of a perfected right-wing government of course.
|
Sometimes protectionist tariffs fail to be effective in allowing one to compete. Nationalization or huge subsidies are the only alternative. That doesn't mean that once you are competing, nationalization cannot be reversed or subsidies cannot be diminished.
This is why Hitler, Mussolini, or Franco never made any substancial nationalizations, because they believed that it is a process that should be used selectively where a sector of industry is horribly crippled, or where national security concerns exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
I have gone through labor unions quite thoroughly on this thread. You don't have to read all the posts, just mine. Why Labor Unions Should Be Illegal
And let it be noted that Adam Smith is considered to be one of the three founders of the modern conservative movement in America. Even liberals and Marxists recognize this. The only debate that anyone has is whether or not they are right-wing, which, I would consider them to be. |
He was considered a classical liberal. Clinton and Chretien were liberals, they followed Adam Smiths ideas, and they were responsible for expanding free trade to Mexico.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Yes, he pretty much took control of the church. But it was his life long dream to destroy it, and he probably would have done so if he was not in Italy.
|
Once he saw how religion has a power to unite, he would have reconsidered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
So the extreme right wing is just more authoritarian capitalist free market?
|
No, the extreme right will use rampant government intervention to defend conservative values and national security. The economy would be more controlled, to eliminate foreign influence, but not absolutely controlled like a Communist state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
 THAT IS INSANE. Just like Obama and Clinton support free-trade globally. Let's get one thing straight, conservatives support free trade, extreme conservatives support anarchy because there are no restrictions. Most Islamic countries are fascist. Most are left-wing radical countries. Iran has a radical government. |
Clinton and Obama do support free-trade globally. They are liberals and liberals generally support free trade.
Islamic countries are the most socially conservative places in the world. Theres also an Arab Free Trade Agreement, which works exactly like NAFTA. And unlike NAFTA, its not being threatened to be abolished/renegotiated. If they were so "left-wing," seemingly they would be pluralist, secular, progressive, anti-free trade places. But they are the opposite, they are very right-wing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
The French revolution founded nationalism. No sane person on earth can call the French Revolution right-wing. Your argument is therefore factually erroneous and therefore invalid.
|
I wouldn't call it right-wing. But nationalism is mostly a tool of right-wingers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
These are the Marxists beliefs of the new left, which are farther left than fascism, but fascism is still a left-wing movement.
|
Fascism has no desire for the workers to overthrow the elites. They want the workers and elites to work together in harmony, which is what ended up happening in fascist states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Seems to me that the Iranians and the conservatives in America (which, according to you, have much in common), would not despise one another under this logic. Fascists and Communists competed for the same, working class revolutionary support, and they fought over it because they were violent and militant.
|
They may not despise each other under that logic. But the reason they despise each other now is that the US operated a puppet regime in Iran for many years, just to exploit the oil, and the US is also hindering current attempts for Iran to become a major power in the Middle-East.
Fascists and Communists did compete for the same working class support, because you cannot start any revolution without that support. But fascists reconciled workers and elites, whereas communists massacred elites in great numbers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
You are just refusing to acknowledge that Mussolini invented it, defined it, and embodied it.
|
I am not denying that fact, I am simply broader-minded in my approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Not even Franco did these things. Who was monarch under him, I wonder. What economic system did they have before, what economic system did they have after. What legal system did they have before, what legal system did they have after. The Spanish Civil war was a complete blood bath.
Hitler and Mussolini wanted to get rid of all these things, would you at least admit that they are left wing if you think they are not fascist?
|
Franco left he monarchy in place, but the seat was vacant. I will say there are some left-wing components to their economic and social plans, but in general they are mostly right-wing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Corporations are a capitalist creation. Monopolies are not a capitalist creation. Corporatists and capitalists are opposites. I think you are also under the impression that big business leaders took over the government. Wrong, the state created monopolies in order to control everything. You say that the state only existed to protect national security and culture. Wrong. In Fascism, as Mussolini defined it "everything is in the state, nothing is outside the state, nothing is against the state.
|
No where, even in Mussolini's definition, does it imply that monopolies must exist. All he is suggesting is companies may be indepedently owned, as long as they are owned by Italians and are cooperative with the government.
Even the US, the symbol of capitalism, occassionally does the same thing. It intervened when Dubai Ports tried to buy a port. A huge part of your Republican Party is fixated to national security (like Fascists), and believed national security should trump such deals because they put strategic assets at risk. I guess that means the Republican party is left-wing now, because they stand up for national security?
Now Dubai Ports is considering Canada as an alternative place to own a port, and even though Canada is not a symbol of capitalism, there is no problem or outrage among the Canadian public nor main political parties for a Middle-East company operating a port.
Quote:
Originally Posted by White Fox
Mussolini invented, defined, and embodied fascism.
|
Ideologies already exist, people just have to find them. I have never denied that Mussolini defined and embodied fascism.