Hi Ron. Welcome to the thread. Yes, PI sees the truth in our socialism and what is required for it's enforcement. Therefore, he suffers no "paranoia," just delusions concerning freedom of choice. I can't help noticing that you don't disagree either. Don't feel lonely here, Ron, everone knows I speak the truth on this.

What pinhead thinks Social Security could have survived allowing the citizenry freedom of choice? How about income tax and medicare/medicaid contributions? Universal healthcare requires the same iron-fisted enforcement (fascism) as future universal benefits will, because the masses will never willfully choose to support what's in their best interest. That's why we need a strong ruler like Barack Obama who, supported by a Democrat majority in Washington, has the vision to see what's best for most people.

So the Democrats are the party of the right? I seem to remember them being the party of slavery, segregation, intimidation, racism, and big government corruption.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

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.

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.

You make the mistake that statism is exlusively left-wing. Its not.

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.

They were against capitalism, but they were for corportism, which is a way more right-wing concept.



Left-wing is hard to define. Its more a collection of ideologies.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.


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.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

So the founder and inventor, the very definition of fascism, the tyrannical Mussolini, is a rare exception to fascism?!?! So the very principles that define fascism which I have listed some of here, are not fascist?!?! It seems like a socialist would be considered leftist, but you seem to be defining the right wing as nationalist.

Franco was a pragmatist, even more so than Mussolini. He recognized that the majority of Spaniards did not want expropriation of lands or the destruction of the Catholic Church. He therefore supported them so that he could maintain power.

Nationalization of any industry is left wing. Protectionism is left wing. Free market capitalism is right wing.

How do you define left wing and right wing?

Franco was much more inline with the traditional Catholic values.

So a right wing concept and a far right wing concept are complete and total opposites. I understand now.

Which would included fascism.

Then how are Mussolini and Hitler not left-wingers? And protecting industries from foreign competition is a very left wing concept. Right wingers support the free market and free trade globally.

Left wingers founded nationalism, and they were the most extreme in it.

There are many differences between National Socialism and Fascism, racism being the main difference. But they were both socialist regimes in their essence, and last time I checked that was a left-wing opinion. Communism is essentially international socialism, fascism is national socialism (with small letters).

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.

Neo-conservatives are about as liberal as a person can be without being called left-wingers.

OH MY GOD, I'M A LEFT WINGER. AHHHHHHHHHHHH.....

You seem to be focusing on Franco a lot. Let me remind you that fascism is defined by Mussolini, who was a socialist.

Once again, Franco.

Yes they are violent, but many on the left would have us believe that that is a good thing if it brings a better society to come into being.

Right-wingers are inherently anti-monopoly, and an aligned interest between corporations and the government is a monopoly. Right wingers support free trade. Mussolini knew that the workers could never unite them as a class to overthrow capitalist oppression, so he chose to unite them as a nation to overthrow capitalist oppression. It was, as he called it, "socialism of the trenches." Once again, you focus on Franco.

The Nazis were not socially conservative. The Fascists were not socially conservative. Franco was. None of them were economically neutral by any sense of the word.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

He didn't invent an ideology, he was only the first to adopt it. He just combined the ideas of authoritarianism with conservatism, and some others who followed did the same. Then the Political Scientists defined what it was and then you have fascism. They clearly identified the principles of it and associated it with the extreme right. I am not saying Mussolini fit the definition perfectly, but he favoured corporatism over state-ownership, he was conservative in that he staunchly defended traditional values, and he supported militarism, which generally has been a right-wing pursuit.
Exactly, he adhered to fascism more closely.

Yet right wingers like Alexander Hamilton advocated for protectionism and nationalism in the US. Bolstering economic independence by denying access of foreign imperialists from exploiting your resources is a right-wing pursuit. Even today, right-wingers in the US are generally against the free-movement of labour, which is opposed to what Adam Smith advocates. Italy, Spain, and Germany were simply doing what the US did centuries earlier, protect their industries, although they did it in an undemocratic way. Liberals, like Adam Smith, are the ones that believe in free-trade and liberal immigration, because it supports their idea of global cooperation.

I would just classify them as groups of ideologies with similar core ideas.

Mussolini used Catholicism extensively as well.

No, the more extreme you get in either direction, the left or the right, the more authoritarian you get. Nothing else changes except the amount of government control.

Most left-wingers support free-trade globally as well. Only the extreme left, communists, believe that the means of production must be protected. Look at most Islamic countries, they won't let western products in because of the negative effect it would have on their culture. They are protectionist not because they are scared of competition, but because they are protecting their culture which is what conservatives do. Fascist countries took the same approach, they didn't want imperialist values of other countries to challenge their own. When you limit trade to protect your culture, its a right-wing/conservative approach.

Right-wingers founded nationalism as a way to assert traditional values as national values. Left-wingers believe in multiculturalism, secularism, and progress, beliefs that have nothing to do with nationalism.

Except national socialists despised communists. You think if they had anything in common they would reconcile.

Fascism is defined by political scientists, not Mussolini. Mussolini found a new ideology, basically by combining existing ideologies. Franco ran a much more successful fascist state than Mussolini, so its probably worth noting him.

Its hard to say. Leftist revolutionaries generally destroy all trace of traditional institutions, its a complete overhaul. Fascists are definately revolutionaries, but since they maintain most traditional values and institutions, like religion, the monarchy, the economic system and legal system, its probably less of a blood bath.

And he did overthrown capitalist oppression. But corporations are a capitalist creation, the are the heart of greed, and he never eliminated them. He maintained them because he knew that they could produce more efficiently than the state. The only reason the government remained involved was to protect national security and culture. Thus you also had a nationalization of select sectors.

And you ignore Franco, who has governed much longer than Hitler and Mussolini combined.

I agree the Nazis were not socially conservative. They believed in things like eugenics which were inconsistent with the mandates of the church. Franco and Mussolini were definately socially conservative. They followed the church closely and they resisted changes in culture.

Economically, Spain and Italy were pretty neutral. Germany a little less so. While the Soviet Union was collapsing on itself from socialism in the 1950s - 1970s, Spain was having a booming economy which was on of the best in the world. If it was not neutral, or close to neutral, it would have collapsed in the same way. Yet it didn't.

__________________
"Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." — John Stuart Mill

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.

Mussolini was pure fascist by definition. His definition.

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.

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.

Seems to me like the only difference between Communism and Fascism is whether or not the it is national or international. So why are they on opposite ends of the spectrum. I at least have clear definitions of left and right.

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.

So the extreme right wing is just more authoritarian capitalist free market?

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.

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.

These are the Marxists beliefs of the new left, which are farther left than fascism, but fascism is still a left-wing movement.

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 movements.

You are just refusing to acknowledge that Mussolini invented it, defined it, and embodied it.

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?

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.

Mussolini invented, defined, and embodied fascism.

If you were to read any of Mussolini's books such as Man and Divinity or Jan Hus the Truthful, you would get a pretty accurate idea of what he wanted to do to the church.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro

Last post was to long to respond to everything, so I'll finish here

Spain lightened up its fascism. Italy was not economically neutral, but the culture of the Italians prevented Mussolini from really taking control, a fact that he continually lamented.

__________________

"You are just stuck in a box."

--Zaro