Google Redefines The Word ‘Fascism’ To Smear Conservatives, Protect Liberal Rioters

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Collectivism is socialism/communism.
State is fascism.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
I agree dictionary definitions are not the "classical" definitions, I explained the distinction I was trying to make in my edit above.

You're edit doesn't actually do that. It just debases the google google definition, which is not what I'm going by.

Just because you don't agree with something does not automatically make it propaganda.

I'm pretty sure anti-Axis WWII posters are propaganda even if you agree with them.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Collectivism is socialism/communism.
State is fascism.

I agree with the first sentence, however socialism cannot work without some sort of social interactions, social contracts, social structures, social organization, etc. What you're describing is nothing but anarchy, socialism cannot work without a society, people need to be socially engaged and willing to work as a group rather than as individuals. If the mere existence of a state/government equates to fascism than we're all fascists, so I take that as a very inaccurate way of describing what fascism is.

Like I said before, there is no socialist or communist nation, nor has one ever existed, that has a classless society and a small or non-oppressive government. Exactly the opposite is almost always the case, they are highly centralized dictatorships which invade on every aspect of peoples lives, because socialists tend to believe they have a right to tell other people how to live in the name of "bettering the community".

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
If we're going to talk about left and right ideologies we need to be very clear about what we mean by left and right.

That is what we are doing.

Even Mussolini himself seems to be saying socialism is a leftist thing, and I think we can all agree on that.

Of course.

Therefore, capitalism must be a right wing thing, which I believe we can also agree on. Mussolini claims individualism to be a staple of leftism, yet I know of no other economic system which emphasizes individualism more than capitalism. Competition allows variation to exist and allows us to truly express ourself and take control of our own path, rather than have our path chosen for us.

No, he specifically said "Liberalism always signifying individualism".

Governments which utilize extreme socialist policies will not only control all aspects of the economy, they will control all aspects of peoples lives

Read on and you will see that fascism isn't about that.

a reply to: daskakik

No, he specifically said "Liberalism always signifying individualism".

Yes he did, what is your point?

Read on and you will see that fascism isn't about that.

I await your wisdom with great anticipation.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
Yes he did, what is your point?

You said "Mussolini claims individualism to be a staple of leftism" liberalism isn't leftism so how did you come to that conclusion?

I await your wisdom with great anticipation.

I thought you were reading the The Doctrine of Fascism.

My take on it is that it is really just a confession/assertion on what government has always been. The government can pay lip service to individual freedom all it wants but when it comes down to it, they are the controlling body of a nation.

The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only.

a reply to: daskakik

You said "Mussolini claims individualism to be a staple of leftism" liberalism isn't leftism so how did you come to that conclusion?

Well Mussolini states that fascism is something which tends to the right, saying that it's opposed to "socialism, liberalism, democracy", terms typically associated with the left. However, he's talking about liberalism in the classical sense, in a way that promotes individual rights and freedom much like libertarianism. So he's essentially claiming that individualism is something that falls on the left, along with socialist and democratic ideologies. Why then do most libertarians lean to the right?

The government can pay lip service to individual freedom all it wants but when it comes down to it, they are the controlling body of a nation.

The reality of the situation is this: Mussolini's definition of fascism is now clearly obsolete. If we were to go by his definition then fascism exists the moment governments are created because they require some form of collectivism to function. In fact I think the way Mussolini defines fascism just further strengthens my argument that a fascist government can be left or right, it can occur when any government gets out of control and abuses their power over individuals.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
So he's essentially claiming that individualism is something that falls on the left, along with socialist and democratic ideologies.

No he doesn't. Just because he utters them in the same breath (figuratively) doesn't mean that he claims that they are on the same side of the political spectrum.

The reality of the situation is this: Mussolini's definition of fascism is now clearly obsolete.

That's a bit of a cop out instead of just pushing for the truth, which is that people are misusing the term.

If we were to go by his definition than fascism exists the moments governments are created because they require some form of collectivism to function. In fact I think the way Mussolini defines fascism just further strengthens my argument that a fascist government can be left or right, it can occur when any government gets out of control and abuses their power over individuals.

Fascism wasn't about abuse over the individual. It was about balancing the needs of the state with the rights of the individual. Oversimplifying it to just "oppression" only helps those who wish to use it pejoratively against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Seems to be the popular thing to do.

originally posted by: daskakik

Fascism wasn't about abuse over the individual. It was about balancing the needs of the state with the rights of the individual. Oversimplifying it to just "oppression" only helps those who wish to use it pejoratively against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Seems to be the popular thing to do.

You know how many people fascists killed because they didn't fit in or follow the doctrine? What's next? You claim that didn't happen?

a reply to: daskakik

That's a bit of a cop out instead of just pushing for the truth, which is that people are misusing the term.

No, the fact is the English language changes and evolves. Even though I may not like the modern definition of liberal it doesn't mean I'm going to go around using the term in the classical sense, I will say classical liberal if that's what I mean. The topic at hand here is Google trying to redefine the modern meaning of the word.

Fascism wasn't about abuse over the individual. It was about balancing the needs of the state with the rights of the individual. Oversimplifying it to just "oppression" only helps those who wish to use it pejoratively against anyone who doesn't agree with them. Seems to be the popular thing to do.

Clearly there are several aspects to fascism, I didn't say oppression was the only factor. I'm not trying to use the term "pejoratively", I could just as well say you're trying to prevent it from being used in ways you don't like regardless of whether it fits. I actually just realized Mussolini was a fascist, seems kind of strange considering he knows exactly how totalitarian it is, doesn't sound much to me like he gave a crap about individuals. Here's another good quote from him:

The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.

Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle.

Once again I would like to point out that all socialist governments which attempted to achieve economic equality have never realized a classless society. In fact the only way to achieve such equality is to enforce it with a highly centralized system, you have to force all individuals to abide by very specific civil laws, you have to control all money flow, you have to crush the human spirit and strip nearly all individual liberty from people to create this false utopia that can never be practically achieved. Hence, I find Mussolini's promotion of socialism as the antithesis to fascism to be insidiously misleading.

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: windword

Conservative don't lean to extremes, EVER! They're adverse to change, and extremes call for extreme change!

But wanting to retain ones culture rather than allow radical changes to occur implicitly places one on the right side of the spectrum as far as mainstream pundits are concerned because such people will be against illegal immigration and in favor of strong border protection.

It's true that conservatives tend to lean right, but they will never go to extremes. In the case of your example of immigration, I would argue that most conservatives would not be in favor of deporting their gardener or children's nanny, that they're paying cash, under the table.

a reply to: windword

Never? Uh Nazis were conservatives that went to the extreme.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

The very word "conservative" embodies a conservative's rejection of extremism. Conservatives have found a comfortable niche and don't want their status quo challenged. They'll fight to keep their lifestyle, move politics back to center and avoid change while considering the costs, conservatively.

(In my opinion of "conservativism")

a reply to: windword

Hitler wanted to maintain tradition so that makes him a conservative. But I do understand your point though.

a reply to: windword

Yes, that's why it's silly OP is upset, if he was 'conservative' the definition of 'far-right' wouldn't apply.

The blur of the lines anyone on the Right is conservative is overlooked by the Right. To some being 'conservative' itself means being the most extreme.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: windword

Hitler wanted to maintain tradition so that makes him a conservative. But I do understand your point though.

Hitler appealed to conservative centrists' fear of change, the change that "undesirables" bring, manipulating them to fulfill his extreme agenda. I don't think that Germany had traditions of rounding up Jews, gays and half breed undesirable folks and exterminating them that conservative folks were fighting to maintain.

a reply to: Peeple

All ideologies put into practice have blood on their hands. What next?

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

Whatever.

ETA: All I'm doing is pointing out that Google isn't really redefining the term.

originally posted by: windword
The very word "conservative" embodies a conservative's rejection of extremism.

Conservatives may not want extreme change but they can go to extremes to keep things the same.

a reply to: windword

Are you sure about that? What is the general conservatives' stance on gay people, Muslims, immigration and the undesirables?