Thoughts on the roots of fascism - and the dangers on the Left (as well as the Right), page 2

posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 09:19 AM

link

a reply to: Theli93

Isnt right wing ideologies main focus about self preservation of ones own people as well as the state or nation, where as the left focuses on said liberties an
freedoms or rights of said people since conservation became an abundance?

“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.” Artistole

Yea facism in general used by both, but I do see it tie in more so with right wing ideologies since it about reestablishing a form of national power an identity. Maybe since both facism an communism stem from socialism without the egalitarianism might be why, dont know why they dont mean the same thing. But then that probably where Stalin shined I guess since he took the farms and opened it to the public...which lead to mass famine later.

Both Hitler an Mussolini took Dawrinism to another level politically and believed the weak should perish since they were trying to be Superman. I'm surprised no one commented on my earlier statement of fascists being wealthy when both Hitler an Mussolini weren't, but they wanted to run the country like a corporation.

Then again, the old adage, you work, you eat might as well be universal I guess.

edit on 23-4-2020 by Specimen88 because: (no reason given)

DanDanDat

posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 01:19 PM

link

originally posted by: Theli93
a reply to: DanDanDat

I'd tend to agree, with one caveat, fascism tends to imply a group.

Look at a fasces, from which the word originates. The bound rods/sticks are stronger than the individual components. Even the idea of "united we stand, divided we fall" is, in concept, what became identified as fascism.

Many court houses and legislatures have images of fasces. It is not always negative, per se, but it can be dangerous, and tends to ideation of superiority as it courts the ideals of pure/direct "democracy" (majority rule).

edit: FWIW, even the original use of the word "faggot" has its origins in fasces.

I agree one fascist person isn't all that scary or problematic; they gain more power as their numbers grow. So yes when we envision the type of fascism that we should worry about it is a group of people not just one person.

Your also right; "united we stand, divided we fall" is a great motto to live by (in my opinion). But in the mind of a fascist it can be detrimental.

Me being a non fascist would proliferate that statement as a suggestion to others that it is a good idea and that I am ready and willing to live by it if they also agree.

For a fascist however they might belive it so strongly that they are willing to eliminate anyone who chooses to disagree.

FellowHuman

posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 01:56 PM

link

a reply to: Specimen88

Yeah to a degree, generally speaking, people are both conservative and liberal, or both right and left leaning. It all comes down to where they are. When someone is in their own place, or in regards to their own things, they will be conservative, because they see it as their own. They want to conserve it, keep it as their's. Now in regards to other peoples things or place, if they want it, they will want that other person to be more open, and "share" it with them.

So when you analyze it from the perspective of self interest, politics/principles are just a projection of these innate animal behaviors and instincts, used to justify their own behavior to other people (and sometimes themselves), to make their behavior seem more sophisticated, refined, from that of a mere animal. So that it is more palatable to others/to the masses for the purposes of persuading them to rally around what they want. But deep down it's all a lie. And they themselves don't even really have a clue why they are saying what they are saying.

So that is why you see people "flip flop," because it's always about "me, me, me, mine, mine, mine."

Of course this is my most cynical analysis of mankind. Maybe there are a few diamonds in the rough as they say. But how long do you wait? Millions of years? Too long!

Theli93

posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 02:52 PM

link

a reply to: Specimen88

originally posted by: Specimen88

Isnt right wing ideologies main focus about self preservation of ones own people as well as the state or nation, where as the left focuses on said liberties an freedoms or rights of said people since conservation became an abundance?

That might depend on what you mean by, "preservation of ones own people."

The first and primary role of any government, regardless of ideology, is the protection of its people.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men..."[/i'] --U.S. Declaration of Independence; July 4, 1776

But this was not a new concept even to the founders, it was long tradition between Kings and their subjects, in precedent.

John Locke considered in his "Second Treatise of Government" (1690), that consent of free individuals to enter into society and establish government for the preservation of their natural rights.

If there was implication that "preservation of ones own people" should have reference to "race", ethnicity, creed, color, gender, or class; I will not deny that societies, and therefore governments, can be formed on such inclinations, but I will not entertain such fanaticism in reference to U.S. government. Rights are rights and equal means equal. There is no room for special allowances, privileges, protections, or exceptions... in any direction.

I will note however, that a government's "own people" are its citizens, not necessarily visitors, or invaders. Whether bound by ancient oaths of fealty or contemporary contract, there is no such bond to the outsider or "alien." And in this matter, all forms of democracy (of which a republic is one) are particularly fragile, because as a democracy ("government by the people") it can be changed and/or dismantled by slow and progressive invasion of foreign cultures hostile to the original ideals, whether they be from theocracies, democracies, or some totalitarian philosophy, really doesn't matter.

In reference to your Aristotle quote:

originally posted by: Specimen88
“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.” Artistole

Keep in mind the era and society in which he lived (300+ years BCE, Greece), let alone his personal biases/inclinations. [ref: Aristotle's views on women]

Today, our more liberal (that is, 'Classical Liberal' - in pursuit of greater Liberty) society, we might more likely render it as:

Active/strong republics give way to passive/weak democracies, and passive/weak democracies give way to tyranny.

originally posted by: Specimen88
Yea facism in general used by both, but I do see it tie in more so with right wing ideologies since it about reestablishing a form of national power an identity.

Really? You didn't witness the activities surrounding the 2016 elections... the threats, vandalism and destruction of private and public property, the beatings, and acts to unlawfully detain people on roadways and to prohibit free speech? You didn't see these actions by self proclaimed "progressive liberal" leftists that were everywhere in the news? These were not peaceful protests. These were fascist acts paralleling those of history.

Don't get me wrong, the Right is not innocent, but when the majority and media endorses and/or excuses such actions as outlined above, the hazard of Fascism is very near, regardless of what the stated goals may be.

Attempting to link the Right to Mussolini simply because of similarity of appearance to past history references is beyond the pale of despicable propaganda. It would be better reserved to the ignorant, and progressive ideologues.

edit on 4/23/2020 by Theli93 because: fix formatting errors only

Breakthestreak

posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 03:23 PM
link

originally posted by: DanDanDat
What makes a Fascist a fascist is not what ideals he believes in. What makes a Fascist a fascist is that he believes so strongly that his ideals are correct that he feels duty bound to impose those ideals on to others for their sake as well as his own by any means necessary.

The ideals themselves are irrelevant; gun control, gun proliferation, theism, atheism, socialism, communism, capitalism, nationalisum, social distancing, freedom to assemble, progressive, conservative, ect, all irrelevant when describing "what makes a Fascist". When a person believes so strongly in any one of these things that they are compelled to impose it on others that's where fascism starts.

And I would have to say I think we in the US are closer to a fascist society than we ever were ... I'm just not sure what set of ideals the new reich will have.

Exactly this

The pathetic argument that “it’s only called fascism if the right-wing does it. When the left does it it’s not called fascism”

“Think how we think or we’ll attack you, marginalise you and silence you and imprison you”.

The left wing today, world wide, is most definitely a fascist movement. Openly touting their intentions to impose their ideology on others because their ideology is ‘the correct one’.

It’s astonishing that we have people on earth who actually believe that just because the first fascist organisation or government just happened to be right-wing , that somehow means that ONLY right-wing groups can be fascist.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

If you use intend to silence political opponents and silence private citizens from opposing your failing ideology, you’re a fascist organisation. Like the dEmocrat party of the United States.
Whose support base (especially on this site) seems to have no issue with eliminating those who disagree with them.
edit on 23 4 2020 by Breakthestreak because: (no reason given)

Theli93

posted on Apr, 23 2020 @ 05:43 PM
link

This seemed apropos to the discussion and may be of interest to some participants.

The quote is from the essay "Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism", written by Frank S. Meyer (a former avowed American communist turned conservative) which was originally published in Modem Age, vol. 4, Fall 1960.

Extremists on one side may be undisturbed by the danger of the recrudescence of authoritarian status society if only it would enforce the doctrines in which they believe. Extremists on the other side may care little what becomes of ultimate values if only political and economic individualism prevails. But both extremes are self-defeating: truth withers when freedom dies, however righteous the authority that kills it; and free individualism uninformed by moral value rots at its core and soon brings about conditions that pave the way for surrender to tyranny.