Socialist or Fascist?

Good question as it pertains to President Obama. Thomas Sowell takes on the question head on and makes a brilliant point in the process. For a long time I had always had Obama pinned as a collectivist but after 3 1/2 years on the job I am now leaning in a different direction....

It bothers me a little when conservatives call Barack Obama a "socialist." He certainly is an enemy of the free market, and wants politicians and bureaucrats to make the fundamental decisions about the economy. But that does not mean that he wants government ownership of the means of production, which has long been a standard definition of socialism.

Obama always needs a scapegoat... So what does that spell for him?

What President Obama has been pushing for, and moving toward, is more insidious: government control of the economy, while leaving ownership in private hands. That way, politicians get to call the shots but, when their bright ideas lead to disaster, they can always blame those who own businesses in the private sector.

Politically, it is heads-I-win when things go right, and tails-you-lose when things go wrong. This is far preferable, from Obama's point of view, since it gives him a variety of scapegoats for all his failed policies, without having to use President Bush as a scapegoat all the time.

As Sowell states, by owning the means of production the govt would also own the consequences of their actions and the attached accountability when those actions fail. Obama is allergic to accountability for his actions and policies.

So, that leaves Fascist on the table in its true historic context. A couple of notorious fascists were once heralded by the left in their early years. The supporting left only ran for the hills when things got bad in the 1930's

It was in the 1930s, when ugly internal and international actions by Hitler and Mussolini repelled the world, that the left distanced themselves from fascism and its Nazi offshoot -- and verbally transferred these totalitarian dictatorships to the right, saddling their opponents with these pariahs.

The left's vision is not only a vision of the world, but also a vision of themselves, as superior beings pursuing superior ends. In the United States, however, this vision conflicts with a Constitution that begins, "We the People..."

That is why the left has for more than a century been trying to get the Constitution's limitations on government loosened or evaded by judges' new interpretations, based on notions of "a living Constitution" that will take decisions out of the hands of "We the People," and transfer those decisions to our betters.

townhall.com...

Both parties are moving to the right.

The left/right paradigm as it is presented to you is false.

This country doesn't have a "leftist" political party..Despite what your favorite talking head tells you. The policies and politics of this country have been moving steadily to the far right (fascism) for a long time now.

I have been laughing in people's faces for a LONG TIME when they call Obama or any democrat "socialist." Most people in the US have a very skewed understanding of the political spectrum.

It should be pointed out that the "conservative" hero Reagan is the one who allowed the SS fund to mix with the general budget, and Oliver North (under Reagan) came up with the "Council of Governors" policy, which is truly fascist.

History is revealing, too bad most Americans either learn false history, or learn nothing at all.

Fascist. Funny though that the author of the article manages to still blame the left lol.
Obama is not Left

ETA There is no Left in the US only degrees of the Right and even you guys on the right who are beginning to see how far Right Obama is and is going you still are essentially protecting your overlords, Big Business...this is more their fault than Obama's or Romney's or any other politician. This is the direction they have been buying our government to move towards.

reply to post by Kali74


Fascism is rooted in the left always was and always will be. The left runs from fascism when it does not go their way. It's called liberal fascism. Just look to the history of Mussolini.

When World War One began in 1914, Mussolini initially held to the Italian Socialist Party’s antiwar position, but in the following months he switched to a pro-war position which earned him an expulsion from the party. Mussolini sought a means to an end. Mussolini regarded the war as an opportunity to advance leftist revolutionary struggles in Italy and elsewhere. In 1919, the Italian fascist movement was founded and comprised primarily of former Marxists and other radicals from the left.

Great article from LIFE mag regarding Mussolini and Fascism

In the 1930s, the perception of "fascism" (13) in the English-speaking world morphed from an exotic, even chic, Italian novelty (14) into an all-purpose symbol of evil. Under the influence of leftist writers, a view of fascism was disseminated which has remained dominant among intellectuals until today. It goes as follows:

Fascism is capitalism with the mask off. It's a tool of Big Business, which rules through democracy until it feels mortally threatened, then unleashes fascism. Mussolini and Hitler were put into power by Big Business, because Big Business was challenged by the revolutionary working class. (15) We naturally have to explain, then, how fascism can be a mass movement, and one that is neither led nor organized by Big Business. The explanation is that Fascism does it by fiendishly clever use of ritual and symbol. Fascism as an intellectual doctrine is empty of serious content, or alternatively, its content is an incoherent hodge-podge. Fascism's appeal is a matter of emotions rather than ideas. It relies on hymn-singing, flag-waving, and other mummery, which are nothing more than irrational devices employed by the Fascist leaders who have been paid by Big Business to manipulate the masses.

More broadly, fascism may be defined as any totalitarian regime which does not aim at the nationalization of industry but preserves at least nominal private property. The term can even be extended to any dictatorship that has become unfashionable among intellectuals

History REPEATING... see if any of this sounds familiar

Like Lenin, Mussolini was a capable revolutionary who took care of finances. Once he had decided to come out as pro-war, he foresaw that he would lose his income from the Socialist Party. He approached wealthy Italian patriots to get support for Il Popolo d'Italia, but much of the money that came to Mussolini originated covertly from Allied governments who wanted to bring Italy into the war. Similarly, Lenin's Bolsheviks took aid from wealthy backers and from the German government. (43) In both cases, we see a determined group of revolutionaries using their wits to raise money in pursuit of their goals.

Jasper Ridley argues that Mussolini switched because he always "wanted to be on the winning side", and dare not "swim against the tide of public opinion."

web.archive.org...://la-articles.org.uk/fascism.htm

reply to post by jibeho


No it most definitely is not rooted in the left. Socialism is rooted in the left. Fascism is the end-zone dance of Capitalism. Fascism is what Capitalism always aspires to be. Fascist Dictators such as Mussolini using a Left Revolution to attain power does not make Mussolini a Leftist, it makes him a either a traitor or a liar.

I could register myself as a Republican and decide to run for Mayor tomorrow, speak as a Conservative and tell the people I want to shrink government and reduce taxes and take on the Unions and as soon as I'm elected turn right around and raise taxes create new committees and give in to Union demands for wage hikes. Was I ever a Conservative? No I just played the part to get in power.

reply to post by jibeho



Corporatism,and the mix between State and Business will always be the Fascist war cry.

And yes.Obama has clearly mixed it. General Motors,is a Prime example. "Too big to fail",also.

You are also right,on where Mussolini,and his ilk came from.They were leftists.His Hybrid philosophy,mixed with War Mongering,was Fascism. MHO

Its taken years,for the left to mix ideas,and take what they can,out of it.Blend it.Make it their own.

If You really had to classify the American economy it would be quasi capitalist/corporatist. I don't Italy or German are good comparisons. The best comparison, to where our country is headed economically, is china.

China is the perfect modern example of how a corporatist economy works. Basically like Mussolini described, the state and corporate interests working as one. The state doesn't own the means of production and neither do the workers. The US government is itchy to adopt this form of economy.

Also, socialism and fascism are on the same side of the spectrum... It goes like this 1. Communism 2. Socialism 3. Fascism 4. Capitalism modern day 5. 1920s laizze fair America 6. Anarchy

Fascism was always defined academically as a right-wing movement. Of course, in today's modern world anything you don't like is called leftist. How can we even have these conversations when we can't agree on what words mean?

Let us conclude this thread with this truth: Everything evil is leftist.

Originally posted by Kali74

That graph is very interesting and useful but I have an issue with it. It's mixing political systems and economic systems all into one. It's possible to be a socialist monarchy... Where would the fall on the graph.

One must differentiate between political and economic systems. Our Economy resembles corporatism but our Politcal system hasn't drastically veered toward fascism.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by jibeho

 

No it most definitely is not rooted in the left. Socialism is rooted in the left. Fascism is the end-zone dance of Capitalism. Fascism is what Capitalism always aspires to be. Fascist Dictators such as Mussolini using a Left Revolution to attain power does not make Mussolini a Leftist, it makes him a either a traitor or a liar.

Hmmmm.

Well,he was a liar,and a murder. We can always play the the card of he was this,and that,Fascism is this or that,but in the end,it was a failed way of doing things. I understand the frustration of Left and Right. I support freedom. Screw Labels.

Originally posted by Kali74

Thanks Kali, was going to post something similar but you beat me to it.

Both the Nazis and the Italian Fascists called themselves 'socialists' to help their rise to power. This was because at the time socialism was popular among the people who were moving forward with a bunch of fragmented 'workers parties' in both countries, and of course by fooling the common person into believing the government was going to be of the people, by the people, for the people, of course you can see the PR reasoning behind this.

The same thing happened in Soviet Russia, when their government was far from true communism or socialism. The west of course was for capitalism, and was starting down a fascist path already at this time, so of course they allowed the label to stick as they knew it would tarnish the name "socialism" and "communism" for eternity.

Howard Zinn states this much more eloquently, if you care to look him up.

Fascism is DEFINITELY on the RIGHT of the political spectrum. This is what I'm talking about when I say that westerners have a skewed view of the true political spectrum.

A simple google search will give you a good definition of fascism:

fas·cism/ˈfaSHizəm/ Noun:

An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. (in general use)

Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


I don't Americans are confused by the political spectrum at all. The tricky part is the economic spectrum. One government could be "right leaning" like say nazism for sake of argument but have a "left leaning" economic system like socialism. (not that nazis were socialist)

reply to post by sonnny1


I couldn't agree more about labels but unfortunately that is how we navigate and claw through and ultimately how we decide who represents us. Mostly we go with whoever we think doesn't smell as bad as the other guy. We have got to better than this. A lot of us here are increasingly seeing and saying that the left/right doesn't exist or so and so is the same as so and so, it's important to note it but what are we going to do about it? Knowing is not enough it's akin to sitting on our hands so we don't wring them.

reply to post by KnawLick

That graph is very interesting and useful but I have an issue with it. It's mixing political systems and economic systems all into one. It's possible to be a socialist monarchy... Where would the fall on the graph.

Political and economic systems are always entwined, there's no way not to be.

reply to post by TinkerHaus


Wrong! History tells a different story of Fascism. The definition has been rewritten. Read up!! Clearly we are different sides of the table on this issue. I've presented my case...

ETA
It all depends on where you look in your Google Search. Take Webster for example

fas·cism
noun ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-
Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

the rise of Fascism in Europe before World War II
From the first hours of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the propagandists on both sides of the conflict portrayed the struggle in stark, Manichaean language. The totalitarian nature of both regimes made this inevitable. On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution. —Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007

www.merriam-webster.com...

The Right Wing nonsense can be found only where you want to find it... I'll just agree that Fascism was born via a combo of ideologies from both sides of the fence.

reply to post by jibeho


History doesn't tell a different story. What many on the Right have is a pathological need to define every thing that can possibly go wrong with government as being Left. We do have our bad side, Despotic Socialism for one such as Soviet Socialism. You have yours too and it's called Reactionism, Nazism, Nationalism and ultimately Fascism.

I think the clear picture here is stay away from Authoritarianism.

ETA Though I disagree with the OP, this has been a good debate...one of the best I've seen on ATS in a while. I hope it continues.

Originally posted by jibeho
reply to post by TinkerHaus

 

Wrong! History tells a different story of Fascism. The definition has been rewritten. Read up!! Clearly we are different sides of the table on this issue. I've presented my case...

ETA
It all depends on where you look in your Google Search. Take Webster for example

fas·cism
noun ˈfa-ˌshi-zəm also ˈfa-ˌsi-
Definition of FASCISM
1
often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2
: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

the rise of Fascism in Europe before World War II
From the first hours of Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union, the propagandists on both sides of the conflict portrayed the struggle in stark, Manichaean language. The totalitarian nature of both regimes made this inevitable. On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution. —Anne Applebaum, New York Review of Books, 25 Oct. 2007

www.merriam-webster.com...

The Right Wing nonsense can be found only where you want to find it... I'll just agree that Fascism was born via a combo of ideologies from both sides of the fence.

edit on 12-6-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

edit on 12-6-2012 by jibeho because: (no reason given)

I think you are making the mistake of thinking that a "dictatorial leader" equals the left of the spectrum. Authoritarianism can be either left or right, but once you add nationalism and private control of all resources, you are decidedly on the far right of the spectrum.

I agree with you, however, that this was a political philosophy created with ideas from both sides of the spectrum. True facism is most definitely right, however.

Your own link clearly says "On one side stood Hitler, fascism, the myth of German supremacy; on the other side stood Stalin, communism, and the international proletarian revolution."

So if Stalin was a communist, and Hitler was a strong nationalist and fascist, and they were on opposing sides of the spectrum...

These labels are all a form of doublespeak and division.. So if I say something is right or left don't be offended, I don't consider myself right or left but centrist. I am socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I believe in life but also in freedom of choice. I wear a left and a right shoe when I go running, and I'd stumble without either of them. =P

Here are explanations for fascism and socialism...because I don't think you know what they mean.

Fascism

Socialism

FYI, Obama is neither of those

If anything, you could call him corporate sock puppet...

Everyone knows that fascism borrows from socialism and communism so they are all the same complete totalitarian rule by force.

Which is what Obama is fascist: drones over America,ndaa,kill lists,Obama care,czars, and murder, and ultra nationalism.

reply to post by neo96

Which is what Obama is fascist: drones over America,ndaa,kill lists,Obama care,czars, and murder, and ultra nationalism.

All in the name of Capitalism, not Socialism, which equals, not Left.

If Obama were doing these things in the of Socialism we would be looking at Statist Communism. But we're not, Obama is protecting the private owners, the Capitalists.