Fascism is certainly and absolutely horrific, but here, you seem to see stating the obvious as some kind of revelation!
Maybe to you it is?
Fascism, in essence, is nothing more than a COMMAND (government-directed) culture within the framework of a COMMAND (government-run or directed) economy. THAT is "fascism" in a nutshell.
That's why, while both Pinochet and Sukarno were fascists, they pale in comparison to the most notable, brutal and yes, successful fascists of recent history – HITLER, STALIN and MAO.
The ONLY difference between Hitler, Stalin and Mao and fellow fascists like Sukarno and Pinochet, is that the latter saw the abject failure of the command economy all around them and took advice from one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century, Milton Friedman. Dr. Friedman ranks only behind Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises in the pantheon of the 20th Century’s greatest economists. He probably ranks in the top 5, certainly the top 7 of all time.
Because of their taking the advice of “the Chicago School” both Pinochet and Sukarno were able to preside over the ONLY two productive economies ever to exist. Following Friedman’s advice (the SAME advice that Friedman EVERY American Liberal should be proud of – he convinced two fascist tyrants to begrudgingly accept the necessity of the FOUNDATION of ALL freedom, ECONOMIC LIBERTY (the natural right of all who produce to maintain OWNERSHIP and CONTROL over what they produce)...without that foundation, there is no possibility of freedom for the individual.
Your seeking to smear Friedman’s pro-LIBERTY (freedom) ethos by perversely linking it to with the likes of Pinochet and Sukarno (he also met with and delivered the same advice to the then USSR), is as absurd as smearing all anti-tobacco policies because Hitler was the first modern world leader to seek to restrict and prohibit the use of tobacco (he was), OR smearing all environmental policies because Hitler was the first modern world leader to embrace modern environmentalism, elevating nature to a status above man’s (he was), OR tarring all gun policies (even requiring training and proper handling) because Hitler, Mao and Stalin, like almost all tyrants, were reflexive “gun grabbers.”
While reasonable people can disagree on any and all of those issues, they DO deserve to be considered strictly on their merits and not debased by being linked to the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.
Now, as you know, I DO revile Hitler for these disgusting sentiments from May 1st, 1927; "We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." I'm sure you'd agree, I can’t imagine a more vile, misanthropic sentiment one could express than that.
Free people ARE valued according to their productive abilities (what they produce)...so, we are all judged/evaluated according to the amount of wealth and property we possess. For merely expressing these sentiments alone, Hitler proved himself a disgusting tyrant, vigorously opposed to human freedom and dignity. Every word of that quote is antithetical to America’s Founding design.
As far as linking religions to fascism, that’s another inane stretch. Hitler, like Stalin and Mao reviled the Roman Catholic Church and sought to instill an Aryan mythology, built around himself as “the promised father or savior” to replace all other religions in Germany. MOST, if not all fascists seek to install a cult of personality (built around THEMSELVES) as the chosen replacement for religion.
In the BOTH Communist China and the USSR, all religions were barred, EXCEPT for atheism, which is as much a faith-based belief system as any religion and BOTH those regimes exterminated more innocents than Hitler, Pol Pot and the rest of the 20th Century’s despots combined!
Fascism’s primary sin is not mass murder, not by a long shot - post revolutionary France was rife with mass exterminations and that was a pure democracy – no, fascism’s primary sin is that it opposes human freedom/INDIVIDUAL Liberty.
That’s why, in the grand scheme of things, Sukarno (who allegedly killed over ONE MILLION communists) and Pinoched (charged with killing a few thousand) were relatively MINOR tyrants. While they were often as brutal and ruthless and the rest of their ilk, they, for whatever reasons, accepted Milton Friedman’s prescient economic advice, accepted economic liberty (the foundation of ALL other freedoms) and wound up with surprisingly (even to Dr. Friedman, who didn’t think economic liberty could exist absent political freedom) productive economies. In fact, two of the most prosperous economies ever presided over by tyrants. So, the bulk of the citizens in those places, suffered LESS than those in places like the USSR, Cuba, Cambodia, etc.
EVERY ONE of America’s Founder espoused the SAME private property rights and individual liberty (the basic and inalienable right of the producer to control/keep what he/she has produced) and the open or “free” market economy, that the likes of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman did.
Since, as you so often admit, economics is “not your strong suit,” perhaps the easiest way to understand fascism is that it stands primarily against ECONOMIC LIBERTY – the foundation of ALL other freedoms.
Basically, ANYthing that runs counter to what America’s Founders (Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc.) espoused is certainly anti-LIBERTY, which is anti-freedom and probably fascist, as well.
CORRECTION: "Because of their taking the advice of “the Chicago School” both Pinochet and Sukarno were able to preside over the ONLY two productive economies ever to exist within a tyrannical and repressive political system.
JMK,
Sorry but your posts and ideas reflect political illiteracy. There is no other way to characterize someone who believes that Hitler was on the far left. But dont worry, you are not the only one. 95-98% of supporters/voters of the republican party are politically illiterate, and so is the majority of the country. Only 20-30% of voters in this country are politically literate. 70-80% are not.
The fact that Hitler was a true socialist, as his statement proves, is NOT really germain to this discussion.
What is, IS the proper definition of "fascism."
You agree that Hitler, Stalin and Mao, Pinochet, Pol POt and Sukarno were all fascists (you've acknowledged that)....and they were.
FASCISM'S primary sin is that it opposed ECONOMIC LIBERTY, the FOUNDATION of all other freedoms, for if a person does not control/own what he produces then he doesn't and cannot be said to own himself or his own life.
Again, the reason that Dr. Friedman was one of the greatest economists of the 20th Century, is because he delivered a veritable MIRACLE! He got TWO confirmed fascists (Sukarno and Pinochet) to open their economies to ECONOMIC FREEDOM and from that sprang a shckingly vibrant prosperity within two otherwise repressive regimes. That has made him a hero to any open-minded American, ESPECIALLY liberal Americans.
In fact, Sukarno and Pinochet presided over the TWO most productive economies ever to exist under tyrannical despots...thanks, in large measure to their taking the advice given to them by Professor Friedman.
Friedman offered the very same advice to the former USSR at around the same time. They rebuffed that advice to their detriment.
Ironically enough, Russia has taken a good deal of Friedman's advice since the fall of the USSR. Today Russia has a Flat Tax and private ownership of property and that's one of the reasons for its post break-up surge in prosperity. China has also followed suit. See Ted Koppel's The People's Republic of Capitalism.
That'swhy Marxism is today thoroughly and utterly discredited around the world.
Again, the problem is political illiteracy. You talk about Marxism, but I bet you never read Marxism. Have you? Be honest. And when I say read marxism, I dont mean reading interpretations of it by others, I am talking about reading the actual writings/books of Marx and Engels.
Have you heard of the term corporate fascism? That is what China has these days. That is what Pinochet and Friedman represented . The "conservative" ideology of today is simply modern fascism. The evolution of fascism in a modern version.
Actually, I've read and still have Marx's two major "works" - The Communist Manifesto and the longer and more tedious Das Kapital....I was sent back to my mother's family in Corsica for a more specialized education when I was very young. Her family was from Corsica and northern Italy.
Italy had a one of Europe's earliest Communist revolutions. My mother's family not only helped crush that ill-fated revolution, but many of the men later joined the German Friekorps to help crush Germany's later communist uprising. One of my maternal relatives claimed to have been the one to kill Karl Liebknecht and claimed to have witnessed the killing of his cohort in the Spartacist uprising, Rosa Luxemburg. They had a bloodied rifle mounted prominently in their Great Room.
Communism and socialism are merely variants of what you call FASCISM. They are misanthropic and repugnant anti-freedom ethoes that champion the lowest common denominator by seeking to deny the most productive among us their natural ownership rights over what they produce.
As I'm fond of saying, "Do you know what kind of society Marx's "FROM each according to his abilities and TO each according to his needs" gets you?.....A society filled with people with "ten kids and a chronically bad back."
And that is the sad, but undeniable truth about that kind of fascism.
Again, fascism, in essence, is nothing more than a COMMAND (government-directed) culture within the framework of a COMMAND (government-run or directed) economy. THAT is "fascism" in a nutshell.
Hitler's disgusting words, "...we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance,... are utterly FASCISTIC. What's even sicker is that many on both the European and American Left express the SAME kinds of misanthropic and repugnant sentments today!
Those sentiments are why Hitler was a true enemy of freedom and dignity.
EVERY ONE of America’s Founder espoused the SAME private property rights and individual liberty (the basic and inalienable right of the producer to control/keep what he/she has produced) and the open or “free” market economy, that the likes of Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and Milton Friedman did.
FASCISM'S primary and most glaring sin is that it is opposed to ECONOMIC LIBERTY, the FOUNDATION of all other freedoms, for if a person does not control/own what he produces then he doesn't and cannot be said to own himself or his own life.
Anything opposed that basic premise, the same one embraced by both America's Founders and the likes of Milton Friedman, is almost certainly anti-freedom and more often than not, fascist as well.
Well, if you had read these 2 books of Marx, you would have realized that marxism is not a political system, but a financial theory. Calling Marxism fascism is bizarre. It shows you have not read his books. Calling Hitler "socialist" is even more bizarre. It shows complete political illiteracy.
As for your family's history of joining the German Friekorps, you should be ashamed of it, not proud. The German Freikorps were fascist-like paramilitaries that killed people and attempted to overthrow the German government at some point. After their dissolution, most of the Freikorps joined the Nazis. In some ways, the Freikorp movement ultimately resulted in the Nazi one.
"Well, if you had read these 2 books of Marx, you would have realized that marxism is not a political system, but a financial theory. " (BW)
<
<
Your error.
I WAS talking about Marxism as a "failed ECONOMIC" (not "financial," but ECONOMIC) system....Ironically enough, Russia has taken a good deal of Friedman's advice since the fall of the USSR. Today Russia has a Flat Tax and private ownership of property and that's one of the reasons for its post break-up surge in prosperity. China has also followed suit. See Ted Koppel's The People's Republic of Capitalism....That's why Marxism is today thoroughly and utterly discredited around the world."
Let's agree to calling Marxism a failed "economic theory" posited by a failed, pseudo economist .
OK?
As Karl Marx had no formal economics education.
<
<
"Calling Marxism fascism is bizarre." (BW)
<
<
No, it's not. Fascism, correctly defined, is "a COMMAND (government-directed) CULTURE within the framework of a COMMAND (government-run or directed) ECONOMY." As such, fascism has BOTh a political and an economic component, or framework. Maybe you should read a little more.
And THIS disgusting quote, "...we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance,..." is horrifically fascistic in EVERY way. It is malignantly misanthropic, as it stands against basic economic LIBERTY (the NATURAL RIGHT of all producers to own/control what they produce), which is the foundation of ALL other human freedoms.
The fact that some perverts on the Left TODAY herald such sentiments proves such people to be vile fascists at heart.
Apparently your understanding of recent German history is as poor as your understanding of economics (you have said on many occasions that you "know nothing about economics"), so let me help you out here, as well. The Friekorps were set up BY the ruling government in Germany and they successfully defended that government from the communist led "spartacist uprising."
Communism and socialism are both forms of fascism. In fact, the idiotic mantra "FROM each according to his abilities and TO each according to his needs" is as fascistic as Hitler's above quote.
The problem with ideological communism/socialism/Leftism is that absent tryannical despotism, it is powerless to implement its anti-freedom ethic. WHY? Well, primarily because the most productive people and land owners DON'T EVER willingly give up ownership of what's rightfully THEIRS and the vast majority of the less productive harbor no grudges and hold no ill-will toward the more productive, in FACT, most aspire to be more like them.
So, Leftists must resort to political fascism, tyranny and brutality to accomplish those ends (a
No, you go and read about the Freikorps. They were far right militias and after they were dissolved, members of them tried to bring down the German government. Conveniently, you fail to acknowledge that most of them joined the NAZIS.
Now, if your ridiculous theory was correct (Marx was a fascist because of the economic system he proposed), then people like Pinochet are defenders of freedom. In fact, I am convinced that you believe that (although you dont have the courage to open acknowledge it) and that is why you defend the regime of that monster.
Like most right-wing republicans, you have no idea about politics and you keep repeating Fox News slogans, like the "FROM each according to his abilities and TO each according to his needs". That is all that Fox repeats, Limbaugh repeats, semi-psychotic Glenn Beck repeats and you copy. If you read marxism, as you falsely claim, try something more original.
Pinochet was a fascist.
He was a repressive political tyrant, as was Sukarno.
The ONLY thing that differentiated Sukarno and Pinochet from other leading fascists (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.) was their amazing (actually MIRACULOUS) listening to and implementing the freedom-loving advice of Milton Friedman....at least in the economic sphere.
And since ECONOMIC LIBERTY (the NATURAL RIGHT of all producers to OWN/CONTROL what they produce) is the foundation for ALL other freedoms, that was a MIRACLE that ALL freedom-loving people can celebrate.
As a result of Friedman's economic advice, the people of Sukarno's Indonesia and Pinochet's Chile suffered a LOT LESS than those who lived under Stalin's, Mao's, Hitler's and Pol Pot's regimes.
And PLEASE stop labeling other people, whom you either can't debate things with or don't understand their views.
I am a registered Democrat....and have ALWAYS been one.
I share many of Rahm Emmanuel's views and have been ecstatic over his engineering the Democratic Blue Dog (Conservative) Democrat revolution which began in 2006. As a result of Rahm Emmanuel's tactic, Conservative Democrats now comprise over 25% of Congressional Democrats!
Suffice to say, I have been and REMAIN an ardent LIBERTARIAN....especially ECONOMICALLY, since, as I've shown, ALL other freedoms spring from ECONOMIC LIBERTY - the NATURAL RIGHT of the producer to OWN/CONTROL what he produces.
OH YEAH......and "FROM each according...." is NOT a "Fox News slogan," it's the basic and most fundamental tenet of Marxism.
Apparently YOU'VE never read Karl Marx!......Now THAT is hilaroious! You don't even recognize an actual quote from Karl Marx's Manifesto and you challenge others on "probably never having read anything by Karl Marx."
It would be funny, if it weren't so utterly pathetic.
The German Friekorps were initially a volunteer militia that sprung up in the 19th Century. They became more visual and vocal as the key Weimar paramilitary groups active after Germany’s defeat in WW I.
Many German veterans felt disconnected from civilian life, and joined a Freikorps in search of stability within a military structure. Others, angry at their sudden, apparently inexplicable defeat, joined up in an effort to put down Communist uprisings or exact some form of revenge.
They received considerable support from Minister of Defense Gustav Noske, a member of the Social Democratic Party of Germany, who used them to crush the German Revolution and the Marxist Spartacist League. They were also used to defeat the Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919.
DO you understand that?
Germany’s DEMOCRATIC Party, its Social Democrats used the Friekorps to crush the hated Communist revolutionaries immediately after WW I. There was no group in Germany more reviled than the communists at that time.
Try reading some real history BW.
Seriously, I should be charging you for all this "free education" I've given you.
JMK,
Why do you lie? You must have read by now that most of the Freikorp militia eventually became Nazis, but you refuse to acknowledge the truth.
Your response also confirms that you have never read a word of Marxism. I asked you to provide something else original and instead you tried to pretend that I dont know that the the only quote that Fox, Limbaugh and rest keep repeating is Marx's. Do you know anything else of Marx beyond that quote?
"...you keep repeating Fox News slogans, like the "FROM each according to his abilities and TO each according to his needs". ..." (BW)
<
<
<
That's EXACTLY what you said....you called the CENTRAL tenet of Marxism (that is the central tenet of that failed ideology) a "Fox News slogan," implying that some news media group concocted or made that up.
That's ignorance, on your part.
If you actually believed in Marxism you'd never have spent so much time on Barry's blog extolling the market and supporting a regulated market-based economy.
Karl Marx was a failed economist theorist and he was obviously hideously wrong in assessment that human nature could be changed.
Human nature is what it is, but it IS intractable and ineluctable.
At any rate, there are other famous Marx quotes, but none of them make him look any better than his inane central tenet.
For instance, "Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains," moves you? It's both naive and banal.....those workers KNOW that without their WORK, without their jobs, they'd also lose their paychecks, their ability to earn their livings and their daily sustenance.
How about the less well-known, “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” Hmmmm, well, at least that seems to indicate a very healthy skepticism of government. Certainly far more than you’ve ever exhibited. Still, the quote is largely cynical without any substance to back it up. He puts out a statement as though it were “self-evident” when it is anything but.....(Hey! No wonder YOU like him, you like that style, right?)
Now there's more....
....So, I went to the great Walter E Williams, who always comes through when examining the true essence of such people. In 2006 Professor Williams wrote a piece chronicaling the bizarre and hate-filled racial theorizing of both Marx and Engels;
Concerning the annexation of California after the Mexican-American War, Marx wrote: "Without violence nothing is ever accomplished in history." Then he asks, "Is it a misfortune that magnificent California was seized from the lazy Mexicans who did not know what to do with it?"
In a July 1862 letter to Engels, in reference to his socialist political competitor, Ferdinand Lassalle, Marx wrote, ". . . it is now completely clear to me that he, as is proved by his cranial formation and his hair, descends from the Negroes from Egypt, assuming that his mother or grandmother had not interbred with a nigger. Now this union of Judaism and Germanism with a basic Negro substance must produce a peculiar product. The obtrusiveness of the fellow is also nigger-like."
Engels shared much of Marx's racial philosophy. In 1887, Paul Lafargue, who was Marx's son-in-law, was a candidate for a council seat in a Paris district that contained a zoo. Engels claimed that Paul had "one eighth or one twelfth nigger blood." In an April 1887 letter to Paul's wife, Engels wrote, "Being in his quality as a nigger, a degree nearer to the rest of the animal kingdom than the rest of us, he is undoubtedly the most appropriate representative of that district."
Marx concurred with that assessment of his estranged son-in-law. Imagine THAT! A failed economic theorist, a man who couldn't hold down a responsible position, a man who abandoned his wife and children to the streets of England, LOOKING DOWN on someone else because of their ethnicity!? Disgusting, isn't it?
AND...THOSE are your heros?
Two vile and contemptible bigots?! Two failed economic theorists???
BUT again, BW, all this is an attempt by you to avoid acknowledging that with which you cannot argue.
America was founded upon individual LIBERTY and its FOUNDATION economic liberty/"freedom", the natural right of any producer to own/control that which he produces....without that, there is no basis for ANY other freedoms, as without that we do not even own ourselves, or our own lives.
Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and America's other Founders all KNEW that and so do YOU and I.
In your case, you just have to come to admit it to yourself.
Therefor, ANYTHING (any political or economic theory) that opposes that "self-ownership as freedom" model is inherently ANTI-FREEDOM, or "fascist."
The reason you can't argue with that is because you KNOW it to be true.
Consider this, we're not discussing things to "win" an argument, we're discussing things in search of the truth.
Where you've gone off here is in denying a basic truth: the natural right of a producer to own/control that which he produces is the foundation or basis for ALL other freedoms. Without that self-ownership and ownership/possession of what we produce we are not free and to seek other freedoms, we must firsst reclaim ownership over ourselves.
As I said, the reason you can't argue against this is because you know it to be true.
Commenting by HaloScan
