I’ve tried to explain Fascism several times because it is a word used by the left to identify anyone who doesn’t agree with their socialist tendencies. Many people view Fascism as a far-right phenomenon, when it is really based in the far left. Of course, far-left and far-right can often merge in the circle of social beliefs, but Mussolini and Hitler were both Socialists who wanted to distance themselves from Stalin. Mussolini created Fascism, and Hitler liked the idea so much he adopted it as his own. I got an email on this topic from John Ray this morning:
Someone has pointed out to me that this Leftist version of what Fascism is has been much reproduced on the net. It seems to be widely accepted as gospel among Leftists.
Needless to say it is a totally bigoted coverup. The author mentions 14 characteristics of Fascism without including any mention of the fact that it was both socialist and an offshoot of Marxism! What frauds Leftists are. In a way I understand them, though. They desperately need to deny that Fascism was Leftist. It would do them enormous harm if everybody came to realize that ALL the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century were Leftist!
Culturally, we are far from that stage, but getting closer each day. Our politics are driving us that way. The Democrats want to move in the direction of socialism, and the Republicans are moving that way to keep up. Fascism is the only remaining version of Socialism which is considered practical because of the failures of Marxism around the world. But nobody is willing to use that term to describe themselves because of its link to Hitler. France has become a Fascist state. The government controls business and cultural activities and nationalism is very strong, but they would never admit to it. The French are quick to demand others submit to the UN, but have never shown any inclination to do so themselves. Is France what we want to become?
After reading it, I’ve decided that the author sat down and wrote fourteen topics he felt matched his view of conservatives, then explained each. Actually, I found I could do the same with these same major headings for leftists. I might do that later when I get the power supply for my desktop and get it running again.
John’s site has been overloaded, but the links here and here should be available again in the morning.
Many people believe that democracy and socialism are compatible. I don’t think that extreme liberals have ever been able to think through this simple progression:
If a socialist “people’s party” takes power, what does the opposition represent? It is usually only a matter of time before the people who oppose the “people’s party” are viewed by the socialist leadership as representing moneyed elites, people who need to be separated from their wealth and subjected to re-education (or worse). To do otherwise – and suffer electoral defeat – would imply that the “people’s party” does not, in fact, represent the “people.” They must crack down on the opposition.
This is why socialism so frequently gives way to tyranny in the real world.
Liberals never seem to understand this.
It is impossible for a true people’s party to ever suffer an electoral defeat. And socialists insure that they never have to suffer this indignity through a policy of repression.
Comment by John Rogers — July 28, 2004 @ 7:17 pm