This guy is a Far-Right Activist, but this other guy is a Fascist (according to this blue checkmark journalist)

Pavel Mosko said:

I just noticed an article a few minutes ago mentioning how Elon Musk is a "Far Right Activist"

Click to expand...

If some here did the following:

Called for Fauci to be prosecuted;
Retweeted unfounded conspiracy theories about Paul Pelosi;
Retweeted anti-semitic memes;
Promoted pro-Russian/anti-Ukraine talking points;
Retweeted pro-Trump conspiracy theories
Retweeted pro-Bolansaro conspiracy theories
Interacted publicly and approvingly with alt-right media personalities and anti-trans activists
Conflated membership in antifa with pedophilia
Recycled QAnon talking points
Retweeted right wing and alt-right memes about 'woke propaganda', 'cancel culture', 'elites' and various other far right talking points

Would that be enough to get someone labelled a far right activist. Don't you think so?

Pavel Mosko said:

Oh and I forgot, I see lots of people that would fit the term "Far Left", many of them teach at universities. It is funny that only being too right is considered bad, or scary etc. but nobody sees problems in being too progressive.... I guess I blame Trotsky and early Communist Propaganda for this (Spreading the notion that Fascism is a right-wing movement etc. only a communist would see a somebody that wants Socialism lite as being right wing).

Click to expand...

You do realise that someone can be socially progressive, without having any favouritism whatsoever for critiques of capitalisim, right?

And, fascism is a far right movement. It's been defined as such from the get go. It's not even remotely "socialism lite" - Fascism's primary mode of economic management is corporatism.

Here's a basic list of the characteristics of fascist ideologies:

• Ultranationalism
• Dictatorship
• Racism
• Antisemitism
• Single party leadership
• Paramilitarism
• Actual or threatened violence
• Corporatism
• Totalitarian views
• Anti-capitalism
• Anti-socialism
• Anti-communism
• Anti-liberalism
• Anti-parliamentarianism
• Anti-constitutionalism

20th century Fascism developed as an explicitly anti-communist/socialist and anti-left wing movement (most of the intellectual heavy lifting occurred in in Italy, Austria and the Balkans in the 1919 to 1925 period). Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of European inter-war history should understand this.

Gene2memE said:

fascism is a far right movement

Click to expand...

Uh, no. Like it or not, fascism is a form of socialism. Fascism tends to be called far right by those on the left, but that's more of communism and fascism being close family members who can't stand each other. The only difference between the two is a philosophy that doesn't make much difference: Basically, communism holds all things must be held in common by the people, which is also the state, and fascism holds that you can own property as long as that ownership serves the common good, again the state. Both are authoritarian by nature, and both can have each other: they deserve it.

Tuur said:

Like it or not, fascism is a form of socialism.

Click to expand...

Wait - Mussolini was a socialist?

DaisyDay said:

Wait - Mussolini was a socialist?

Click to expand...

Hitler certainly was a socialist.

Tuur said:

Uh, no. Like it or not, fascism is a form of socialism.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and North Korea is a democratic republic. It's right there in the name after-all.

Tuur said:

Fascism tends to be called far right by those on the left, but that's more of communism and fascism being close family members who can't stand each other.

Click to expand...

They're both totalitarian forms of government with a single party state and (typically) a single charismatic leader. They're both anti-democratic and militarist (although for very different reasons). But as far as actual political, social and economic organizing principles go, they're right on the other ends of the spectrum:

Fascism is based around striation of society (the creation of hierarchical elites); communism is based around a classless society
Fascism reinforces the staus quo in terms of class and wealth [it is reactionary]; communism promotes class conflict (early stage) and enforces egalitarianism (late stage) [it is progressive]
Fascism is based around ultranationalism; communism is based on internationalisation
Fascism is based on strong private ownership and capitalist modes of profit accumulation; communism is based on the abolition of private property and the distribution of surplus wealth back to the proletariat
Fascism is based on racial nationalism; communism ignores race (generally) or incorporates transracial ideas in modern formations
Fascism supports and incorporates state-friendly religions; communism abolishes religion (arguably replacing it with worship of the state)
Fascism is patriarchal and promotes 'conservative' family values (the woman as mother, above all); communism rejects traditional gender roles and calls for the abolition of the nuclear family
Fascism restricts women's reproductive rights (bans birth control & abortion, restricts female access to healthcare); communism embraces family planning and expands women's reproductive autonomy
Fascism opposes collective organisation of labour; communism supports collective organisation of labour

I could go on and on and get further into the weeds on this (my masters is in economic history, I spent 5 years at university studying this stuff).

Suffice to say that apart from a few very politically/ideologically driven historians and economic theorists, the OVERWHELMING preponderance of historians and economic/political theorists put fascism on the FAR RIGHT of the left-right political spectrum.

This fascism was socialism meme is maddening. Both in terms of its ignorance of what fascism and socialism actually were, and just how {CENSORED} it is overall. It's a bit like saying:

A car has windows
My house has windows
Therefore, my house is a car

Saucy said:

Hitler certainly was a socialist.

Click to expand...

Only in that Hitler completely re-defined socialism into something was clearly not socialism, and then called himself a socialist.

Calling Hitler a socialist is like me saying "I'm a Christian", but then defining Christianity as the belief that if I worship a cup of coffee every
morning, I will eventually get reincarnated as a small field mouse named Gerald.

From a 1923 interview with Hitler:

Gene2memE said:

Would that be enough to get someone labelled a far right activist. Don't you think so?

Click to expand...

How about "right-wing billionaire"? Not sure he'd qualify as an "activist" unless he leveraged a $44B buyout *just* for promoting his favored politics.

It's not just Communist writers that identified fascism as a right wing ideology in the 1920s and 1930s. French, English and American writers of the same period all identified it as either part of the right or as a 'third way/revolutionary centrist' ideology.

Here's a brief precis of the historiography of Fascism:

Mussolini, in various writings, defines Fascism as explicitly anti-socialist (and anti-liberalist and anti-democratic). From 'The Doctrine of Fascism' (1933):

DaisyDay said:

Wait - Mussolini was a socialist?

Click to expand...

Yep. Journalist, too. Stalin was a poet, and both him and that painter with the Charlie Chaplin mustache considered the ministry.

Anyway, fascism and communism are different forms of socialism. That tends to strip folks gears, but that they are. The big difference is how it's implemented. If you get to own a business that must serve the demands of the State, is it that much different than the State taking it over outright?

That has me thinking of the People's Car, better known by it's German name, the Volkswagen. That was a product of a German labor union formed by you-know to replace independent labor unions (the USSR had it's All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions).

Tuur said:

Yep. Journalist, too. Stalin was a poet, and both him and that painter with the Charlie Chaplin mustache considered the ministry.

Anyway, fascism and communism are different forms of socialism. That tends to strip folks gears, but that they are. The big difference is how it's implemented. If you get to own a business that must serve the demands of the State, is it that much different than the State taking it over outright?

That has me thinking of the People's Car, better known by it's German name, the Volkswagen. That was a product of a German labor union formed by you-know to replace independent labor unions (the USSR had it's All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions).

Click to expand...

You think the DAF was a labour union?

DAF was an organising tool of Nazi party economic policy, used to gain leverage over both workers and industrialists and promote 'national solidarity' (i.e. do what we say, or else) and higher rates of employment.

Under the DAF worker strikes AND industrial lockouts were outlawed, as was collective bargaining and moving jobs at will (or sometimes even at all, via the workbook system).
It essentially put the foxes in charge of the chicken coop. It's 'labour trustees' were there to ensure industrial production targets were met, and were generally members of the Reich Chamber of Economics (ie, business owners or Nazi party bureaucrats). There was zero consulting with workers about wages or conditions, but lots of infighting about who got first dibs when it came to national projects and state funding.

The DAF funded the development of the Volkswagen because Hitler had promised to make a car that was affordable for the average German. So they deducted a little from everyone's pay to get the project going.

Tuur said:

Yep. Journalist, too. Stalin was a poet, and both him and that painter with the Charlie Chaplin mustache considered the ministry.

Anyway, fascism and communism are different forms of socialism. That tends to strip folks gears, but that they are. The big difference is how it's implemented. If you get to own a business that must serve the demands of the State, is it that much different than the State taking it over outright?

That has me thinking of the People's Car, better known by it's German name, the Volkswagen. That was a product of a German labor union formed by you-know to replace independent labor unions (the USSR had it's All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions).

Click to expand...

Got a citation for that?

Gene2memE said:

If some here did the following:

Called for Fauci to be prosecuted;
Retweeted unfounded conspiracy theories about Paul Pelosi;
Retweeted anti-semitic memes;
Promoted pro-Russian/anti-Ukraine talking points;
Retweeted pro-Trump conspiracy theories
Retweeted pro-Bolansaro conspiracy theories
Interacted publicly and approvingly with alt-right media personalities and anti-trans activists
Conflated membership in antifa with pedophilia
Recycled QAnon talking points
Retweeted right wing and alt-right memes about 'woke propaganda', 'cancel culture', 'elites' and various other far right talking points

Would that be enough to get someone labelled a far right activist. Don't you think so?



Can you substantiate all those?





You do realise that someone can be socially progressive, without having any favouritism whatsoever for critiques of capitalisim, right?

No....I wasn't aware of this, fundamentally an argument for equitable outcomes is an argument against capitalism and this is true even in matters of representation.





And, fascism is a far right movement. It's been defined as such from the get go. It's not even remotely "socialism lite" - Fascism's primary mode of economic management is corporatism.

Here's a basic list of the characteristics of fascist ideologies:

• Ultranationalism
• Dictatorship
  
  
• Racism
• Antisemitism
  
  
  
• Single party leadership
• Paramilitarism
• Actual or threatened violence
• Corporatism
• Totalitarian views
• Anti-capitalism
• Anti-socialism
• Anti-communism
• Anti-liberalism
• Anti-parliamentarianism
• Anti-constitutionalism

I'm not sure where you're drawing the line between capitalism and corporatism but frankly, since any business or private sector is beholden to the state, it looks like capitalism at the bottom and socialism at the top.



20th century Fascism developed as an explicitly anti-communist/socialist and anti-left wing movement (most of the intellectual heavy lifting occurred in in Italy, Austria and the Balkans in the 1919 to 1925 period). Anyone who has even the most basic understanding of European inter-war history should understand this.

Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken both Mussolini and Hitler began their movements in socialist movements but clearly, there's a clarity that both understood these wouldn't be viable models for militaristic or even nationalistic goals.

As this model was developed under Il Duce...I don't think racism or antisemitism are necessary components. We're essentially talking about totalitarian dictators/parties who stand above all private and public interests with a focus on militarism and national identity.

Belk said:

Got a citation for that?

Click to expand...

Of course not. Fascism is a nationalist, populist, right-wing authoritarian movement that isn't tied to any particular model of economic organization.

Belk said:

Got a citation for that?

Click to expand...

Mussolini the Journalist:
It's in the first sentence.

Stalin the Poet and Seminarian:
In the section Early Life, you'll find where he wrote poetry. In the third paragraph in the section, you'll find where he wrote poetry under the name Soselo, and that he was studying for the priesthood.

If you want to know more about Stalin's poetry, go here: Stalin's poetry - Wikipedia

Hitler the Painter and Potential Priest:
Go down to the section under Education, and in the second paragraph you'll find he considered becoming a priest. Go down to Early Adulthood, and you'll find where he wanted to study art. There's a Wikipedia section on his paintings, which you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint....wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler

Side question: All this isn't semi-common knowledge?

Ana the Ist said:

Unless I'm mistaken both Mussolini and Hitler began their movements in socialist movements but clearly, there's a clarity that both understood these wouldn't be viable models for militaristic or even nationalistic goals.

Click to expand...

Mussolini certainly. He was an active socialist from a little after 1900 and continued to be so until the middle stages of WW1. From about 1917 onwards he was decidedly anti socialist - up to the point of physically brawling in the streets with socialists (and communists and anarchists).

Hitler's pre-WW1 political leanings are much less clear, although his writings suggest he was enamoured of some forms of populist nationalism. But from 1919 he was a member of a far right German political party.

Ana the Ist said:

As this model was developed under Il Duce...I don't think racism or antisemitism are necessary components.

Click to expand...

Anti-semitism wasn't inherent, at least not initially. Mussolini having a Jewish mistress for about five years post WW1 and significant Jewish involvement in the early stages of the fascist movement may have something to do with that.

But racism was fundamentally a part of Italian fascism. It was just more outwardly focused than in Germany (where the primary targets were internal populations), and didn't cleave as tightly to 'biological/scientific racism' notions held in Germany.

Italian Fascism labeled Slavic peoples as "inferior and barbarian" to Italian peoples, and declared that any non-white population was inherently inferior to the inheritors of the Roman Empire. Africans in particular were viewed as an obstacle to spazio vitale (roughly the Italian equivalent of lebenstraum), and were to be subdued under Italian colonial rule and then managed under an apartheid-style regime. To be fair though, this was a pretty common view in parts of Europe at the time.

There were all sorts of race based laws (anti-Slavic and anti-colonial peoples) passed by the Fascist government through the 1920s and into the 1930s, at home and in their colonies. But, they were piecemeal and incremental and so don't get the sort of publicity that the German race laws get.

Italian Fascism eventually became anti-semitic in character (debate still rages as to actually why though). Near the end of the 1930s, the 'Laws for the Defense of Race' were passed (enforcing discrimination/segregation, seizing Jewish property and banning interracial marriages) and the Italian Fascists began to promulgate anti-Semitic propaganda.


All in all, pretty bleeping awful.

Tuur said:

Mussolini the Journalist:

Benito Mussolini - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It's in the first sentence.

Stalin the Poet and Seminarian:

Joseph Stalin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In the section Early Life, you'll find where he wrote poetry. In the third paragraph in the section, you'll find where he wrote poetry under the name Soselo, and that he was studying for the priesthood.

If you want to know more about Stalin's poetry, go here: Stalin's poetry - Wikipedia

Hitler the Painter and Potential Priest:

Adolf Hitler - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Go down to the section under Education, and in the second paragraph you'll find he considered becoming a priest. Go down to Early Adulthood, and you'll find where he wanted to study art. There's a Wikipedia section on his paintings, which you can read here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paint....wikipedia.org/wiki/Paintings_by_Adolf_Hitler

Side question: All this isn't semi-common knowledge?

Click to expand...

No. A citation for the text that I put in bold. That fascism is a form of communism.

Fascism rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries, most notably Germany. Fascism also had adherents outside of Europe. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, pluralism, liberalism, socialism and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far-right wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.

Gene2memE said:

Only in that Hitler completely re-defined socialism into something was clearly not socialism, and then called himself a socialist.

Calling Hitler a socialist is like me saying "I'm a Christian", but then defining Christianity as the belief that if I worship a cup of coffee every
morning, I will eventually get reincarnated as a small field mouse named Gerald.

From a 1923 interview with Hitler:

​

"Why," I asked Hitler, "do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?"​

​

"Socialism," he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.​

​

"Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.​

​

"We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one."​

Click to expand...

First people addie went after were communists. I'm seriously disappointed in some history and social studies teachers out there.