Liberal Fascism

Show me that there's an organized Left with a strong majority among them supportive of such things, as opposed to anecdotal citations of the Right's favorite bogymen. Something that's as clear as, say, the Congressional voting record.

Until then, you're just blowing smoke. I don't need to play up mere scattered bad incidents to form an extremely low opinion of the Right, nor to have good reason to fear its fascist tendencies.

A contradiction in terms anyway.

No organized and unified left...but an organized and unified right.

Got it.

Well, if "liberal" today really meant what it once did, yes. But many so-called liberals (today) indeed are quite opposed to liberty (and thus not liberals in the classical sense) for certain things, people, activities, etc. and are on the path toward fascism (only of the socialistic variety)...but fascism nonetheless. Still, I would agree that a better title might be "Leftist Fascism".

If liberals were fascists, then they wouldn't be liberals anymore would they?

It's really a right-wing thing.

" Where is the left's apparent love of freedom of speech? "

Haven't you heard? That was canceled with illegal wire tapping!

Those are some mighty fine straws you're clutching at there.

Well, fascism + socialist economic policy = Soviet communism. The term "liberal" nowadays doesn't really pertain to a group of thinkers who value freedom absolutely, the way it did in the 18th century. So bizarrely enough, I think it's entirely possible for there to be "liberal fascists." I think SDW is trying to use this term to single-out the people who O'Reilly calls "social progressives." I know that a lot of people aren't exactly big fans of the guy, but I can't really see anything objectionable about this particular nomenclature, which he probably didn't even coin. (he just likes it A LOT).

And I have to admit, I don't think I've ever met a social-progressive who'd I'd consider to be open-minded. They seem to have a rigid counter-culture based on the cardinal virtue of white-guilt. It's a brand of fundamentalism in its own right.

The only thing, though, that I detest about "the left," which is not limited to social-progressivism, is how snippy vocal liberals seem to be. As evidenced by the post above (and a zillion other posts on the internet), there's no substantive argument, just a self-satisfying quip that attempts to defer the call to debate. For all of the grief we can give to the right-wing talk radio echo chamber, I have a hard time deciding if it's more or less irritating than the left's self-generated laugh parade. In this sense, I think it's very easy to consider the left to be closed-minded -- whenever engaged, it seems all too common that lefties just try to defer arguments instead of listening and thinking about what their position actually is.

Exactly right. My point was that what is called "liberal" today is different than true (classical) liberalism.


Well I wouldn't say that fascism is limited to the right...it is also a leftist thing...just centered around different goals or issues.

O'Reilly calls them 'secular progressives" actually.

"White guilt" is psychological mumbo-jumbo that *may* have certain applications elsewhere. But as far as the motivations for enacting liberal social and economic policies, I don't think it's even on the radar. Wouldn't you think that deep-seated notions of fairness or justice would drive those policies? You're not giving those considerations a fair shake, when you know, they are kinda obviously the answer.

And I wouldn't hold jimmac as exemplifying a "liberal" type of discourse. I mean his heart is in the right place, but no one, liberals included, are gonna nominate him for Post of the Year or anything. People have different posting styles and listening skills differ across the ideological spectrum. I doubt there's a correlation. More likely it's just you being pissed off.

A couple of liberal college students are assholes! Fox News will have 24-hour coverage all month!

" I mean his heart is in the right place, but no one, liberals included, are gonna nominate him for Post of the Year or anything. "

Awwww! And here I already had my acceptance speech all prepared and everything!

Cool, I'm still in the running.



This group does seem to have behaved in a very closed minded way. Doesn't appear to reflect typical liberal viewpoint on freedom of speech. Remember, its liberals, like the ACLU, who fight for the freedom of speech of the vilest and most disgusting people solely on principle.

Well, I read here that the protest was because of Tancredo's recent remarks suggesting the U.S. consider bombing Muslim holy sites.
http://www.5280.com/blog/?p=1030
Something worth protesting against, wouldn't you say SDW?

Of course, the article you linked failed to mention this. Actually, the article apparently is little more than a word-for-word reprint of an email written by Tancredo himself.

Aye, this is an isolated incident. I mean, people were allowed to wear liberal t-shirts and stay at those 2004 Bush rallies. Oh, wait...

Even more disgusting-

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ter/index.html


I can see that she was removed- but the audience drowning her out with that crap is fuk-ING disgusting. I remember then when I read it how sick I felt.

So...you object to the volume used by some people exercising their free speech rights? The number of people exercising their rights at the same time? What is it exactly?

On the other hand, words have actual meanings beyond their utility as insults:





When the right, which actually is authoritarian, nationalistic, militaristic, power driven, has a weakness for strong-men, is obsessed by cultural decline and eager to make common cause with corporate interests speaks of "liberal fascism" it's merely the crudest kind of projection (which seems to be something of a hallmark of modern conservatism, though whether by cynical design or psychological compulsion I can't say).

Liberals can be intolerant of divergent view-points. College students can be mono-maniacal assholes, since black and white thinking kind of goes with the territory.

To go from that to "fascism" is at best ignorant, at worst aggressively dishonest. Not to mention fucking grotesque.

I eagerly await the threads entitled "Liberals are xenophobic imperialists", "Liberals are secretly sympathetic to the old confederacy", and "Liberals are too focused on gun ownership as a signifier of personal empowerment".

Nice post. Sounded more like retarded to me. Big crowd too. "About forty".

Well, I found this one on another forum:
Hitler Was A Liberal

Searching...searching....searching....

Ah. Got it.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from being attacked for what you say.

Cf. Michael Moore.

EOM

Indeed they do: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

or

"Oppressive, dictatorial control."

These are not traits exclusive to "the right".

Well, he was a socialist anyway.

So was Mussolini BTW...who was also a fascist.

Fascism is more about method than the particular ideology. It stems primarily from the I/we know what's "best" and so I/we should use the government to ensure that what's "best" happens.

Well attacked verbally...physically is another matter altogether.

Indeed.


The people who attacked those three Tancredo supporters should be arrested and charged with assault. The idea that they are representative of the left is, of course, another of SDW's laughable strawmen arguments.

Nonsense. All ideologies believe that their way is "best", otherwise they wouldn't be an ideology. Using the government to achieve those ends is absolutely normative behavior in western democracies (and beats the shit out of achieving such ends via roving militias, a campaign of terror bombings, or armed insurrection, which are sort of the other options).

Fascism is distinguished by a marriage of virulent nationalism (usually coupled with aggressively defined enemies, both external and internal), corporatism, a fierce resentment of "internationalism" and its agents, kitsch level pining for "traditional values" and an attendant notion of "purity" (frequently racially derived), cultish worship of "strength" and "strong leaders", and regimentation based on notions of "discipline" and "honor".

It's actually a terrible idea for people on the right to even bring up fascism, no matter how clever they think they are being, because the comparisons to to current ideologies are so deeply unflattering.

No.


Thanks for providing your editorial characterization. But in essence the simplist definition works fine and does not require all of the baggage you've piled on.

"a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

You haven't provided any reason why this definition cannot apply to the left as well as the right.

Hitler, Mussolini and Franco were true facsists,I don't believe the liberal left is any where close.
Now the current Republican adminisration on the other hand, I believe are a lot closer to facsists, in fact Bush even said he wouldn't mind being a Dictator.
From Wikpedia: In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views. There are no major self-proclaimed fascist parties or organizations anywhere in the world.

Since rhe liberal left is the opposite of what SDW's views are, then they are facsists in his mind.

Mussolini did say that Fascism "should more properly be called corporatism, being a merger of state and corporate power". However, the modern term "fascism" has been redefined to imply totalitarianism and all that accompanies such (military or other style dictatorship, no real democratic/electoral process, relatively few civil liberties and rights, arbitrary imprisonment/kangaroo justice... and all the baggage that goes with such).

Bearing that redefinition in mind, it is absurd to suggest that the current system in place in the US is anywhere near that variety of "fascism", despite a number of current trends in that direction. However, "corporatism" is a pretty good fit: One just has to look at the parties and organizations who influence peoples' lives and livelihoods to the greatest extent.. and one comes up with non-governmental, private, unelected parties in big business every time... especially the multinationals, big banks, credit card companies, etc etc. To argue that our elected representatives are the ones whose decisions affect us the most is also moot... since they are also in the pockets of big business and financial institutions.

No conspiracy required here: its the natural evolution of the system we have in place. it could be described as a "Quasi-Democratic Republicorporatocracy". (ouch)

I think it's disgusting that the first lady would allow her audience to scream four more years over the mother of a deceased soldier. The same people that would skewer anyone for objecting to the war would at the same time skewer a mother who lost her son in the war they support. It disgusts me in the same way pedophiles disgust me.

I have no problem with free speech, but I still think it's a disgusting occurrence, and it's fucking shameful. It's inhuman. It means that no one in this crowd of people had any sense of decency, only a ferverence to their political party.

How do you think this soldier would feel to know that after he died for his country, his grieving mother would get shouted out of a room with the first lady presiding over and letting this animalistic crowd regulate her speech?

Yeah, that's supporting our troops. You think the deceased soldier's platoon didn't find out about that?

Like I said- disgusting.

OK. You are greatly offended. We get that.

Now...should the crowd's speech be stopped, prevented, disallowed, etc.?

Who's " We " ?

The crowd was out of control and violating the woman's freedom of speech not the other way around. So in this case since they were out of line and suppressing her say they should be stopped until they can be civil. Then both sides can talk and be heard.

How? Because they were louder?

Simply Chris because it's one against many. It's the right way to look at it as you would say. And have said in earlier situations. Remember your comments about majority rule and being right? Well this isn't a voting situation and the woman was one against many. She needs to be heard also. Not drowned out by a crowd.

If you can't understand these concepts you're just being obstinate.

Ummm...no. She doesn't need to be.

She has the right to express herself. She doesn't have the right to compel anyone to listen (which is basically what you are saying). It is the right to freedom of speech...not the right to force people to listen.

Certainly the shouters may have been rude. But violating her rights they were not.

Furthermore, out shouting someone does not rise to the level of physical obstruction or violence (a valid argument about infringing someone's rights).

Chris-

IMO there is a lot more to derive out of the situation than the crowd's freedom of speech. Who is challenging anyone's freedom of speech?

I never did, nor did I bring it up as such.

Why not address the original dynamic of the reason I posted that example.

This freedom of speech tangent is frankly nothing other than your desire to ignore the real problem in that situation.

Is it even possible for an individual in a non-gov't position to violate someone's freedom of speech?

How is shouting someone down not "physical obstruction"? What else would it be? What is the difference in keeping someone from speaking, and allowing that person to speak but rendering the speech inaudible?

The difference is you have a point to make and your not going to let counter examples deter you. So you will make distinctions without difference, tirelessly.

How does "the simplest definition" "work" "fine"? Work for what? What are your criteria for fine?

If we are trying to define a complex concept with a great deal of historical and ideological import why would "simplist" be preferable? Why would an acknowledgment of such historical and ideological import be "baggage"? Are you saying that my characterization of what fascism entails is false? How are specific citations of broadly accepted aspects of fascism "editorialization"? Can you link to an extended discussion of fascism that doesn't include those concepts?

Here is the slightly extended citation on the same dictionary.com site, from The American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy

A system of government that flourished in Europe from the 1920s to the end of World War II. Germany under Adolf Hitler, Italy under Mussolini, and Spain under Franco were all fascist states. As a rule, fascist governments are dominated by a dictator, who usually possesses a magnetic personality, wears a showy uniform, and rallies his followers by mass parades; appeals to strident nationalism; and promotes suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and impure people within his own nation, such as the Jews in Germany. Although both communism and fascism are forms of totalitarianism, fascism does not demand state ownership of the means of production, nor is fascism committed to the achievement of economic equality. In theory, communism opposes the identification of government with a single charismatic leader (the cult of personality), which is the cornerstone of fascism. Whereas communists are considered left-wing, fascists are usually described as right-wing.


It appears that you feel that a selective reading of the already impoverished definition you found on dictionary.com is sufficiently broad to allow for the construct "liberal fascism", but to do so is pointless and literally meaningless. Do you imagine that I am obliged to simply ignore the vast body of literature surrounding the phenomena of fascism in order to humor your conceit?

"Fascism" does, in fact, carry connotations of militarism, nationalism (including ideas of "purity"), scapegoating of external or internal enemies, corporatism, and appeals to what are imagined to be earlier, unsullied versions of the "national character"-- a return to "greatness".

We know this because the explicitly fascist regimes which form the undergirding of the concept all shared these characteristics. Playing stupid doesn't change anything.