Log in

View Full Version : Mussolini's Fascism as a precursor to modern Lefti



FarfromNear
24th December 2003, 05:19
I suggest you all read "Modern Leftist As Recycled Fascism" by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) from Queensland, Australia. It is an article by the way.

I am sure that you will all say that it is a waste of time to read. You just rule it all out because of the title and you refuse to admit it being true. Then you start refuting the argument without even knowing what it says. I do suggest you read it.


http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html

FarfromNear
24th December 2003, 05:29
"destructive and brutal tyranny of the now collapsed Soviet regime is undeniable, Leftists to this day are almost universally unapologetic about their past support for it and may even still claim that Lenin was a great man. "



http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html

Jimmie Higgins
24th December 2003, 05:39
I'm probably not going to read that book, because the only books about fascism I want to read are the ones about how to stop it from growing. Also I have about 6 other books I want to read right now that are about history, not rewriting history.

You can site all the objectivest or intulectual books about how fascism is socialism you want but I'm pretty certain as an anti-fascist and a socialist that the goals of both ideologys are opposed. Both ideologies gained popularity around the same time so there are many superficial connections and similareties, but while each might have employed similar tactics at certain points or used the same rehotic to the same target audience, their goals are completely different.

If you look at Stalins tyrrany and Hitler's tyranny you are going to see that there are many similareties between them because they were both tyrants.

So unless that book can clearly demonstrate that moussolini's real goal was to encourage the international working class to overthrow their leaders and put themselves in the driver's seat, it will not be able to convince me that an apple is an orange.

Most of the arguments I have heard on this subject start from a point which defines socialism and communism as being the USSR... the stalinists on this site are the only ones who make this argument here. If you start from the point that communism is about a strong state run by a ruling class of party burocrats is socialism, then you can twist history around a bit and make fascism and that kind of socialism seem similar, but still, it is parallel evolution; like there are big cats in South AMerica and Big Cats in Africa, but they have no direct genetic link with eachoth... each developed similar traits to fufuill similar perposes, but completely separate of eachother. Fascism only set out to have a strong police state, but stalinism developed the same thing but only because the revolution fell apart and the russian workers were suffering famines and civil war and trade embargos.

FarfromNear
24th December 2003, 05:47
"Mussolini, however, declared that he was fighting the Socialists, not because or their socialism but because they were anti-national and reactionary".

"Mussolini retained his socialist loyalties even though he had also become a nationalist."

"When he did gain power, he implemented economic policies that would endear him to many of the Left today. His policies were basically protectionist."

"the policies he in fact adopted once in power were not adopted for mere ideological reasons but because they were the policies that he thought would work best for Italy and, thus, ultimately for all Italians. As "Conservative" political parties tend to think in this way also (Gilmour, 1978), it is presumably in part this that causes Mussolini to be referred to as a Rightist. His appeal to Italians, however was as a socialist and a nationalist."

"Mussolini was, however, far from being any sort of free-marketeer. Just like most modern-day Leftist politicians, he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls(...)"

"One major "socialist" reform of the economy that is still a misty ideal to modern-day Leftists Mussolini actually carried out. He attempted to centralize control of industry by declaring a "Corporate State" which divided all Italian industry up into 22 "corporations". In these corporations both workers and managers were supposed to co-operate to run industry together -- but under Fascist guidance, of course. The Corporate State was supposed to ensure social justice and give the workers substantial control of industry. "

"Some other clearly Leftist initiatives that Mussolini took were a big expansion of public works and a great improvement in social insurance measures. He also set up the "Dopolavoro" (after work) organization to give workers cheap recreations of various kinds (cf. the Nazi Kraft durch Freude movement). His public health measures (such as the attack on tuberculosis and the setting up of a huge maternal and child welfare organization(...) Given the modern-day Leftist's love of government provision of services, it would seem that Mussolini should be their hero in that respect. He actually did what they advocate and did it around 70 years ago. "


http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html

Jimmie Higgins
24th December 2003, 05:50
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 06:29 AM
"destructive and brutal tyranny of the now collapsed Soviet regime is undeniable, Leftists to this day are almost universally unapologetic about their past support for it and may even still claim that Lenin was a great man. "



http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html
I never supported the rulers of the USSR, but I do think Lennin had some very useful things to say and he was correct about a great deal of things from Imperialism to self-determination.

Now look at what happened after the revolution... women could vote, jews were no longer persacuted and lynched (many held importan positions in and after the revolution), there were other political tendencies of socialism and anarchism which were involved, russian people stopped their own slaughter in the trenches of WWI, the effects of the Russian revolution encouraged strikes all over the world and caused revolutionary upheval in Germany which helped hasten the end of the war alltogether, poor russians were able to go to schools and were interested in learning to read because they now felt like their life could be more than just being a beast of burdon for the Tzar or other ruling classes. At the same time the US had no right to vote for women and the 1920s saw an unprecidented growth in the power of the KKK and lynchings of America's ethnic minoreties. All the changes which took place over years of struggle by the civil rights movement and the women's sufferage movement and the trade unionist movement were accomplished in a few weeks during the russian revolution.

Now, by the time Stalin came to power, the working class had lost all of its power, the rights of many minoreties and women, abortion was once again made illegal, drinking became illegal, Stalin killed all the opposition, killed all the trotskyists, then killed all the old Stalinists who had participated in the revolution and surrounded himself with people who owed their privilaged position to him, not the people, and eventually there was a return of Tzar-like tyrranny and secret police.

So the intresting question is how did A become B? How were the gains of the revolution lost?

FarfromNear
24th December 2003, 05:56
I am only posting all this for those who dont wish to read the article. This is something interesting about Peron in Argentina, it just shows how he was in fact leftist, socialistic, and not Rightist like a lot of you have said. It is important to note that you can see the beggining of the economical downfall of Argentina, with the Peron rule.



"Most people would not be aware that historians and political commentators often describe Peron as what Latin Americans sometimes call a "Fenomeno" (paradox). The paradox or puzzle is that he first came to power in Argentina as part of a military coup, so should have been "Right-wing" -- yet he became the champion and hero of working class Argentines, and to this day the major Leftist political grouping in Argentina (the "Peronistas") is named after him. How come? "

"Anybody who has read what I have so far written about the strongly Leftist nature of both German Nazism and Italian Fascism will not have far to seek for the answer. Both Nazism and Fascism won power largely through claiming to be the champions and glorifiers of the ordinary worker and both Nazism and Fascism are routinely described as "Right-wing" too. Peron was just another one of that fraternity. Peron in fact soon got kicked out by his fellow participants in the military coup and finally gained power -- as did Hitler and Mussolini -- through primarily political means."

"And that is only the beginning of the resemblance: The doctrines Peron preached (e.g. giving the workers and managers equal say in running industry) were almost exactly what Peron had learned from Mussolini when he lived in Italy for some years in the 1930s. Peronism is Fascism. Also like Hitler and Mussolini, Peron was a great patriot and nationalist who got the foreign business interests out of Argentina and tried to make Argentina independent of foreigners generally. With the able help of his wife Evita, Peron made the Argentine people feel special and persuaded them that he was on their side and would lead them to greatness. And they loved him for it!"

"So what Hitler, Mussolini and Peron all show is what most modern-day Leftist intellectuals passionately deny: That you can be an extreme Leftist and an extreme nationalist too. And it shows something very troubling too: That the combination of Leftism and nationalism is POPULAR! The popularity of that combination is also shown in the way Germans fought to the end for Hitler. Perhaps we should be thankful that modern-day Leftists (who are often anything but patriotic) have not learned all that their Fascist brethren might have taught them.

So the only puzzle or paradox of Peronism is one that modern-day Leftist intellectuals have artificially created for themselves. They refuse to accept that you can be BOTH a Leftist and a nationalist so are basically just lost for words (or sensible words anyway) when confronted with great historical figures such as Peron who prove by their living example that you CAN be both.

And Peron was of course almost as bad for Argentina as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini were for the countries that they led down the extreme Leftist path. Before Peron came to power, Argentina was one of the world's richest countries but Peron sent it broke and it has never recovered -- largely because, although Peron is dead, Peronism (Fascism) is still the strongest single force in Argentine politics. "


http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html



This proves how Peron was leftist, and how the country, one of the richest countries in the World before Peron, has gone to poverty. This is all truth, it is history. I am sure most of you will be quick to deny it because that is the problem with a lot of people, they simply won't accept the truth.

el_profe
24th December 2003, 06:03
WHO the hell said peron was right-wing?? :o :o

OMG, why do you think argentinians still love peron, his wife was known for giving free stuff to the people.
Peron was totally left-wing.


This proves how Peron was leftist, and how the country, one of the richest countries in the World before Peron, has gone to poverty. This is all truth, it is history. I am sure most of you will be quick to deny it because that is the problem with a lot of people, they simply won't accept the truth.

I just read the same thing. In a book i am reading its said how argentina was one of the richest countries in the world and how its crap today.

FarfromNear
24th December 2003, 06:11
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 06:39 AM
I'm probably not going to read that book, because the only books about fascism I want to read are the ones about how to stop it from growing. Also I have about 6 other books I want to read right now that are about history, not rewriting history.

You can site all the objectivest or intulectual books about how fascism is socialism you want but I'm pretty certain as an anti-fascist and a socialist that the goals of both ideologys are opposed. Both ideologies gained popularity around the same time so there are many superficial connections and similareties, but while each might have employed similar tactics at certain points or used the same rehotic to the same target audience, their goals are completely different.

If you look at Stalins tyrrany and Hitler's tyranny you are going to see that there are many similareties between them because they were both tyrants.

So unless that book can clearly demonstrate that moussolini's real goal was to encourage the international working class to overthrow their leaders and put themselves in the driver's seat, it will not be able to convince me that an apple is an orange.

Most of the arguments I have heard on this subject start from a point which defines socialism and communism as being the USSR... the stalinists on this site are the only ones who make this argument here. If you start from the point that communism is about a strong state run by a ruling class of party burocrats is socialism, then you can twist history around a bit and make fascism and that kind of socialism seem similar, but still, it is parallel evolution; like there are big cats in South AMerica and Big Cats in Africa, but they have no direct genetic link with eachoth... each developed similar traits to fufuill similar perposes, but completely separate of eachother. Fascism only set out to have a strong police state, but stalinism developed the same thing but only because the revolution fell apart and the russian workers were suffering famines and civil war and trade embargos.
It is not saying that an apple is an orange. What the article is saying is that Fascism is in fact leftist, and not rightist. Therefore proves what I have been sayign in other posts, that Fascism is more like socialism. SOme of you still argue that Fascism is like Capitalism. Again, Fascism, which is leftist, is more like socialism. That is all that it is saying.

Jimmie Higgins
24th December 2003, 06:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 06:56 AM
I am only posting all this for those who dont wish to read the article. This is something interesting about Peron in Argentina, it just shows how he was in fact leftist, socialistic, and not Rightist like a lot of you have said. It is important to note that you can see the beggining of the economical downfall of Argentina, with the Peron rule.



"Most people would not be aware that historians and political commentators often describe Peron as what Latin Americans sometimes call a "Fenomeno" (paradox). The paradox or puzzle is that he first came to power in Argentina as part of a military coup, so should have been "Right-wing" -- yet he became the champion and hero of working class Argentines, and to this day the major Leftist political grouping in Argentina (the "Peronistas") is named after him. How come? "

"Anybody who has read what I have so far written about the strongly Leftist nature of both German Nazism and Italian Fascism will not have far to seek for the answer. Both Nazism and Fascism won power largely through claiming to be the champions and glorifiers of the ordinary worker and both Nazism and Fascism are routinely described as "Right-wing" too. Peron was just another one of that fraternity. Peron in fact soon got kicked out by his fellow participants in the military coup and finally gained power -- as did Hitler and Mussolini -- through primarily political means."

"And that is only the beginning of the resemblance: The doctrines Peron preached (e.g. giving the workers and managers equal say in running industry) were almost exactly what Peron had learned from Mussolini when he lived in Italy for some years in the 1930s. Peronism is Fascism. Also like Hitler and Mussolini, Peron was a great patriot and nationalist who got the foreign business interests out of Argentina and tried to make Argentina independent of foreigners generally. With the able help of his wife Evita, Peron made the Argentine people feel special and persuaded them that he was on their side and would lead them to greatness. And they loved him for it!"

"So what Hitler, Mussolini and Peron all show is what most modern-day Leftist intellectuals passionately deny: That you can be an extreme Leftist and an extreme nationalist too. And it shows something very troubling too: That the combination of Leftism and nationalism is POPULAR! The popularity of that combination is also shown in the way Germans fought to the end for Hitler. Perhaps we should be thankful that modern-day Leftists (who are often anything but patriotic) have not learned all that their Fascist brethren might have taught them.

So the only puzzle or paradox of Peronism is one that modern-day Leftist intellectuals have artificially created for themselves. They refuse to accept that you can be BOTH a Leftist and a nationalist so are basically just lost for words (or sensible words anyway) when confronted with great historical figures such as Peron who prove by their living example that you CAN be both.

And Peron was of course almost as bad for Argentina as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini were for the countries that they led down the extreme Leftist path. Before Peron came to power, Argentina was one of the world's richest countries but Peron sent it broke and it has never recovered -- largely because, although Peron is dead, Peronism (Fascism) is still the strongest single force in Argentine politics. "


http://jonjayray.tripod.com/musso.html



This proves how Peron was leftist, and how the country, one of the richest countries in the World before Peron, has gone to poverty. This is all truth, it is history. I am sure most of you will be quick to deny it because that is the problem with a lot of people, they simply won't accept the truth.
Peronism is a little bit of nationalism and right-wing populism. Just because something is popular with the working class dosn't mean it is socialist or leftist as often there are reactionary movemenets that find support in a disallusioned working class. this is happening in Europe right now with groups like the National Front. The working class had "Socialists" in power in France and this party followed similar neo-liberalization and privitization practices as the UK and US, so working class people in france are now disallusioned with the mainstram left-wing party and they had already been dissalusioned twith the mainstram right-wing electoral party, so they are looking for an alternative. There are many class struggles and union struggles in Frnace right now and people have lost jobs so the National Front argues that it is the fault of immigrents taking people's jobs and many people become attracted to this idea because they know that the major political parties have only made inequality and joblessness worse.

In Germany there were two attempted worker's revolutions and both failed. A disallusioned working class turned to Nazis who blamed England and the jews and communists for Germany's problems.

el_profe
24th December 2003, 06:31
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 07:18 AM

Peronism is a little bit of nationalism and right-wing populism. Just because something is popular with the working class dosn't mean it is socialist or leftist as often there are reactionary movemenets that find support in a disallusioned working class.

In Germany there were two attempted worker's revolutions and both failed. A disallusioned working class turned to Nazis who blamed England and the jews and communists for Germany's problems.
I disagree on Peron, he was left-wing, totally, his wife was the same.

the Nazis blamed the jew's mostly because the jew's where economically succsesfull, just like many blame economically succesfull people for the worlds problems.

And germany was wrong in blaming other countries for their problem, just like some blame otehr countries for latin america's problems.

Jimmie Higgins
24th December 2003, 06:36
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 07:11 AM
It is not saying that an apple is an orange. What the article is saying is that Fascism is in fact leftist, and not rightist. Therefore proves what I have been sayign in other posts, that Fascism is more like socialism. SOme of you still argue that Fascism is like Capitalism. Again, Fascism, which is leftist, is more like socialism. That is all that it is saying.
I believe that there should be no gun control. Conservatives also believe there should be no gun control... I guess that means that socialists and conservatives are the same.

I don't think fascism is the same as regular old capitalism, but fascism does not change the social realtions of capitalism though it may nationalize some industry.

I do agree that there can be nationalism in left-wing. There is also right-wing nationalism... bith may nationalize industry, in fact capitalist states sometimes nationalize industry too and that does not make them fascist or socialist or even nationalist.

The flaw in the arguments like this is the idea that right=little state control and left=more state control... this is problematic because there is right and left natioanlism, right and left socialism, and right and left populism. The state is a tool for whoever is in controll of society so sometimes the ruling class needs more state control (like the US during WWII) and other times it needs less in order to most effectivly rule in the manner which they want.

But Fascism is universally accepted as being more right wing by everbody but objectivists and some american conservative think-tanks. Even skinheads will say that they are right wing. Neo-nazis consider themselves to be right wing, the KKK considers itself to be right wing and patriotic... all of these groups hate leftists and socialists about as much as you do. So go onto the UK national front forum and tell them that they are actually leftists, go on some white-power site in the US and decry them for being leftists... maybe once you've had socialists tell you that fascists are right wing and not socialists and then you've had fascists say they ar4e not left-wing and are not socialists, then you might come to your senses... wow, I guess fasicts and socialists do agree on some things... like the fact that fascism and socialism are completly opposed world-views.

Face it, you got some fascim hanging around your wing. Don't feel bad, I don't like castro, but he's left-wing nationalist and so I got that walking around my wing.

Jimmie Higgins
24th December 2003, 07:08
This is from the National Front (UK) website - thanks, now I've got British Intelligence tracking me as a right-wing extreemist :D

Ok, here's the skinny:
They claim that they are for the rights of the induvidual and the national (white) power by being against immigration...now anti-immigrent and fears that different ideologies take rights away from induviduals, now who does that remind you of?

"Two hundred and fifty founder members of the new united Movement fought their way through a Communist mob outside the hall to attend that inaugural meeting on the 7th February 1967"

"The march was entirely peaceful but as the column approached Red Lion Square a large mob of Red thugs attempted to block our route. Police horses were used to clear a way through and a large number of arrests were made - all of them Reds, none of them NF"

"Over 300 Marxists were arrested but not one NF member" - so I think these last two quotes show two things, 1)marxistss got arrested, but no fasicits... so fasism and socialism are not the same. 2)In England as in the US, the cops will arest people who protest against white supremicists, while not arresting the protesting white supremisists.

"Quite a number of these recruits were ex-Conservative supporters who had become disillusioned with cheap Tory tricks and lies about stopping immigration, its pro-Common Market stance and its attempt to sell out loyalist Ulster"

"During the campaign, the old-gang parties and especially the Tories became very worried by the rapid rise of the movement and Thatcher came out with her now infamous speech in which she claimed that she "understood the fears of the British people of being swamped by coloured immigrants." these two quotes show the relation of fascist politics and the politics of the UK right-wing.

Now here's the whole thing:



The National Front was formed at a meeting in Caxton Hall, Westminster on 7th February 1967; the first Chairman was Arthur K. Chesterton, cousin of G. K. Chesterton. The new party was in fact a merger of three groups: the Racial Preservation Society, the British National Party and the League of Empire Loyalists.

Foundations of the NF
The membership and ideas of these three groups were different in some respects but they were bound together by agreement in some very fundamental principles: that Britain and the British people have a right to determine their own future; that multi-racialism and mass immigration was a tragic mistake; that patriotism is laudable and that Capitalism, Communism and Internationalism take power away from the individual.

Unifying principles
It was a belief in these basic principles which held together the members of these different groups who, fed up of seeing white patriots disunited, were determined to see the NF as a vehicle of both unity and victory. Two hundred and fifty founder members of the new united Movement fought their way through a Communist mob outside the hall to attend that inaugural meeting on the 7th February 1967.

Violent opposition
Between 1967 and 1969 progress was slow, although a number of small regional groups of concerned Britons joined the steadily growing young NF. The National Front slowly increased in size but also encountered growing opposition from Communist and Zionist groups: meetings were attacked, a lorry was crashed into the Nationalist Centre in South London, and the 1969 Annual General Meeting had to be moved after the power room of the hall was broken into and the mains cables severed with axes.

The first elections
By 1970 the movement had begun to settle down and was able to field ten parliamentary candidates in the General Election of that year. They received between 1.8% and 5.6% of the votes.

Party literature
In early 1971 A. K. Chesterton resigned as Chairman and was replaced by John O'Brien who had joined the National Front from the National Democratic Party which had just folded. At the same time, the movement became more organised with the establishment of functioning Directorate departments: Activities, Administration, Branch Development, Finance, Policy and Publicity. Until early 1971, the only regular publications supporting the NF were Spearhead, the monthly magazine privately owned by John Tyndall, then Chairman of the Policy Department, and A. K. Chesterton's Candour. Now a broadsheet Britain First was produced selling at just 2p. Also for the first time, a range of recruitment leaflets and stickers were produced.

Pawsons Road
In July 1972, John O'Brien was replaced by John Tyndall as the new Chairman of the Party. This took place shortly after it moved its Head Office to 50, Pawsons Road, Croydon, Surrey. This was a more functional office for an active political movement and it was from here that the growth of the Party was led.

Mass immigration
The level of activities dramatically increased in 1972, almost all with the theme of stopping immigration. This was at a time when mass immigration was causing deep dismay among the British public and it resulted in the recruitment of many new members. By mid-1973 the movement was growing at an unprecedented rate and votes in local elections were rising all across the country. For example the NF candidate in the West Bromwich Parliamentary by-election, Martin Webster, gained almost 5,000 votes, 16% of the poll. Remembrance Day Parades.

The elections of 1974
The huge influx of Ugandan Asians into Britain brought another surge of members into the NF and this was reflected in the attendance at the annual Remembrance Day Parades to the Cenotaph in London. These had grown from just a couple of hundred to over 1,500 in November 1972. It was also at this time that the NF became involved in the struggle of the people of Ulster to remain British. The NF fully supported the Ulster Workers Strike of May 1974 against the attempt to sell out to Eire. In 1974 there were two General Elections: at the first one in February, the NF fielded 54 candidates who received a total of 75,000 votes. By October, the party was able to increase this to 90 candidates and they attracted 113,000 votes.

Extension of the campaign base
In between, the movement had been extending its campaign base. The NF gave active support to a strike by White workers at the Imperial Typewriters factory in Leicester. It also held a series of activities in opposition to British membership of the Common Market. An anti-immigration march This further rapid growth of the NF resulted in yet increased opposition, primarily from Communist and Zionist groups. On 15th June 1974 the National Front held an anti-immigration march from West London to Conway Hall, Holborn. The march was entirely peaceful but as the column approached Red Lion Square a large mob of Red thugs attempted to block our route. Police horses were used to clear a way through and a large number of arrests were made - all of them Reds, none of them NF. The event made the front pages of every single national newspaper. By the time the NF entered the October election campaign there can have been few people in the country who did not know the name National Front and the initials NF.

Labour shows its hand
In 1975, John Kingsley Read replaced John Tyndall as National Chairman for a short time. In that year over 120 Labour-controlled councils decided to ban the NF from using public halls for meetings. Labour showed itself prepared to use any means, democratic or otherwise, to halt the NF's progress.

The NF polls nearly 20%
During 1976 the movement's fortunes rapidly improved. A major campaign was launched in support of Robert Relf, who had been jailed for refusing to remove a sign from outside his home declaring that it was for sale to English buyers. The May local election results were impressive with the jewel in the crown being Leicester, where 48 candidates won 43,733 votes, nearly 20% of the total vote. By June the Party's growth rate was its highest ever. This was emphasised in May 1977 when some outstanding local election results were achieved: in particular 119,000 votes were cast in favour of the NF in London and the Liberals were beaten in 33 out of 92 constituencies.

NF march on Lewisham
On 13th August 1977 a major NF march through Lewisham in South London was organised by the National Activities Organiser, Mr. Martin Webster. It was violently attacked by a large mob, possibly 10,000 strong, of Red rabble. Bricks, bottles, iron railings and other missiles were hurled at the patriots marching through Lewisham but the attempt to halt the Front failed - as it always does. Over 300 Marxists were arrested but not one NF member. Again the NF smashed its way into the national headlines!

Preparations for the General Election. Organised opposition
A new broadsheet newspaper, National Front News, appeared - the official paper of the National Front, coming out monthly from December 1977. At about this time it was announced that the Party would contest 300-plus seats in the forthcoming General Election. Again the opposition mobilised its forces, lavishly funded and supported by the media, the powerful Zionist lobby and International Capitalism. One response was the forming of the 'Anti-Nazi League,' a front organisation for the Trotskyite Socialist Workers' Party with a gloss of respectability being provided by show business dupes and extreme-left Labour MP's. In December 1977 the Labour Party devoted of an entire party political broadcast to an attack on the National Front.

The General Election of 1979. Excalibur House
1978 was almost entirely devoted to preparations for the imminent General Election. During the preceding four years membership of the movement had increased dramatically. Quite a number of these recruits were ex-Conservative supporters who had become disillusioned with cheap Tory tricks and lies about stopping immigration, its pro-Common Market stance and its attempt to sell out loyalist Ulster. In September 1978 the Party moved to a larger headquarters, Excalibur House, just north of the City of London. The premises were very big with meeting hall, sleeping quarters, offices and a bookshop.

The Tories show their hand
The first half of 1979 was taken up with the huge effort needed to field 300-plus candidates. When the election arrived, the NF actually fielded 303 - nearly half the seats in the country. During the campaign, the old-gang parties and especially the Tories became very worried by the rapid rise of the movement and Thatcher came out with her now infamous speech in which she claimed that she "understood the fears of the British people of being swamped by coloured immigrants."

Disappointing election results
This lie by Thatcher, plus huge Anti-Nazi League rallies and media hyping of the ?Holocaust? series on television in the week running up to the election, with the media ever eager to employ the "nazi" smear, led to disappointing results in the General Election. Our results would have been much better had it not been for Tory lies, Labour and media smears, censorship of news about the NF and a campaign of voter intimidation by Marxist thugs.

The years of attrition
The years following that election were a time of great struggle for the National Front. Its ability to survive and to start growing again is a tribute to its stamina and the hundreds of loyal members who have stood by the NF through thick and thin.

The resurgence
The 1980's and early 90's were sluggish, but in the mid-90's the National Front started recovering ground, and with a vengeance. A new paper Flame was published along with new units springing up almost weekly. The winning strategy, that one that had made the NF so successful in the beginning, is again being implemented. The last few years have seen marches being held again and the Drum Corps is in the process of being reformed. The Young National Front has been revived with its "notorious" hard-hitting paper Bulldog.

The present
Now, every two weeks White Nationalist Report in distributed in both printed and e-zine form. Its email distribution regularly reaches over 1,000 subscribers. The new NF website is being constantly updated and expanded.

Current activities
The campaign against bogus asylum seekers flooding into Britain continues to gain momentum. Recent marches in Dover and Deal have resulted in huge national publicity. Membership of the Front has grown dramatically within the last year, especially with the NF's drive to bring other groups of patriots under its unifying wing. The NF?s opposition to the surrender of British sovereignty is stronger than ever today. The Party is totally opposed to the subjugation of Britain to the bureaucrats of Brussels.

The immediate future
The National Front, Britain's longest-lived White Nationalist movement, is poised on the brink of the new millennium ready to mushroom once again. Elsewhere on this site you will find a list of addresses of our units, and this list is constantly being added to! The NF has survived some tough periods but its sheer resilience and the loyalty of its long-time members have kept it together.

A message
This short history is but a beginning - visit this site regularly and check on the rapid growth of the movement. Better still, join the NF's fight for a Britain worth living in again!

Saint-Just
24th December 2003, 12:05
"Mussolini retained his socialist loyalties even though he had also become a nationalist."

How is this so? He tortured and persecuted all socialists and socialist organisations. He wasn't loyal to socialists at all. Mussolini often blamed the bourgeoisie, he said they were to weak and not patriotic enough, but this was nothing to do with a loyalty to socialism. It is because Mussolini was previously a socialist and as such reverted to attacking an old enemy when there was no one else to blame.

"Mussolini was, however, far from being any sort of free-marketeer. Just like most modern-day Leftist politicians, he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls(...)"

Mussolini's system was a corporate system in which capitalists and the state controlled the economy, the state would choose what was produced and how much, the capitalists would make a big profit. In socialism people do not make big profits and it is the workers who control the state planning.

"One major "socialist" reform of the economy that is still a misty ideal to modern-day Leftists Mussolini actually carried out. He attempted to centralize control of industry by declaring a "Corporate State" which divided all Italian industry up into 22 "corporations". In these corporations both workers and managers were supposed to co-operate to run industry together -- but under Fascist guidance, of course. The Corporate State was supposed to ensure social justice and give the workers substantial control of industry. "

LOL, the workers did not participate at all. Mussolini said they would to please workers. However, it was Fascist Party representatives that were sent to represent the workers. As a result the 3 parties represented were the State (Civil Service was entirely fascist party members), capitalists and then the fascist party representatives, where do the workers get any say in this?

Mussolini embraced competition and private ownership as much as he did state planning and common ownership, this book looks at one aspect of a dual system, you can easily look at the other aspect and call it free-market. Mussolini was neither a socialist or a capitalist. He was a Fascist, a movement that synthesised elements of both economic systems.

Furthermore, nationalism is not inseperable from the leftist movement, you are correct. However, what Mussolini exhibited is imperialism, bourgeois nationalism and national chauvanism.



Lets look at the reasons why this is false [i]Fascism is in fact leftist, and not rightist.[/b]

-Fascism is rigthist because it ignores class divisions, this is because it sees them as entirely natural.
-Fascism is rigthist because it sees that human better themselves through competition.
-Fascism is rigthist because it accepts that greater prosperity is generated by private wealth.
-Fascism is rigthist because it says human nature is inherently flawed.
-Fascism is rightist because it says that people are born to rule.

I am only looking at aspects of Fascism that identify with key tenets of the new right, I could find more if I were to look at traditional conservatism. It is true that Fascism does enact some leftist policies, this is because the left stresses state control, as does fascism. However, on a fundamental ideological level it is a right-wing movement, this is why it has always been classified as a right-wing movement. Now I will list the key tenets of the New-Right's view of the world that correlate with the above list.

-The New Right ignores class divisions, it sees them as entirely natural.
-The New Right sees that human develop through competition.
-The New Right says that greater prosperity comes from private wealth.
-The New Right says that human nature is inherently flawed.
-The New Right says that there is a set of people 'born to rule'.

FarfromNear
24th December 2003, 18:54
Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 01:05 PM
"Mussolini retained his socialist loyalties even though he had also become a nationalist."

How is this so? He tortured and persecuted all socialists and socialist organisations. He wasn't loyal to socialists at all. Mussolini often blamed the bourgeoisie, he said they were to weak and not patriotic enough, but this was nothing to do with a loyalty to socialism. It is because Mussolini was previously a socialist and as such reverted to attacking an old enemy when there was no one else to blame.

"Mussolini was, however, far from being any sort of free-marketeer. Just like most modern-day Leftist politicians, he advocated private enterprise within a strict set of State controls(...)"

Mussolini's system was a corporate system in which capitalists and the state controlled the economy, the state would choose what was produced and how much, the capitalists would make a big profit. In socialism people do not make big profits and it is the workers who control the state planning.

"One major "socialist" reform of the economy that is still a misty ideal to modern-day Leftists Mussolini actually carried out. He attempted to centralize control of industry by declaring a "Corporate State" which divided all Italian industry up into 22 "corporations". In these corporations both workers and managers were supposed to co-operate to run industry together -- but under Fascist guidance, of course. The Corporate State was supposed to ensure social justice and give the workers substantial control of industry. "

LOL, the workers did not participate at all. Mussolini said they would to please workers. However, it was Fascist Party representatives that were sent to represent the workers. As a result the 3 parties represented were the State (Civil Service was entirely fascist party members), capitalists and then the fascist party representatives, where do the workers get any say in this?

Mussolini embraced competition and private ownership as much as he did state planning and common ownership, this book looks at one aspect of a dual system, you can easily look at the other aspect and call it free-market. Mussolini was neither a socialist or a capitalist. He was a Fascist, a movement that synthesised elements of both economic systems.

Furthermore, nationalism is not inseperable from the leftist movement, you are correct. However, what Mussolini exhibited is imperialism, bourgeois nationalism and national chauvanism.



Lets look at the reasons why this is false [i]Fascism is in fact leftist, and not rightist.

-Fascism is rigthist because it ignores class divisions, this is because it sees them as entirely natural.
-Fascism is rigthist because it sees that human better themselves through competition.
-Fascism is rigthist because it accepts that greater prosperity is generated by private wealth.
-Fascism is rigthist because it says human nature is inherently flawed.
-Fascism is rightist because it says that people are born to rule.

I am only looking at aspects of Fascism that identify with key tenets of the new right, I could find more if I were to look at traditional conservatism. It is true that Fascism does enact some leftist policies, this is because the left stresses state control, as does fascism. However, on a fundamental ideological level it is a right-wing movement, this is why it has always been classified as a right-wing movement. Now I will list the key tenets of the New-Right's view of the world that correlate with the above list.

-The New Right ignores class divisions, it sees them as entirely natural.
-The New Right sees that human develop through competition.
-The New Right says that greater prosperity comes from private wealth.
-The New Right says that human nature is inherently flawed.
-The New Right says that there is a set of people 'born to rule'. [/b]
He kept his socialist loyalties, he still got support from the socialist parties. He inplemented socialist policies.

Mussolini's system was a corporate system in which capitalists and the state controlled the economy? Again, you are confusing capitalism. Capitalism advocates liberty. Laissez Faire means to let alone, to let things be. It advocates complete freedom for people to do what they chose. Capitalism basically opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce. Those economies seen with mussolini were not Capitalistic because of the fact that the economy was a planned and controlled economy, by the gov't. What they did have was mercantilism. Yahoo defines mercantilism as being "a system of commercial controls in which industry and trade, especially foreign trade, were merely seen as means of strengthening the state. Navigation laws, trade monopolies, taxes, and paternalistic regulations of all kinds bore heavily upon the rising class of merchants(...)". What you described which was basically true, was in fact mercantilism. Just what we have in Latin America.

How can one embrace competiotion while embracing protectionism and regulations that prevented competition. That is a false statement. He regulated the economy. He allowed competition to a degree, but always in control of the economy. You write it as if he was an advocate of competition and that is a false statement. That is not laissez faire.

Let me examine you reasons for Fascism being Leftist.


-Fascism is rigthist because it ignores class divisions, this is because it sees them as entirely natural.

Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... it never denies the existence of class divisions. Rightits dont ignore class divisions either.

Fascism affirms the unchangeable, beneficial, and productive inequality of mankind.




-Fascism is rigthist because it says human nature is inherently flawed.

Fascism has disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights .


-Fascism is rightist because it says that people are born to rule.


You say that Fascism says that, but where? I just want to read it. I at least gave you an article with many references and real quotes.



Anyways,

The fascist leadership, notably Mussolini, admitted the multi-faceted influences of liberalism, marxism, syndicalism, risorgimento, socialism, catholicism and nationalism on their ideology. Fascism is the antithesis of democracy.

These next paragraphs were taken from an article from The Coastal Post - October, 1995. The artcle is callded Fascism and Soacialism explained.

"In history and political science classes we were told that the Nazis were "fascists" and that the Soviets were "communists." It is not hard to come to the conclusion that people living under fascism and people living under communism seemed to be coming out in the same place....as terrified slaves (if not dead).

Properly understood, fascism and communism were, as the Soviet and German labels openly declared, actually the same thing:, just two varieties of socialism. The fascist praises the free market, but secretly works to destroy it. The communist condemns the free market and openly works to destroy it. Both tactics are tools of a monopolistic type of parasitism known as socialism. The key goal in either case is the destruction of economic market competition so that certain ruthless individuals(Hitler, Mao, Mussolini, Stalin) can acquire huge wealth and power. "


"Capitalism is good if government doesn't interfere or take sides. Such does not exist anywhere in the world today. Capitalism becomes something else that is very bad (and is not even capitalism anymore) when government interferes with competition and takes the side of various corporate elites."



I have to agree with him on Capitalism. Capitalism is basically Laissez Faire, governmetn intervention is what ruins it.

Deniz Gezmis
24th December 2003, 19:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 07:03 AM
I just read the same thing. In a book i am reading its said how argentina was one of the richest countries in the world and how its crap today.
The real odessa - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...The+real+odessa (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=The+real+odessa)

A left-winger would hardly do that now, Would he? :)

Bradyman
24th December 2003, 21:55
Man, I hate all this division between left and right and classifing people in the two categories.

Already, maybe, Mussolini did some left-oriented things, and maybe he did some right-oriented things. But that doesn't mean that because we consider ourselves liberal, we automatically agree with what Mussolini did.

I believe that all of the "communists" on this site will tell you that Mussolini is not what we want. So lets leave it at that. Mussolini is not the direction we want to go in, be it left or right.

Saint-Just
24th December 2003, 22:21
Mussolini's system was a corporate system in which capitalists and the state controlled the economy? Again, you are confusing capitalism. Capitalism advocates liberty. Laissez Faire means to let alone, to let things be. It advocates complete freedom for people to do what they chose. Capitalism basically opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce. Those economies seen with mussolini were not Capitalistic because of the fact that the economy was a planned and controlled economy, by the gov't. What they did have was mercantilism. Yahoo defines mercantilism as being "a system of commercial controls in which industry and trade, especially foreign trade, were merely seen as means of strengthening the state. Navigation laws, trade monopolies, taxes, and paternalistic regulations of all kinds bore heavily upon the rising class of merchants(...)". What you described which was basically true, was in fact mercantilism. Just what we have in Latin America.

Liberalism advocates liberty. Yes, you are correct that Mussolini's economic policies were not Laissez Faire and they did not allow complete freedom to choose. However, the private accumulation of wealth and private ownership was allowed. I am not saying he created a free-market, what I am saying is that his economic system was not precisely socialist, it shared characteristics with socialism and capitalism. Mussolini devised the system to do just that, to find the 'third way'.

You write it as if he was an advocate of competition and that is a false statement.

He did not foster competition to a big extent, but he did think that his economy that allowed aspects of the free market was more efficient than socialism. He allowed competition in small business, the interests of the state lay in the larger businesses. And, the corporations were collections of large companies that could still compete for profits and favour from the state as a consumer.

Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... it never denies the existence of class divisions. Rightits dont ignore class divisions either.

Fascism affirms the unchangeable, beneficial, and productive inequality of mankind.

You misunderstand what I say (my fault), they ignore class divisions as being of significance and of undesirability. You are correct that Fascism affirms the unchangeable, beneficial and productive inequality of mankind; so does capitalism.

Fascism has disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.

Indeed, however it also sees human nature is irredeemable, as do all rightists.

You say that Fascism says that, but where? I just want to read it. I at least gave you an article with many references and real quotes.

Mussolini thought he had a divine destiny to lead Italy, I could find sources for that but I don't doubt you would acknowledge this yourself. You can argue that the idea of a certain class being fit to rule is not something given much thought in Fascism though. I admit its a tenuous link.


Anyway, we won't agree on very much, and its a little boring to discuss this.

Bolshevika
24th December 2003, 22:24
Far From near: None of the western superpowers have Laissez-Faire/ Adam Smith style capitalism. That is dead, it died after that garbage brought market saturation and the great depression. (when many american's even went to "Stalinist Russia" to escape exploitation)

I actually hope you capitalists instate Laissez Faire, a working peoples revolution will definetly happen if you do.

Urban Rubble
24th December 2003, 23:32
I haven't read all the posts here, but I read the article.


"Laissez faire is out of date"

To this day the basic free market doctrine of "laissez faire" is virtually a swear-word to most Leftists. Quoted from Smith (1967, p. 87).

How does that statement prove anything ? Any sensible person would think the same about laissez faire Capitalism.


"The paid slaves of kings in their gaudy uniforms, their chests covered with crosses, decorations and similar foreign and domestic hardware ..... blinding the public with dust and flaunting in its face their impudent display".

Here Hibbert (1962, p. 11) reports Mussolini's youthful contempt for the armed forces. Such anti-militarism would surely resound well with most student antiwar demonstrators of today.

Again, how does this prove anything ? Is it wrong to be anti-war ? As far as I'm concerned, being against war should be a basic human thought. Anyone who wishes for war is insane. What does this have to do with anything ?

Also, I shouldn't even have to point out that words are different than actions. Mussolini can claim to be anti war until he's blue in the face, that doesn't erase the fact that he had a hand in provoking the biggest war the world has seen.


"Our programme is simple. We want to rule Italy".

As I have argued at length elsewhere, that is the real program of any Leftist. But Mussolini had the honesty to be upfront about it. Quoted from Carsten (1967, p. 62).

This is just stupid. Anyone who has taken and hour to read the Manifesto knows that Marx did not desire any leaders but the workers themselves. Communism does not mean USSR, they are two different things.


Mussolini ha sempre ragione ("Mussolini is always right").

This is probably the most famous of the many slogans that were plastered up everywhere in Fascist Italy. It too has a resounding echo among Leftists today. I can think of examples where modern conservative politicians have apologized and retracted their views but I can think of no example where a Leftist has. In the old Soviet empire there was virtually no such thing as "negative" news reported in the media. Even plane crashes were ignored. And as Amis (2002) notes, even though the reality of the vast, destructive and brutal tyranny of the now collapsed Soviet regime is undeniable, Leftists to this day are almost universally unapologetic about their past support for it and may even still claim that Lenin was a great man.

This is getting ridiculous. Again he seems to think that the USSR is communism. It was a style of Socialism, that doesn't mean it is the absolute example of a Socialist nation.

No sane leftist would say anyone is "always right".



Fuck it. I'm stopping. This article is too long to go into in detail. This man has proven nothing about the ideologies of fascism and communism being the same. All it says is that when Mussolini was younger he said alot of things Socialists would agree with. Wow, big fucking deal.

el_profe
24th December 2003, 23:41
Originally posted by Death+Dec 24 2003, 08:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Death @ Dec 24 2003, 08:55 PM)
[email protected] 24 2003, 07:03 AM
I just read the same thing. In a book i am reading its said how argentina was one of the richest countries in the world and how its crap today.
The real odessa - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...The+real+odessa (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=The+real+odessa)

A left-winger would hardly do that now, Would he? :) [/b]
That book is a book in spanish so unfortunetly you cant read it.
Its made by 3 latin americans that look at the problems in latin america and see what has really caused latin america to be poor and stay poor.
They do mention something you cant deny because the facts are there. Argetnina was one of the world richest countries before peron after peron we all know the stroy.
But it wasnt totaly his fault but he helped.

Deniz Gezmis
25th December 2003, 00:54
Originally posted by el_profe+Dec 25 2003, 12:41 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (el_profe @ Dec 25 2003, 12:41 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 08:55 PM

[email protected] 24 2003, 07:03 AM
I just read the same thing. In a book i am reading its said how argentina was one of the richest countries in the world and how its crap today.
The real odessa - http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-...The+real+odessa (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=The+real+odessa)

A left-winger would hardly do that now, Would he? :)
That book is a book in spanish so unfortunetly you cant read it.
Its made by 3 latin americans that look at the problems in latin america and see what has really caused latin america to be poor and stay poor.
They do mention something you cant deny because the facts are there. Argetnina was one of the world richest countries before peron after peron we all know the stroy.
But it wasnt totaly his fault but he helped. [/b]
True. The problem with Peron was, He thought the money would last forever therefore spending hugh amounts of it.

Kwisatz Haderach
25th December 2003, 01:28
FarfromNear, how about you first tell us what you MEAN by "left-wing" and "right-wing" before you start calling people left or right?

You seem to live under the impression that "left-wing" means "state control", which is one of the most idiotic pieces of propaganda I&#39;ve ever heard. The Left/Right scale has nothing to do with state control or personal freedom. It has everything to do with class and control over the means of production.

Please go to www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org). They are a non-biased site which explains how the authoritarian/libertarian scale has nothing to do with the left/right scale. You can be a right-winger and support state control just like you can be a left-winger and wish to abolish the state altogether (ever heard of anarcho-communism?).

Also, your argument seems to be "Fascism is anti-capitalist; Socialism is anti-capitalist - therefore Fascism and Socialism are the same".
Well, by the same logic, I could point out that Capitalism is anti-feudalist and Socialism is anti-feudalist, and conclude that Capitalism and Socialism are the same. :rolleyes:

The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarely my friend.

FarfromNear
25th December 2003, 01:46
Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2003, 10:55 PM
Man, I hate all this division between left and right and classifing people in the two categories.

Already, maybe, Mussolini did some left-oriented things, and maybe he did some right-oriented things. But that doesn&#39;t mean that because we consider ourselves liberal, we automatically agree with what Mussolini did.

I believe that all of the "communists" on this site will tell you that Mussolini is not what we want. So lets leave it at that. Mussolini is not the direction we want to go in, be it left or right.
I am not saying that it is the direction you are all wanting. I agree about the classification. That is not what I or the article is saying though.

el_profe
25th December 2003, 01:50
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 25 2003, 02:28 AM
FarfromNear, how about you first tell us what you MEAN by "left-wing" and "right-wing" before you start calling people left or right?

You seem to live under the impression that "left-wing" means "state control", which is one of the most idiotic pieces of propaganda I&#39;ve ever heard. The Left/Right scale has nothing to do with state control or personal freedom. It has everything to do with class and control over the means of production.


the way that left-wing and right-wing is used is bs anywa
Left-wing is called to people who want more state controlled economies and right-wing want less gov. control on the economy.

Idiots call Fascist right-wing because they(fascism) hate communism and communism is considered left. Because anyone with a brain can see that fascism believes in more state-controlled economies; so calling them right is just stupid. In the way they run tehir economies it is actually closer to communism than to capitalism which wants no gov. intervention in the economy.

FarfromNear
25th December 2003, 01:50
Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 24 2003, 11:21 PM
Mussolini&#39;s system was a corporate system in which capitalists and the state controlled the economy? Again, you are confusing capitalism. Capitalism advocates liberty. Laissez Faire means to let alone, to let things be. It advocates complete freedom for people to do what they chose. Capitalism basically opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce. Those economies seen with mussolini were not Capitalistic because of the fact that the economy was a planned and controlled economy, by the gov&#39;t. What they did have was mercantilism. Yahoo defines mercantilism as being "a system of commercial controls in which industry and trade, especially foreign trade, were merely seen as means of strengthening the state. Navigation laws, trade monopolies, taxes, and paternalistic regulations of all kinds bore heavily upon the rising class of merchants(...)". What you described which was basically true, was in fact mercantilism. Just what we have in Latin America.

Liberalism advocates liberty. Yes, you are correct that Mussolini&#39;s economic policies were not Laissez Faire and they did not allow complete freedom to choose. However, the private accumulation of wealth and private ownership was allowed. I am not saying he created a free-market, what I am saying is that his economic system was not precisely socialist, it shared characteristics with socialism and capitalism. Mussolini devised the system to do just that, to find the &#39;third way&#39;.

You write it as if he was an advocate of competition and that is a false statement.

He did not foster competition to a big extent, but he did think that his economy that allowed aspects of the free market was more efficient than socialism. He allowed competition in small business, the interests of the state lay in the larger businesses. And, the corporations were collections of large companies that could still compete for profits and favour from the state as a consumer.

Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... it never denies the existence of class divisions. Rightits dont ignore class divisions either.

Fascism affirms the unchangeable, beneficial, and productive inequality of mankind.

You misunderstand what I say (my fault), they ignore class divisions as being of significance and of undesirability. You are correct that Fascism affirms the unchangeable, beneficial and productive inequality of mankind; so does capitalism.

Fascism has disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights.

Indeed, however it also sees human nature is irredeemable, as do all rightists.

You say that Fascism says that, but where? I just want to read it. I at least gave you an article with many references and real quotes.

Mussolini thought he had a divine destiny to lead Italy, I could find sources for that but I don&#39;t doubt you would acknowledge this yourself. You can argue that the idea of a certain class being fit to rule is not something given much thought in Fascism though. I admit its a tenuous link.


Anyway, we won&#39;t agree on very much, and its a little boring to discuss this.
I agree. It is somewhat boring to discuss this. Fact is, Fascism is neither socialism nor Capitalism, it would be wrong to say that they are one and the same. Fascism does share some things that can be seen in capitalism, as well as socialism. Mussolini was in fact a socialist and a lot of the stuff he did was socialist in nature. But you are right, pointless to discuss.

FarfromNear
25th December 2003, 01:55
Originally posted by Urban [email protected] 25 2003, 12:32 AM




Fuck it. I&#39;m stopping. This article is too long to go into in detail. This man has proven nothing about the ideologies of fascism and communism being the same. All it says is that when Mussolini was younger he said alot of things Socialists would agree with. Wow, big fucking deal.
You misunderstood the article, or basically did not read the whole thing. He is not saying that communism and fascism are one and the same. What he is saying is that fascism should be leftist and not rightest, for the reasons being. If your read the articles you could see all the common values shared between fascism and leftists today. Dont misunderstand me. I am not saying that leftists are fascists, what i am saying if that if anybody wishes to categorize fascism as either left or right wing, it should in fact be leftist.

FarfromNear
25th December 2003, 01:58
Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 25 2003, 02:28 AM
FarfromNear, how about you first tell us what you MEAN by "left-wing" and "right-wing" before you start calling people left or right?

You seem to live under the impression that "left-wing" means "state control", which is one of the most idiotic pieces of propaganda I&#39;ve ever heard. The Left/Right scale has nothing to do with state control or personal freedom. It has everything to do with class and control over the means of production.

Please go to www.politicalcompass.org (http://www.politicalcompass.org). They are a non-biased site which explains how the authoritarian/libertarian scale has nothing to do with the left/right scale. You can be a right-winger and support state control just like you can be a left-winger and wish to abolish the state altogether (ever heard of anarcho-communism?).

Also, your argument seems to be "Fascism is anti-capitalist; Socialism is anti-capitalist - therefore Fascism and Socialism are the same".
Well, by the same logic, I could point out that Capitalism is anti-feudalist and Socialism is anti-feudalist, and conclude that Capitalism and Socialism are the same. :rolleyes:

The enemy of my enemy is NOT necessarely my friend.
First of all, nobody ever said that fascism and socialism are one and the same. I agree with you on what you said about left and right, thats why I dont like to categorize. The reason I posted this article was for those giving me crap about fascism being just like capitalism, or fascism being right wing.

Kwisatz Haderach
25th December 2003, 02:09
Left-wing is called to people who want more state controlled economies and right-wing want less gov. control on the economy.
Cool. Then I guess most communists are right-wing, yes? Because what we ultimately want is to abolish the state altogether.

"Less government control over the economy" is a negative statement. It says what a certain group DOESN&#39;T want, not what it DOES want. Therefore, you can&#39;t put all the people who want "less gov. control over the economy" in the same basket. Right-wingers usually want less power to the government, more power to corporations. In other words, the Right wants less power to democratic organizations and more power to undemocratic corporate oligarchies.

The Left wants more power to the people. This can be achieved either by a democratic government, or by direct democracy.

Kwisatz Haderach
25th December 2003, 02:17
FarfromNear, the defining feature of Fascism is that it is totalitarian. When you get to that stage, there is no clear line between the state and the corporations, so the concepts of "left" and "right" lose their meaning.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
- Benito Mussolini