The Libertarian-Fascist Connection

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Can someone explain this to me? I couldn't really get the grasp on the other thread, as it seemed to be a lot of, well, non-concrete evidence.

I'm not a Libertarian, but I must admit I've found some of their ideas interesting and have attended a Pro-Pot protest were they outnumbered, by far, the number of leftists. Meanwhile, I counted zero fascists.

An explanation would be greatly appreciated. And please leave out the "stormfront loves libertarians...." I don't care.

Thank you.

[IcarusAngel]

In both fascism and in libertarianism, the means of production and the land have private owners who reap the profits and derive power from that ownership. This is in contrast to socialism and communism, where the means of production are owned by the people, often through the state, whose representatives are elected by the people.

This stuff is really on page two of any introductory political science textbook, that politics is defined as being between public democracy and authority and privatized ownership of production. The only people who are being dubious are libertarians who make some bizarre connection with socialism and fascism, even after the huge difference between them are shown.

The same paradigm can be found in Aristotle's writings where he defined politics as being between Democracy and Oligarchy (Fascism, Conservatism, etc.) but I don't want to confuse you even more, as this is probably a lot to take in for a beginner. The only thing new about the left right line is that militarism, anti-war, etc. have generally been characterized as either right or left, and since it's obvious where such things go.

None of this is "opinion." It's just elementary truisms about history and the agendas of certain trains of thought, so, if you're going to challenge it, you better have massive evidence, as I'm just using information from such books as Liberalism and the challenge of Fascism, Social Forces in England and France.

And who cares about a "pro-pot" rally? It was probably organized by Libertarian kooks in the first place, who ignore the real problems in America, like the massive ownership of the means of production by few hands.

Fascists allowed some drugs, and forbade others. Pot is illegaly because it threatens the interests of the most dominant corporations, like DuPont, and the pharmaceutical companies as well, as it would cut into their profits. Again, another fascist/capitalist connection.

[trivas7]

IMO the connection is the implicit assumption that might makes right, the law of the jungle prevails in human affairs. I am free to do what I want to because I have the means to do it, others will be exploited. My highest value is to live for the sake of myself/the fascist government, and the good human animal is he who would be a wolf over other selves/nations.

[Demogorgon]

It draws on many of the same values. You will hear both praising strength, the idea that some people are better than others and so forth.

Moreover you often find them supporting more or less the same policies from reducing or eliminating Democracy to fairly regular incidences of racism. That's why groups like the Von Mises Institute subscribe heavily to neo-Confederatism and books like the Bell Curve were written by Libertarians.

[pusher robot]

IMO the connection is the implicit assumption that might makes right, the law of the jungle prevails in human affairs.

Er, that's not a value judgment, it is a recognition of reality. At the very end of everything, power trumps everything else. Clearly even most revcoms believe this, otherwise revolution would be impossible.

[Green Dragon]

IMO the connection is the implicit assumption that might makes right, the law of the jungle prevails in human affairs. I am free to do what I want to because I have the means to do it, others will be exploited. My highest value is to live for the sake of myself/the fascist government, and the good human animal is he who would be a wolf over other selves/nations.

I am no libertarian, but this is the sort of the kettle calling the pot black. The entire basis of socialism/communism is that the workers should rule because they are the majority. Their "might" is in raw numbers, which is the only legitimate way to organise the community.

[trivas7]

I am no libertarian, but this is the sort of the kettle calling the pot black. The entire basis of socialism/communism is that the workers should rule because they are the majority. Their "might" is in raw numbers, which is the only legitimate way to organise the community.
Clearly you know little if anything re socialism/communism.

Er, that's not a value judgment, it is a recognition of reality. At the very end of everything, power trumps everything else. Clearly even most revcoms believe this, otherwise revolution would be impossible.
Perhaps I miswrote. That might ought to make right, that the law of the jungle ought to prevail in the affairs of men is the value judgment shared by libertarians and fascists.

[pusher robot]

I beg to differ. That's a value judgment.

Please explain.

[forward]

I dont see how libertarian is similar to fascism either, but I dont agree with it. Libertarianism encourages immorality (let's legalize eveyrthing!), to me it sounds like they cant take responsibility for themelves, and would encourage turmoil (drug-related accidents increase, no moral structure). It seems like some sort of ideology that immoral rich people praise. But it's much better than communism though. Communism is more similar to fascism.

[trivas7]

I dont see how libertarian is similar to fascism either, but I dont agree with it. Libertarianism encourages immorality (let's legalize eveyrthing!), to me it sounds like they cant take responsibility for themelves, and would encourage turmoil (drug-related accidents increase, no moral structure). It seems like some sort of ideology that immoral rich people praise. But it's much better than communism though. Communism is more similar to fascism.
Frankly, no, libertarianism isn't libertinism. It's much more insidious than that. In the sense that you mean it, the immoral rich don't stay that way for very long.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Libertarianism is not fascism. However, libertarians and fascists share certain political beliefs and inclinations that can cause many libertarians to support fascism, or become fascists themselves. Here is a short list of the common points of libertarianism and fascism, off the top of my head:

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.

The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don't believe (or they say they don't believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you've convinced yourself that you're better than everyone else, it's easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point...

2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don't think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do. They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the "unwashed masses" on the assumption that all people are equal. It's important to note, however, that libertarians and fascists are not necessarily hostile to the masses themselves - in fact they are often populist, from Mussolini to Ron Paul. They are only hostile to the idea of equality among the masses, and most of all to the idea of equality between the masses and the elite. Libertarians and fascists often genuinely believe that they are working to help the people, the masses, but they believe that salvation can only come from above, from the elite. Which leads us to the third point...

3. Belief in Natural Hierarchy. Libertarians and fascists are elitists, and moreover they believe that elitism and hierarchy are part of the natural order of things. The phrase "rebellion against nature" has been used by libertarians and fascists to describe the political views of their enemies - particularly egalitarian views. Libertarians and fascists don't think their kind of society is the best among a number of competing kinds of viable societies, they believe their kind of society is the ONLY viable, "natural" kind of society. Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.

Those are the fundamental similarities between libertarian and fascist thinking, but there are also many other, less vital parallels:

4. Belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve. If hierarchy is natural, it follows that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are there through their own fault or their own flaws. Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor. Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" thesis - the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.

5. Conspiracy theories. Unlike Marxists, who recognize that different social and economic institutions are appropriate at different stages of history, libertarians and fascists believe that their ideas are always valid, everywhere at all times. The question then arises, if their ideas are so right, and if they've always been right, how come they haven't conquered the world yet? There is only one possible explanation: conspiracy. Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone - Jews or evil government bureaucrats - must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism.

6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.

* * *

That's all I could think of right now, but there may be other important points that I missed.

[Robert]

Pot is illegaly because it threatens the interests of the most dominant corporations, like DuPont

Oh, bullshit. By that logic home brew would be illegal because it threatens the profits of Anheuser Busch.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh, bullshit. By that logic home brew would be illegal because it threatens the profits of Anheuser Busch.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Shekky Shabazz]

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people,

I appreciate you identified you are completely clueless early on in this post, as opposed to your ramblings on AC, where it took a few paragraphs. thx

[Shekky Shabazz]

Oh, bullshit. By that logic home brew would be illegal because it threatens the profits of Anheuser Busch.

Not entirely BS. While corporate interests were not front and center in changing public perception of marijuana, they were certainly in the background, lobbying for changes in drug laws.

The alcohol analogy falls flat because of the nature of production of the goods. Considerably more effort and materials are required to brew your own drink and your final product is much less, in terms of both quantity and quality. By quality, I mean it requires a lot less weed to get a comparable feeling than alcohol.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Not entirely BS. While corporate interests were not front and center in changing public perception of marijuana, they were certainly in the background, lobbying for changes in drug laws.

The alcohol analogy falls flat because of the nature of production of the goods. Considerably more effort and materials are required to brew your own drink and your final product is much less, in terms of both quantity and quality. By quality, I mean it requires a lot less weed to get a comparable feeling than alcohol.

Homebrew is easy and cheap to make. All it requires a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, engineering, biology, and physics. Basically shit you pick up high school.

Home brew is kept strictly regulated for this very reason. You can only produce small portions for personal consumption and often it must be under liquor strength. Moonshiners are thrown in jail all the time for their activity. They provide the A in ATF

[Shekky Shabazz]

Homebrew is easy and cheap to make. All it requires a rudimentary knowledge of chemistry, engineering, biology, and physics. Basically shit you pick up high school.


Yeah I wasn't trying to imply you need to be some kind of mad scientist to make some cheap brew on the weekend. I was only mentioning relative to growing marijuana to produce similar amounts, alcohol was more extensive.



Home brew is kept strictly regulated for this very reason. You can only produce small portions for personal consumption and often it must be under liquor strength. Moonshiners are thrown in jail all the time for their activity. They provide the A in ATF

yep

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I appreciate you identified you are completely clueless early on in this post, as opposed to your ramblings on AC, where it took a few paragraphs. thx
Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people? You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else, that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?

Replace "the rich" with "the Germans" and "the poor" with "the Jews" and you'll see where I'm getting at.

Your only defence is going to be "But but... the rich really are superior and the poor really are inferior, while the Germans and the Jews weren't like that at all. We're not like the fascists because we are right and they were wrong." Heh.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The conspiracy theory tidbit is quite interesting. I honestly can't tell the difference between the propaganda pumped out by the nutter Alex Jones (Zionist Fabian Socialists - Amphibians ... wait, that's another libertarian) and the propaganda pumped out by fascists (Zionist Fabian ... Marxists?)

[Shekky Shabazz]

Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people?

No, I don't.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No, I don't.
Answer my second question, too: You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else, that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?

It's easy to say "I don't think the world is divided into superior and inferior people." It's not so easy to hide how you feel about specific groups of people, namely the rich and the poor.

[Bud Struggle]

Oh really? You don't believe that the world is divided into superior and inferior people? You don't believe that the rich are better and smarter than everyone else, that they are intelligent, honest, creative and hardworking, and that they carry the world on their shoulders only to be hindered by the statist demands of the poor, who are stupid, lazy, dishonest, thieving, uncreative parasites?

People aren't superiour or inferior to each other. But different people have different talents--some can paint pictures well, some write music and some make money.

As far as I couls see, and I've been watching this fow a while--making money is a knack, or a talent. Some people have it and some don't. Intelligence helps, like it does in any talent--but it's not a necessity. A good education helps, but it's not a necessity.

The talent of making money is, as close as I could see, the ability to spot something missing in the fabric of today's economic world and figure out a way to fill it.

That's not a universal definition--but I think it covers most circumstances.

[BobKKKindle$]

The talent of making money is, as close as I could see, the ability to spot something missing in the fabric of today's economic world and figure out a way to fill it.

"Making money" is not an activity which can ever occur through the efforts of an individual - all production of wealth and expansion of productive capacity is a social activity, as it is dependent on large numbers of people working together in a cooperative environment (for example, people working on an assembly line to manufacture a car) and it is only through private property that a small group is able to monopolize the benefits of this social activity and deny the workers the ability to control the goods they produce.

[Bud Struggle]

"Making money" is not an activity which can ever occur through the efforts of an individual - all production of wealth and expansion of productive capacity is a social activity, as it is dependent on large numbers of people working together in a cooperative environment (for example, people working on an assembly line to manufacture a car) and it is only through private property that a small group is able to monopolize the benefits of this social activity and deny the workers the ability to control the goods they produce.

That's backwords. And hence the Capitalist/Communist disagreement. One man, the Capitalist, has an idea and decides to act on that idea (fill the hole in the economic fabric,) how he does it, and if he employs people, how many people he employs--is not signifigant. The only thing that matters is the man and the idea.

To be honest, as a Capitalist myself, that's EXACTLY how I look at my business. I started it, it belongs to me, people can come and go--but the idea is mine, the creation of the business is mine and the business itself is mine. Everything else is superfluous.

I know if might seem a bit nasty, but that's the way it is.

[BobKKKindle$]

The only thing that matters is the man and the idea.Why does coming up with a new idea given an individual the right to accumulate wealth far in excess of what he needs, when other people don't have enough income to purchase the basic goods they need to survive and are living in conditions of dire poverty? An unequal system of wealth distribution is not a requirement for innovation, as workers are also able to develop new ideas by drawing on collective experience and discussing new ways to organize the workplace, as shown by the improvements and innovations in product design which have been made in enterprises subject to workers control, such as the occupied factories movement in Argentina.


To be honest, as a Capitalist myself, that's EXACTLY how I look at my businessI don't care who you are, or how you look at your business.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One man, the Capitalist, has an idea and decides to act on that idea (fill the hole in the economic fabric,) how he does it, and if he employs people, how many people he employs--is not significant. The only thing that matters is the man and the idea.

That was the petit-bourgeois past. More and more are engaged in speculative crap (i.e., the "venture capitalists"). I don't see much in terms of non-employed innovation these days.

[trivas7]

To be honest, as a Capitalist myself, that's EXACTLY how I look at my business. I started it, it belongs to me, people can come and go--but the idea is mine, the creation of the business is mine and the business itself is mine. Everything else is superfluous.

As if one person and an idea is what brings goods/services to the market, that is BS.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Yeah I wasn't trying to imply you need to be some kind of mad scientist to make some cheap brew on the weekend. I was only mentioning relative to growing marijuana to produce similar amounts, alcohol was more extensive.


I dunno about that. Growing plants with energy consuming uv lights sounds pretty expensive. Taking some yeast and juice and throwing them in a plastic jug with a basic airlock doesn't really cost anything. Once the start up costs for the equipment are paid for, the only other costs are sugar/carbs and yeast. Yeast costs nothing, and sugar/carbs probably cost less than 10 dollars.

[Demogorgon]

Making good quality home-made alcohol is quite an undertaking mind you. My Grandfather used to do it and he spend hours upon hours tinkering with his wines. Of course they usually tasted awful anyway, but he occasionally struck gold.

Making homemade moonshine is a pretty simple business though.

Still growing Cannabis can also be difficult. Particularly in cold countries like this one when you need all sorts of equipment. Not something I would bother with even if I did smoke Cannabis.

[Killfacer]

i made loads of shit wine yet drinkable wine. It's perfectly good for when you're 16 and so pissed that you can down a bottle of vile tasting wine. It's extremely easy make. More recently however i made some scrumpy cider (not wishing to adhere to stereotypes or anything), it was extremely nice and v.easy to make.

Like demogorgon sais, cannabis is far more difficult to grow. Plus theres a bit of a risk factor involved, even in small amounts.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In both fascism and in libertarianism, the means of production and the land have private owners who reap the profits and derive power from that ownership. This is in contrast to socialism and communism, where the means of production are owned by the people, often through the state, whose representatives are elected by the people.

But ownership of the means of production isn't the only defining political attribute.

The level of social freedoms in a Libertarian society would be much greater than that of today.



This stuff is really on page two of any introductory political science textbook, that politics is defined as being between public democracy and authority and privatized ownership of production. The only people who are being dubious are libertarians who make some bizarre connection with socialism and fascism, even after the huge difference between them are shown.


Well, granted by the sheer number of socialized programs the Nazis had, I can see were they're coming from.



The same paradigm can be found in Aristotle's writings where he defined politics as being between Democracy and Oligarchy (Fascism, Conservatism, etc.) but I don't want to confuse you even more, as this is probably a lot to take in for a beginner. The only thing new about the left right line is that militarism, anti-war, etc. have generally been characterized as either right or left, and since it's obvious where such things go.


Every Libertarian I've ever known has advocated the end of the American Empire immediately.


None of this is "opinion." It's just elementary truisms about history and the agendas of certain trains of thought, so, if you're going to challenge it, you better have massive evidence, as I'm just using information from such books as Liberalism and the challenge of Fascism, Social Forces in England and France.

Well, maybe we're not talking about the same Libertarians....


And who cares about a "pro-pot" rally? It was probably organized by Libertarian kooks in the first place, who ignore the real problems in America, like the massive ownership of the means of production by few hands.

the vast majority of americans who are basically satisfied with the economic system we have? even with high gas prices, people are trying amend their habits, not the system itself.


Fascists allowed some drugs, and forbade others. Pot is illegaly because it threatens the interests of the most dominant corporations, like DuPont, and the pharmaceutical companies as well, as it would cut into their profits. Again, another fascist/capitalist connection.

I got the fascist/capitalist connection.

But Libertarians advocate--get this-- a Free Market Health Care system. Whereas today the government (FDA here in America) tells you what you can and can't take, Libs believe you should be free to take any substance you want (whether it be pot or Cuban pills for $.05 a pop), whether it's for a medical condition or recreational use. Now that's revolutionary.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

IMO the connection is the implicit assumption that might makes right, the law of the jungle prevails in human affairs. I am free to do what I want to because I have the means to do it, others will be exploited. My highest value is to live for the sake of myself/the fascist government, and the good human animal is he who would be a wolf over other selves/nations.

Once again, are we sure we're talking of the same Libs?

The ones here in America already believe we're in a police state. No Libertarian I've ever heard of has called for an end to the rule of law (that would be the anarchists, who I consider to be insane). Also, Libertarians call for the closure of every American base overseas and an end to the military-industrial complex.

IE the opposite of fascism in many respects.

[freakazoid]

Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak)

I love my guns, what is wrong with that? And what do you men by "righteous violence", or "retaliatory force"?


that would be the anarchists, who I consider to be insane

:( I'm an anarchist and I'm not insane, I just believe in a more direct method of reaching communism.

edit - I too have never understood the whole libertarian-fascist thing. I was a libertarian before I made the change to anarchist. Libertarians want LESS government not more. And I'm pretty sure that if there was a fascist government the libertarians would be fighting it, you know, the whole anti-police state thing.

[trivas7]

The ones here in America already believe we're in a police state. No Libertarian I've ever heard of has called for an end to the rule of law (that would be the anarchists, who I consider to be insane). Also, Libertarians call for the closure of every American base overseas and an end to the military-industrial complex.

IE the opposite of fascism in many respects.
Libertarians here in USA think we're living in a police state? That's a new one on me.

Any thinking libertarian understands that capitalism mandates the rule of law regulating commerce and therefore the state. If they thought a little longer they'd understand that it's only those hegemonic military bases and economic pressure that leverages foreign markets to open up so that their capital can growth. The capitalist too is compelled in his action by the logic of capital.

[Shekky Shabazz]

Answer my second question, too

The answer to the first is the answer to the second. Do you see why this is?

[Bud Struggle]

Why does coming up with a new idea given an individual the right to accumulate wealth far in excess of what he needs, No, I make what I need, no excess--I just happen to need more than you.


when other people don't have enough income to purchase the basic goods they need to survive and are living in conditions of dire poverty? Then they need to go out in this wide workld and find a way to make more money.


An unequal system of wealth distribution is not a requirement for innovation, No but it works quite well.


as workers are also able to develop new ideas by drawing on collective experience and discussing new ways to organize the workplace, as shown by the improvements and innovations in product design which have been made in enterprises subject to workers control, such as the occupied factories movement in Argentina. You don't have to go to Argentinia, they do it for me in my factory.


I don't care who you are, or how you look at your business. Alienated and bitter, too. A good combonation. :lol:

[Bud Struggle]

That was the petit-bourgeois past. More and more are engaged in speculative crap (i.e., the "venture capitalists"). I don't see much in terms of non-employed innovation these days.

Muchly agreed with you there. And now at least in the US they are paying the price--now adays if you "make" things you are doing pretty good, if you are in the "investment" business you are hurting pretty seriously.

I probably have less sympathy for those bastards than even you do. :)

[Green Dragon]

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.

The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don't believe (or they say they don't believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you've convinced yourself that you're better than everyone else, it's easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point...


The fascists argue however in a collective sense; the Germans are all superior to other racial groups. However, the fascists always argued that within that sphere, all Germans were equal to each other.
The liberatrians argue that individuals have different talents and skills. A free society allows for those skills and talents to develop, for the benefit of all. Its not a collective thing, unless one wishes to deny an observatrion that masons are superior to surgeons in masonry.


2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don't think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do. They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the "unwashed masses" on the assumption that all people are equal. It's important to note, however, that libertarians and fascists are not necessarily hostile to the masses themselves - in fact they are often populist, from Mussolini to Ron Paul. They are only hostile to the idea of equality among the masses, and most of all to the idea of equality between the masses and the elite. Libertarians and fascists often genuinely believe that they are working to help the people, the masses, but they believe that salvation can only come from above, from the elite. Which leads us to the third point...

As indicated earlier, the fascists always argued that people within the collective, as defined by the fascist, were equal to each other. Nor did the fascists see themselves, nor in fact were they, of the elite (within that sphere).
The "elite" of liberatrianism comes from Number 1- people whose interest freely are allowed to develop, become greatly skilled and knowledgable in their field. The Liberatrian would wonder why should such knowledge and skill be disregarded in a rational community?



3. Belief in Natural Hierarchy. Libertarians and fascists are elitists, and moreover they believe that elitism and hierarchy are part of the natural order of things. The phrase "rebellion against nature" has been used by libertarians and fascists to describe the political views of their enemies - particularly egalitarian views. Libertarians and fascists don't think their kind of society is the best among a number of competing kinds of viable societies, they believe their kind of society is the ONLY viable, "natural" kind of society. Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.


The fascists believed in a racial hierarchy; all germans were superior and better than all Russians. As indicated earlier, within that sphere, all Germans were equal to each other.

Libertarians, by contrast, again look to the skills and abilities of individuals. Collective groupings are not relevent in their thinking.




4. Belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve. If hierarchy is natural, it follows that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are there through their own fault or their own flaws. Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor. Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" thesis - the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.


Fascists would indeed suggest that the poor in Africa are poor because the Africans were inferior. Its a collective, ethnic damming of which noithing can be done.
The liberatrian would suggest they were poor because they have been unable to take advantage of their natural advantages and skills. The libertarian would suggest investigating what is holding them back. There is nothing ethnic about it.



5. Conspiracy theories. Unlike Marxists, who recognize that different social and economic institutions are appropriate at different stages of history, libertarians and fascists believe that their ideas are always valid, everywhere at all times. The question then arises, if their ideas are so right, and if they've always been right, how come they haven't conquered the world yet? There is only one possible explanation: conspiracy. Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone - Jews or evil government bureaucrats - must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism.


As a base, fascism is a conspiracy theory- someone, somewhere was holding back the natural greatness of the collective. The fascist will break those people, and liberate the collective to its proper place in the sun.
The Libertarian would suggest the evil beauracrat is crushing the people.



6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated.


It is true of the fascist.
For the Libertarian, it is an unrecognisable charge.

[freakazoid]

Libertarians here in USA think we're living in a police state? That's a new one on me.

Really? Don'y hang out with to many then do you?

[xAtlasx]

No one is arguing that people who are skilled in certain areas shouldn't allow those skills to develop, but instead that there is no moral argument for the people with those abilities to accumulate more wealth for doing an equal amount of work.

[Robert]

but instead that there is no moral argument for the people with those abilities to accumulate more wealth for doing an equal amount of work.

What that ignores is that the better skilled cobbler (they still exist), cook, mechanic, lawyer, tailor, counselor, graphic designer, dentist or musician will in fact do more work than the unskilled, assuming people retain the freedom to patronize whom they want. And they will seek out quality, and choose quality when given the choice.

If I open a pizza parlor and make a lousy pizza, fail to clean the place, and provide slow service, I would fully expect customers to go elsewhere. That means I work less.

[xAtlasx]

I apologize, I meant to say equally important work.

The cobbler, lawyer, etc.. do not deserve greater pay for having greater skills. Without the cobbler's assistant and support staff he wouldn't be able to, well, cobble! The lawyer has various clerks and and newer lawyers working for him for lesser pay, but without this miniature bureaucracy he wouldn't be able to take a case, so on and so on...

The Libertarian would argue greater skill=greater pay, but they fail to realize that all work is cooperative not individual.

[Robert]

Don't apologize. I'm learning from you.


The Libertarian would argue greater skill=greater payHold it ... maybe he would, but I wouldn't."Skill" is just a small part of success. Return to the cobbler. He loves his job and is so good at it that people flock to his shop just to be near him and be energized by his enthusiasm and quality. He has more clients and so he works harder to meet demand.

Is his slothful, inferior, inattentive, rude competitor not going to drive customers away and so work less? Why shouldn't there be a consequence?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Green Dragon, your idea of fascism seems to be some ridiculous straw man. Allow me to educate you. Fascists and libertarians are very similar in their thinking and their goals; where they differ is only in their means (a bit like the difference between communists and anarchists), and of course in the fact that most libertarians discriminate on a non-racial basis (though there are plenty of racist libertarians too).


The fascists argue however in a collective sense; the Germans are all superior to other racial groups. However, the fascists always argued that within that sphere, all Germans were equal to each other.

As indicated earlier, the fascists always argued that people within the collective, as defined by the fascist, were equal to each other.
No, they didn't. You've just directly contradicted Hitler:

"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."
-- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", volume II, chapter 4. (source (http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch04.html))

And, of course:

"Fascism.. asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men."
-- The Doctrine of Fascism, authored by Giovanni Gentile, signed by Benito Mussolini (source (http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm))

You fail to understand fascism.


Nor did the fascists see themselves, nor in fact were they, of the elite (within that sphere).
Oh really?

"Mankind is not a uniform and equal mass. There are differences between races. The Earth has received its culture from elite peoples; what we see today is ultimately the result of the activity and the achievements of the Aryans. Decisive within each race, however, are the personalities it is able to produce. Personalities have created the cultural shape of mankind and not democratic majorities."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "The rise of the Nazis", Conan Fischer. Manchester University Press: New York, 1995. Page 139.


The liberatrians argue that individuals have different talents and skills. A free society allows for those skills and talents to develop, for the benefit of all.
"There are three ways of settling the social question: The privileged class rules the people. The insurgent proletariat exterminates the possessing class. Or else our third formula that gives each man the opportunity to develop himself according to his talents."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 267.

Wow. You nearly used the same words as Hitler there. I knew that libertarians were close to fascists, but now I'm really impressed.


Libertarians, by contrast, again look to the skills and abilities of individuals. Collective groupings are not relevent in their thinking.
Sure they are. Libertarians think that the rich are collectively better than the poor.

And besides...

"It is my firm conviction that property rights... must be unconditionally respected. Any tampering with them would eliminate one of the most vital incentives to human activity and would jeopardise future endeavour."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 368.

"The individual must be given more latitude and be taught to cultivate a sense of responsibility and a readiness to accept it."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 536.


Fascists would indeed suggest that the poor in Africa are poor because the Africans were inferior. Its a collective, ethnic damming of which noithing can be done.
The liberatrian would suggest they were poor because they have been unable to take advantage of their natural advantages and skills. The libertarian would suggest investigating what is holding them back. There is nothing ethnic about it.
It is true that fascists think poor nations are poor primarily for ethnic reasons. But not only for ethnic reasons. Fascists also always made the argument that certain nations - particularly Russia - are poor because of communism:

"Russia could be a land of plenty, but the production of real values is forthwith utterly destroyed by Bolshevism [...] and such production cannot be brought into working order again even after twenty years."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "The Speeches of Adolf Hitler", translated by Norman H. Baynes. Oxford University Press: London, 1942. Page 705.


As a base, fascism is a conspiracy theory- someone, somewhere was holding back the natural greatness of the collective. The fascist will break those people, and liberate the collective to its proper place in the sun.
The Libertarian would suggest the evil beauracrat is crushing the people.
Right. A conspiracy of Jews is crushing the people in the first case, and a conspiracy of bureaucrats is crushing the people in the second. The people cannot see their true interests, and it is up to the fascist/libertarian to bring about a glorious rebirth based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century free marketeers or the "Founding Fathers" for you libertarians, medieval heroes for the fascists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because democracy is evil - and against the will of the majority if necessary.

[pusher robot]

The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."
-- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", volume II, chapter 4. (source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv2ch04.html))

And, of course:

"Fascism.. asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men."
-- The Doctrine of Fascism, authored by Giovanni Gentile, signed by Benito Mussolini (source (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm))

You fail to understand fascism.

So, is it, in your opinion, "fascist" to suggest that people, in reality, have different levels of talent, ability, and virtue?

Does reality have a fascist bias?


"There are three ways of settling the social question: The privileged class rules the people. The insurgent proletariat exterminates the possessing class. Or else our third formula that gives each man the opportunity to develop himself according to his talents."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 267.

Wow. You nearly used the same words as Hitler there. I knew that libertarians were close to fascists, but now I'm really impressed.

I fully expect then, every communist who promotes communism under the theory that it allows for the greatest self-realization of every person to be summarily banned for being a fascist. Or are you just demagoguing?



"The individual must be given more latitude and be taught to cultivate a sense of responsibility and a readiness to accept it."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 536.

What is this intended to demonstrate? Is the implication that cultivating a sense of responsibility in individuals is fascist and therefore bad? Must I conclude the corollary, that you approve of cultivating a sense of irresponsibility and believe this is good? What point are you trying to argue?

Right. A conspiracy of Jews is crushing the people in the first case, and a conspiracy of bureaucrats is crushing the people in the second. The people cannot see their true interests, and it is up to the fascist/libertarian to bring about a glorious rebirth based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century free marketeers or the "Founding Fathers" for you libertarians, medieval heroes for the fascists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because democracy is evil - and against the will of the majority if necessary.

Oh, fine, very well. I await your explanation of how this is completely different than the belief that a conspiracy of capitalist elite is crushing people in the status quo, that the "people" have a "false consciousness" and that it is up to the communist vanguard to lead the people in glorious revolution based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century Marxists for you communists, 20th century dictators for the Stalinists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because capitalist democracy is reactionary - and against the will of the majority if necessary.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So, is it, in your opinion, "fascist" to suggest that people, in reality, have different levels of talent, ability, and virtue?

Does reality have a fascist bias?
First of all, let's get one thing straight: I am not saying that any of the ideas expressed in the quotes I gave are inherently fascist. They can't be, because all of them are much, much older than fascism. They're 19th century ideas at least.

Only idiots use arguments of the form "you agree with Hitler on point X, therefore you are a fascist." I'm not calling you a fascist, nor am I saying libertarianism is fascist (in fact I began my first post in this thread with the words "libertarianism is not fascism").

No, my point is that libertarianism and fascism agree on certain important fundamental beliefs, that these beliefs are the defining characteristics of the political right-wing, and that they are exactly the kinds of beliefs most hated and reviled by socialists and communists.

And yes, the idea that it is moral for people to receive different rewards in terms of wealth or power for their different levels of talent, ability, and virtue is one of those. It is a defining idea of the political right, and it is reviled by socialists and communists.

Notice the words "it is moral" at the beginning of the idea. Those are important. We on the left may sometimes accept different rewards in terms of wealth or power for different levels of talent, ability, and virtue, but only as a necessary evil. Those of us on the revolutionary left believe there will come a time when this evil will no longer be necessary.

If you believe that different rewards in terms of wealth or power for different people are good and moral, not just a necessary evil, then you are my enemy. In fact I would say that this is the single most important defining characteristic of what I call "the enemy."


I fully expect then, every communist who promotes communism under the theory that it allows for the greatest self-realization of every person to be summarily banned for being a fascist. Or are you just demagoguing?
Again, agreeing with Hitler on one point doesn't make you a fascist. But he wasn't talking about "self-realization" there, and you know it. Just like libertarians aren't talking about "self-realization." They are talking about an individual accumulating wealth through his talent. Hitler was also talking about an individual accumulating wealth (or power, it's not entirely clear) through his talent - because the previous two sentences were all about different power/wealth distributions.


What is this intended to demonstrate? Is the implication that cultivating a sense of responsibility in individuals is fascist and therefore bad? Must I conclude the corollary, that you approve of cultivating a sense of irresponsibility and believe this is good? What point are you trying to argue?
The point that fascists and libertarians often use the same arguments, talk in the same way, and see the world in the same way. In this case, I was showing that they both use arguments based on notions of individual responsibility.

I don't think individual responsibility is bad. I think individual responsibility is morally neutral, and politically irrelevant. I also think that anyone who sees it as a legitimate political issue is morally and politically suspect.


Oh, fine, very well. I await your explanation of how this is completely different than the belief that a conspiracy of capitalist elite is crushing people in the status quo, that the "people" have a "false consciousness" and that it is up to the communist vanguard to lead the people in glorious revolution based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century Marxists for you communists, 20th century dictators for the Stalinists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because capitalist democracy is reactionary - and against the will of the majority if necessary.
Erm, you've just constructed a straw man. There is no conspiracy of the capitalist elite. The capitalists aren't all working together in a shadowy organization to oppress the proletariat, like the Jews or the bureaucrats are supposed to in fascist or libertarian conspiracy theories. There is no secret capitalist world government, like the Illuminati or the Masons or "international Jewry" or whatever.

Also, "rebirth" is not the same as "revolution." The point is that fascists and libertarians claim to restore former glory, to recreate some golden age of the past (again, this is laissez-faire for libertarians, and the ancien regime for fascists). Communists make no such claim, and those semi-communists that try to - such as those calling for the restoration of the Soviet Union - usually end up sliding into fascism (*cough* National Bolsheviks *cough*).

Oh, and no communist wants to carry out a revolution against the will of a majority of the population. In fact, such a revolution is impossible. While the majority doesn't have to be actively involved or fighting in the revolution, they have to be at least broadly sympathetic to it.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

All right, I personally don't see any connection between fascism and libertarianism other than they both support capitalism. And that is a stretch, as the capitalism espoused by these two groups is radically different (fascism uses the state as a tool to support the capitalist system ie the Nazi social programs and huge investment in war industries. Libertarians think the contemporary US govt spends too much as it is), let alone the fact that the levels of social freedoms is worlds apart.


Oh, and no communist wants to carry out a revolution against the will of a majority of the population. In fact, such a revolution is impossible. While the majority doesn't have to be actively involved or fighting in the revolution, they have to be at least broadly sympathetic to it.

It appears revolution comes easiest when the majority of the populace is illiterate, and can be brought onto the Revolution by emotion alone. Or shot.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Have you read the posts in this topic? Many similarities between fascism and libertarianism have been noted.

And no, libertarianism does not grant any social freedoms at all, because libertarians believe that all property should be private and that the owners should be able to discriminate or limit any social freedoms as they see fit on their property.

So, in fact, the level of social freedom in libertarianism is whatever the major landowners want it to be.

[trivas7]

[...] as the capitalism espoused by these two groups is radically different (fascism uses the state as a tool to support the capitalist system ie the Nazi social programs and huge investment in war industries. Libertarians think the contemporary US govt spends too much as it is), let alone the fact that the levels of social freedoms is worlds apart.

Would it shock you to learn that libertarians use the state for the same purpose as the fascist?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

Have you read the posts in this topic? Many similarities between fascism and libertarianism have been noted.

And no, libertarianism does not grant any social freedoms at all, because libertarians believe that all property should be private and that the owners should be able to discriminate or limit any social freedoms as they see fit on their property.

So, in fact, the level of social freedom in libertarianism is whatever the major landowners want it to be.

What modern libertarians believe that all land should be private?

Clint Eastwood, for example, is both a Libertarian and a supporter of the huge tracts of public lands here in the US.


Would it shock you to learn that libertarians use the state for the same purpose as the fascist?

But they don't.

The Nazis used the state to spend vast sums on war and social programs to lower unemployment. They even had a land redistribution program in Prussia. Libertarians believe the market should control unemployment, and most want to end the military-industrial complex.

[trivas7]

The Nazis used the state to spend vast sums on war and social programs to lower unemployment. They even had a land redistribution program in Prussia. Libertarians believe the market should control unemployment, and most want to end the military-industrial complex.
The USA government spends billions of dollars on the the war in Iraq and armament procurement and the defense industry. It also spends vast amounts of money on social security. Libertarians fail to see that without economic leverage on an international scale backed by military might capital doesn't grow, markets don't expand, which is the life blood of capitalism.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

The USA government spends billions of dollars on the the war in Iraq and armament procurement and the defense industry. It also spends vast amounts of money on social security. Libertarians fail to see that without economic leverage on an international scale backed by military might capital doesn't grow, markets don't expand, which is the life blood of capitalism.

So, obvioulsy, Libertarians aren't in step with current US policy, which is much closer to fascism (or at least imperialism) than anything they promote.

And how has military might been used to open up the largest developing markets of the past few years, China and India? American Corporations are investing vast sums, especially in China, with an obvious absence of the American military.

Edit: Undeniable Proof that Fascism and Libertarianism are worlds apart, and that comparing the two makes one sound childish (like comparing much else to facism):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yR67q5P_-YU

Summary: Hitler addressing the socialist half of National Socialism.

[trivas7]

Summary: Hitler addressing the socialist half of National Socialism.
So are you arguing that there was a socialist element to Naziism? :lol:

[Kwisatz Haderach]

What modern libertarians believe that all land should be private?

Clint Eastwood, for example, is both a Libertarian and a supporter of the huge tracts of public lands here in the US.
At the very least, all libertarians believe that every business should be private, on private land, and that the business owner and/or the landowner has the right to discriminate or limit social freedoms in his shop in any way he sees fit.

So libertarians support the existence of "white only" shops if their owners want them to be for whites only (and I bet there are plenty of owners who do). Libertarians also think your boss should have every right to fire you if you join a union, or to forbid you from speaking certain things at work.

The Nazis used the state to spend vast sums on war and social programs to lower unemployment.[/quote]
"Vast" sums? For war preparations, certainly, but not for social programs - not by modern standards, anyway. The top income tax rate in Nazi Germany in 1941 was 13.7%.

Besides, the primary method the Nazis used to lower unemployment was simply to create a lot of new jobs in the military industry.


Edit: Undeniable Proof that Fascism and Libertarianism are worlds apart, and that comparing the two makes one sound childish (like comparing much else to facism):

http://youtube.com/watch?v=yR67q5P_-YU

Summary: Hitler addressing the socialist half of National Socialism.
Huh? What socialist half? He's only talking about the German national community in that video. He's talking about how all Germans should stand together as one. That's not socialist - in fact it's anti-socialist to the extent that Hitler is talking about different classes accepting their unequal relationships and working together for the greater glory of Germany, as opposed to the socialist idea of the working class uniting across borders and engaging in class struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie in every country, and thereby liberate itself and the whole world.

Now, it is true that most libertarians do not share the fascist obsession with the creation of a hierarchical, militaristic national community. But I never said that libertarianism and fascism are identical. They are not. What I said was that they share a number of important points - such as the cult of the superior man, opposition to democracy, belief in natural hierarchy, the belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve, and often also conspiracy theories and an obsession with righteous violence (Clint Eastwood is a very good example of that last one, by the way).

[freakazoid]

Would it shock you to learn that libertarians use the state for the same purpose as the fascist?

Really? Fascists use the state to keep my neighbor off my back and the enemy off my shore?


So are you arguing that there was a socialist element to Naziism? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

Are you arguing that there wasn't? http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-wing-nazism-t82761/index.html?t=82761&highlight=Night+long+knives

I was reading up on this intriguing aspect to Nazism and the people and groups associated with the left-wing of the Nazi party.

Ernst Rohm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_R%C3%B6hm)
Karl Ernst:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ernst (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Ernst)
Sturmabteilung (SA):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmabteilung)
Gregor Strasser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser)
Otto Strasser:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Strasser)
Strasserism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strasserism)
Black Front:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Front (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Front)

Though these people and groups were still racist, Nationalist and anti-communist it seems to me that these people and organisations were genuinely committed to their anti-capitalist variant of National Socialism (Rather than just using it as Populist rhetoric to attract working class support like most far-right groups do).

Rohm believed in a revolution to implement a Socialist economy and the SA was made up of mostly working class or unemployed men who thought of themselves as the revolutionaries literally fighting for revolution and the implementation of Socialism in the streets (Even though most of the people they were fighting were Communists).

As such they were viewed with suspicion by the German establishment who forced Hitler to choose between them and the left-wing of the party. Hitler choose the former (As he needed the support of the army who hated Rohm and the SA and wouldnt allow Hitler to be President with him still around) and in 1934 came the "Night of the long knives" where the SA was suppressed and it's leaders thrown in prison and some killed (Rohm and Ernst among them).

Indeed before he was executed Ernst thought that he was a victim of a pro-capitalist, Monarchist group within the Nazi party staging a coup against the left-wing of the party and shouted "Heil Hitler" before they opened fire not knowing that Hitler had authorised the crackdown on him, the SA and the left-wing of the party.

As such what does this say about the type of people attracted to far-right parties?

They seem to attract, and are sometimes even led by, working class people who genuinely believe in a Socialist economy in a Nationalist white only society.....


The USA government spends billions of dollars on the the war in Iraq and armament procurement and the defense industry. It also spends vast amounts of money on social security. Libertarians fail to see that without economic leverage on an international scale backed by military might capital doesn't grow, markets don't expand, which is the life blood of capitalism.

So? You think they believe in the Libertarian philosophy because they are just greedy and will do anything to expand there wealth? HA!:laugh: It has nothing to do with that. They believe what they believe because they believe it to be... righteous, moral, couldn't really think of a better term :(. Same reason I am an anarchist, because I believe it to be how things should be, I don't care if it isn't actually workable, although I believe it is.


At the very least, all libertarians believe that every business should be private, on private land, and that the business owner and/or the landowner has the right to discriminate or limit social freedoms in his shop in any way he sees fit.

So libertarians support the existence of "white only" shops if their owners want them to be for whites only (and I bet there are plenty of owners who do). Libertarians also think your boss should have every right to fire you if you join a union, or to forbid you from speaking certain things at work.

Well, yeah. That would only naturally follow as a right they can exercise if there belief in private property is true. If you don't like the rules of there store then go somewhere else. You have the freedom to choose where you shop. I have argued about this with my libertarian friend sometimes.


and an obsession with righteous violence

What is this?

[Winter]

Technically, Libertarianism and Mussolini's Fascism don't have anything to do with one another. Fascism is a collectivists ideaology and Libertarianism isn't. Libertarianism is very individualistic and relishes selfishness. Take Ayn Rand for example, she sees Selfishness as being a virtue and altruism as being morally wrong. According to her, for man to be moral one must seek one's own self interests only.

Libertarianism focuses way too much on individualism ignoring the fact that whether you like it or not individuals are part of a larger group; society. Libertarians totally ignore the fact that it's not going to be hard for a wealthy man to essentially buy his own government! Without a government to constrain anybody, this is inevitable. Libertarianism would more likely lead to a despotic rule, where the richest rule and the poorest die off. It is social darwinism at its worse!

So I'm going to have to disagree with this completely, because realistically Fascism ( in the true definition of the word ) is more similar to Socialism but merely looks at things from a national level whereas we see things internationally. Plus, Fascism has no intention for those in power to whither away their strength. Facsism believes it is essential to have a permenent figure head to lead the nation. In this respect, imperialistic goals are still an option for them. They see the world as "us" vs. "them", and will not cooperate with other countries to strive for peace. The only thing that matters to Fascists is the nation and/or their race.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

So are you arguing that there was a socialist element to Naziism? :lol:

Of course there was. Why else would it have been popular in the Great Depression?

[trivas7]

Of course there was. Why else would it have been popular in the Great Depression?
I deny it. What exactly is the socialist element of Naziism?

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

So libertarians support the existence of "white only" shops if their owners want them to be for whites only (and I bet there are plenty of owners who do). Libertarians also think your boss should have every right to fire you if you join a union, or to forbid you from speaking certain things at work.

Yes. It's called Freedom. Currently, our government has decided that this level of freedom isn't moral or just, and has limited it.


"Vast" sums? For war preparations, certainly, but not for social programs - not by modern standards, anyway. The top income tax rate in Nazi Germany in 1941 was 13.7%.

The Nazis went deeply into debt to finance their goals.


Besides, the primary method the Nazis used to lower unemployment was simply to create a lot of new jobs in the military industry.

...And the Soviets didn't?


Huh? What socialist half? He's only talking about the German national community in that video.

He's talking to German Labor Brigades.

That in itself proves the two ideologies have little in common, at least economically. Read the first few paragraphs of your post to see why Libertarians would be disgusted by such a thing.



He's talking about how all Germans should stand together as one. That's not socialist - in fact it's anti-socialist to the extent that Hitler is talking about different classes accepting their unequal relationships and working together for the greater glory of Germany, as opposed to the socialist idea of the working class uniting across borders and engaging in class struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie in every country, and thereby liberate itself and the whole world.


Would you like to see some Soviet propoganda?


Now, it is true that most libertarians do not share the fascist obsession with the creation of a hierarchical, militaristic national community. But I never said that libertarianism and fascism are identical. They are not. What I said was that they share a number of important points - such as the cult of the superior man,

Are you saying there are no men who are superior, in at least some aspects, to you?

Libertarians want equal political rights for every person, so this is a moot point.


opposition to democracy,

Bullshit.


belief in natural hierarchy,

On some levels, there has to be a natural heirarchy. The food chain, for example.


the belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve,

Funny that Nazism became popular at the worst time in Germanys economy....

Where was Germanys left? They clearly failed to gain a majority of the people who would most benefit from radical leftism.....now....why does that seem familiar?



and often also conspiracy theories and an obsession with righteous violence (Clint Eastwood is a very good example of that last one, by the way).


So?

[Random Precision]

I've split Fen Boy and Tom's debate into a separate thread.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

You have to separate the Libertarians from the Libertarian Socialists (Anarchists). The Libertarian socialists follow the ideas of M. Bakunin and are in favour of a highly organised de-centralised government. They are anti-capitalists and anti-statists. In a few words Libert. Socialism argues that the workers of a factory should also own the factory.

In the words of Bakunin "Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality."

[trivas7]

You have to separate the Libertarians from the Libertarian Socialists (Anarchists). The Libertarian socialists [...] are in favour of a highly organised de-centralised government.
Please explain to me how this isn't an oxymoron.

[Socialismo_Libertario]

...in fact Fascism has more in common with Stalinism considering the fact that they are both totalitarian

[Socialismo_Libertario]

It isn't an oxymoron! Read Noam Chomsky! Unless you think that the only form of socialism is Marxism. In that case you are wrong. The following link explains the issue quite well (include www) geocities.com/capitolhill/1931/secI1.html

[Socialismo_Libertario]

in case you meant that the oxymoron is in the fact that they "are in favour of a highly organised de-centralised government.". By "highly organised" we mean organised in local councils and cooperatives with a high degree of autonomy and detached from the central government. In that sense it follows that in order for a government to be decentralised it must also be highly organised

[IcarusAngel]

I myself am a Libertarian-Socialist, and when I criticize "libertarians" I'm talking about the right-wing variant.

I see libertarian-socialism as a heavily consistent ideology, born really out of the enlightenment, and would lead to the most freedom. Plus, I agree with their criticisms and overall concerns in general.

The Bakunin quote was well taken.

The practicality of it is another matter altogether, though. We might need a government to pulls us through some of the crises humanity is facing.

[Bud Struggle]

I myself am a Libertarian-Socialist, and when I criticize "libertarians" I'm talking about the right-wing variant.

So that means--no revolution, gradual decline of governmet and increase of libertarianism--or a complete social change in one fell swope?

[freakazoid]

I deny it. What exactly is the socialist element of Naziism?



So are you arguing that there was a socialist element to Naziism? Are you arguing that there wasn't? http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-wing-nazism-t82761/index.html?t=82761&highlight=Night+long+knives

a