CanucksCorner.com Forums

Per wrote:

Strangelove wrote:^
Now what part did you disagree with:

This one:

Somewhat ironic that fascism is largely branded a right-wing thing today.

it's not ironic. It just it was it is.

Seriously??

You don't find it "somewhat ironic" that a "communist" created "fascism"

... and yet "fascism" is largely considered "right-wing" today?

Mussolini must be rolling over in his grave!

Twas YOU who called Mussolini, the Father of Fascism, a "communist".

I've already mentioned that "fascism" is complex and difficult to nail down

... no way is your Wikipedia going to succeed.

Like I say, read Liberal Fascism by Goldberg.

Mussolini was never a communist. He might have been a member of the Italian socialist party but that is not the same thing.

ukcanuck wrote:Mussolini was never a communist. He might have been a member of the Italian socialist party but that is not the same thing.

I would tend to agree... I was just trying to find a little common ground with your comrade Per.

I have said:

The creators of fascism absolutely were socialists WHEN THEY CREATED IT.

AND

they invented "fascism" as a form of nationalistic socialism

It's still ironic though, and Mussolini is still rolling over...

Strangelove wrote:

ukcanuck wrote:Mussolini was never a communist. He might have been a member of the Italian socialist party but that is not the same thing.

I would tend to agree... I was just trying to find a little common ground with your comrade Per.

I have said:

The creators of fascism absolutely were socialists WHEN THEY CREATED IT.

AND

they invented "fascism" as a form of nationalistic socialism

It's still ironic though, and Mussolini is still rolling over...

I know of Italians who are old enough to remember their parents lament that the Nazis and Mussolini stole fascism and turned it into the evil thing we know it as today. In fact, that logo of the bundle of wood with the axe that Mussolini’s dictatorship used was apparently commandeered from an earlier symbol from the south where villagers would work together to collect firewood for the community in winter.

I guess it’s an age old story...

Btw I looked up that book and apparently the author was on the daily show once I’m going to try and find it

Can I get the Coles Notes, Readers Digest version or an executive summary on where we are with Trump/Hitler/Mussolini etc.

More quotes from that same page that were supposed to go in my previus post, but got lost somehow:

Umberto Eco,[39] Kevin Passmore,[40] John Weiss,[41] Ian Adams[42] and Moyra Grant[43] mention racism as a characteristic component of fascism, e.g. how the fascistic dictator Adolf Hitler idealized German society as a racially unified and hierarchically organized Volksgemeinschaft construct. Fascist philosophies vary by application, but remain distinct by one theoretic commonality. All traditionally fall into the far-right sector of any political spectrum, catalyzed by afflicted class identities over conventional social inequities.[44]

Position in the political spectrum
Fascism in the early 1920s was influenced by both left and right, conservative and anti-conservative, national and supranational, rational and anti-rational.[46] Fascism was founded during World War I by Italian national syndicalists who drew upon left-wing organizational tactics and right-wing political views.

Some scholars consider fascism to be right-wing because of its social conservatism and its authoritarian means of opposing egalitarianism.[47][48] Roderick Stackelberg places fascism—including Nazism, which he says is "a radical variant of fascism"—on the political right by explaining: "The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be".[49]

Italian Fascism gravitated to the right in the early 1920s.[50][51] A major element of fascist ideology that has been deemed to be far-right is its stated goal to promote the right of a supposedly superior people to dominate, while purging society of supposedly inferior elements.[52]

In the 1920s the Italian Fascists described their ideology as right-wing in the political program The Doctrine of Fascism, stating: "We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right,' a fascist century".[53][54] Mussolini stated that fascism's position on the political spectrum was not a serious issue for fascists: "Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center ... These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don't give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words".[55]

Major Italian groups politically on the right, especially rich landowners and big business, feared uprising by groups on the left such as sharecroppers and labour unions.[56] They welcomed Fascism and supported its violent suppression of opponents on the left. [57]

Fascists identified their primary opponents as the majority of socialists on the left who had opposed intervention in World War I.[116] The Fascists and the Italian political right held common ground: both held Marxism in contempt, discounted class consciousness and believed in the rule of elites.[119] The Fascists assisted the anti-socialist campaign by allying with the other parties and the conservative right in a mutual effort to destroy the Italian Socialist Party and labour organizations committed to class identity above national identity.[119]

There is no questionfascism is a right wing ideology.

I guess what may have confused you is this:

"

Fascist" as a pejorative
Main article: Fascist (insult)
Following the defeat of the Axis Powers in World War II, the term "fascist" has been used as a pejorative,[62] often referring to widely varying movements across the political spectrum.[63] George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".[63]

If you are mainly used to hearing the word fascist pejoratively, of course it is easy to believe fascism could be anything, but just because people use a word incorrectly doesn't mean it will actually start to mean what they think it means.

Reefer2 wrote:Can I get the Coles Notes, Readers Digest version or an executive summary on where we are with Trump/Hitler/Mussolini etc.

The Coles Notes? Mmm... they bad right wing apples.

Per wrote:

Reefer2 wrote:Can I get the Coles Notes, Readers Digest version or an executive summary on where we are with Trump/Hitler/Mussolini etc.

The Coles Notes? Mmm... they bad right wing apples.

Perhaps the confusion is progressivism. Communism, socialism, fascism etc etc are all progressive ideas. Technically I guess any political system intended to improve society through reform would be progressive and European fascism would be the cautionary tale when one group or one worse one man has the keys to the family car.

But I have to admit I like what this Goldberg says when he points out that at least people should know what fascism was before throwing the term around as a perjorative.

Net neutrality the end of trump and the FCC....who'da thunk it.

I think Stackelberg's explanation to why fascism is a right wing ideology hits the nail on its head:
"The more a person deems absolute equality among all people to be a desirable condition, the further left he or she will be on the ideological spectrum. The more a person considers inequality to be unavoidable or even desirable, the further to the right he or she will be".

Communism and fascism have a lot in common, but when it comes right down to it, communism has egalitarian ideals, even if it in practice tends to mean that all will be equally poor, and even if in reality the leaders consider themselves more equal than the others and therefore deserve special treatment. Fascism, on the other hand, is openly against treating people equally. First of all, it is very centred around nation, so it will discriminate against foreigners, and even against nationals that have "the wrong" ethnicity and therefore do not "deserve" to be considered part of the nation. Secondly, it will divide people into groups where some are considered superior and others inferior, and then treat them differently.

As for Mussolini, he started out on the left, then moved to the right. And he had no qualms about it. Originally he was a great fan of Lenin and the Bolshevik revolution, then he changed his position and said that Lenin was no better than the czar. After the fascists had joined ranks with the conservatives in the early 1920s, he clearly stated, as did the fascist manifesto, that they were situated on the right side of the left-right scale, even if he downplayed the importance of what was considered left and right. As would seem logical of someone who moved so quickly from one side of the spectrum to the other.

Team Trump not really excelling at the diplomacy game.

The one sided acknowledgement of Jerusalem as Israel's capital is not only flying in the face of the two state peace plan as proposed by the UN and the Big Four, it has also pissed of the entire Muslim World, including key US allies such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and Jordania.

So, first the UN security council voted 14-1 to condemn the move, the one dissenting vote of course belonging to the USA, and because they have the right to veto any decision, the count does not count. But it is still quite a snub.

Then the general assembly voted, and the US then made sure to piss off every one even more, by threatening to retaliate against any nation daring to vote against the US. This stroke of genius ensured an impressive backup of the US position by no less than eight nations: Israel (duh), Guatemala, Honduras, the Marshall Islands*, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau and Togo. So, sure, the combined population of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau only amounts to 200,000 people, so slightly more than Abbotsford, but still. On paper they count as four nations, or half the pro-US stance group.

35 countries (including Canada and Mexico, who maybe because of their awkward geographical position actually were shaken by the retaliatory threats) abstained, while 128 nations, including 24 out of 29 EU members, voted to condemn the US action.

It seems clear by now the US has abandoned it's role as the leader of the free world.
No one is listening to them any longer.

*Had to doublecheck that this is even a nation. Back when I was in school it was still US territory, but yeah, seems the 56,000 people residing there attained independence in 1986. Who knew. And despite the US having used their attolls and islands as a test site for nuclear bombs, they seem a staunch supporter.

LOL

The UN.

Now that is funny.

So the Marshall Islands attained independence in 1986, but when did Jordan change the name of their country to Jordania?

5thhorseman wrote:So the Marshall Islands attained independence in 1986, but when did Jordan change the name of their country to Jordania?

Sorry, I messed up. The country is called Jordanien in Swedish, Jordanie in French and Jordania in Spanish while the river is Jordan in all three languages.

I simply forgot that in English you have the use name for the country and the river. My bad.