You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Are Fascists Right-Wing?”.
« Previous Post Intellectual Property versus Liberty
Gabrielle Anwar presents Rule 5 Sunday! Next Post »
What say you?
thanks for the link!
btw: in Itsalisn, corporatism meant UNIONS not corporations.
wiki:
This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labour (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini).[12][13
[YOU SEE::::::: HE DID NIOT MEAN CORPORATIONS AT ALL!!!]
Fascism opposes class conflict, blames capitalist liberal democracies for its creation and communists for exploiting the concept.[9] In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a "Third Way" in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism.[10][11] This was to be achieved by a form of government control over business and labour (called "the corporate state" by Mussolini).[12][13]
Mussolini claimed that Italian Fascism's economic system of corporatism could be identified as either state capitalism or state socialism, which in either case involved "the bureaucratisation of the economic activities of the nation."[27]
Mussolini denounced supercapitalism for causing the "standardization of humankind" and for causing excessive consumption.[168]
Health and welfare spending grew dramatically under Italian fascism, with welfare rising from 7% of the budget in 1930 to 20% in 1940.[190]
Thanks for the additional info!
No. Corporatism does not equal fascism. Corporatism pre-existed fascism and has nothing to do with the modern business corporation as many believe as it pre-existed the modern business corporation as well. Economic corporatism is all about organizing functional corporate groups like labour unions, business managers, and consumers to negotiate with each other. Many democratic countries in Europe have corporatist economies and both left-wing and right-wing parties in Europe support corporatism. The alleged quote by Mussolini saying that corporatism equals fascism is actually false and is a rumor. Why? Because the Fascists called their system "corporativism" and has been translated as that. Furthermore fascism's focus is on mobilizing a militant and violent nationalist movement that is typically very xenophobic and racist towards people that the fascists deem are threatening them.
Fascist political language is very bizarre and is not exhibited by any contemporary American politician explicitly. Fascists portray themselves as NEITHER wholly left-wing or right-wing. Fascists try to rally workers to their cause while at the same time condemning trade unionism and radical class conflict ideas.
Fascists tend to be placed on the political extreme-right because their mutual opposition to liberal democracy and communism made them very similar to reactionaries who are extreme-right. Remember in France where left-wing and right-wing was derived, left-wingers included capitalists while right-wingers included people who favoured state-intervention to protect the feudal system. The more equality one wants in society, the more left-wing one is. The more social hierarchy that one wants or accepts in society, the more right-wing one is. Right-wing and left-wing actually has nothing to do with the level of state intervention - it is what any intervention is used for that determines it's political position.
In America, we don't draw our political scale along socialistic lines. Instead, we measure by the amount of government authority. You either have totalitarian government or anarchy. Don't be fooled by the "team" mantras.
And yes, back in the day's of fascism's birth, corporatism and fascism were synonomous.
It doesn't matter how you divide up everyone. The fact is that the U.S. is a country in decline, going bankrupt, while all this bickering goes on.We would be better off with a few intelligent dictators running this country than a bunch of short term greedy, long term ignorant American voters using the vote and power of big govt to steal from one another. No signs of a bottom anywhere in sight. Got Gold?
What I find so incredibly frustrating is the simplicity of mind so many people in the world exhibit. Indeed, Ryan seems to that merely because the word corporativism existed prior the word corporation, that they’re of entirely different meanings – wrong. Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) is a political system in which legislative representation is given to industries. Albeit, in the US, corporations are not given overt representation but rather covert representation – usually through special interest groups, lobbyists or slight-of-hand deals; the end result is the same. He claims that, “Fascist political language is very bizarre and is not exhibited by any contemporary American politician explicitly.” This is breath-taking inanity at its best. Idiomatic phrases such as, “Support the troops,” “Love it or leave it,” or “English is America’s language” don’t qualify I suppose; there exist myriad others. Indeed, Ryan’s little history lessons amounts to little more than Ann’s redefinition of the political spectrum. Indeed, much like Bush; it’s not torture if we call it something else. Sorry, Ann, I know you support torture. Yes, this is what historically we would call fascism. Jackboots anyone?
Perhaps beyond identifying parties we should look at the bigger picture...
Do we need a Referendum For A New Democracy?
Are you concerned about the future of democracy? Do you feel democracy is under attack by extreme greed in countries around the world? Are you sick and tired of: living in fear, corporate greed, growing police state, government for the rich, working more but having less?
Can we use both elections and random selection (in the way we select government officials) to rid democracy of undue influence by extreme wealth and wealth-dominated mass media campaigns?
The world's first democracy (Athenian democracy, 600 B.C.) used both elections and random selection. Even Aristotle (the cofounder of Western thought) promoted the use random selection as the best way to protect democracy. The idea of randomly selecting (after screening) juries remains from Athenian democracy, but not randomly selecting (after screening) government officials. Why is it used only for individual justice and not also for social justice? Who wins from that? ...the extremely wealthy?
What is the best way to combine elections and random selection to protect democracy in today's world? Can we use elections as the way to screen candidates, and random selection as the way to do the final selection? Who wins from that? ...the people?
"If it is admitted that the nineteenth century has been the century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy, it does not follow that the twentieth must also be the century of Liberalism, Socialism and Democracy. Political doctrines pass; peoples remain. It is to be expected that this century may be that of authority, a century of the "Right," a Fascist century. If the nineteenth was the century of the individual it may be expected that this one may be the century of "collectivism" and therefore the century of the State." source: http://www.historyguide.org/europe/duce.html
since when was anarchism rightwing? throughout anarchism's history the most known anarchists have been socialists(bakunin, kropotkin, proudhon ect)
Liberals in the united states are not the same liberals Hitler and Mussolini denounced. They denounced classical liberalism which is known for it's individualism and it's free market tenets. the guy in a comment impied or said that a liberal democracy is left wing. a liberal democracy would be right wing because it's based on classical liberalism which is definitely a right wing ideology.
whenever a communist, socialist or fascist speaks of liberalism, they mean classical liberalism(freemarketeers)
The confusion you suffer is that you assume Right = less government, Left = more government, but that is only the 21st century Tea Party definition of left - right. It is not the historical definition and it was not the definition in 1930, either. No one assumed then that fascism = left-wing--least of which Mussolini who described fascism as "of the right" (Doctrines of Fascism, 1932). This TeaParty revisionism is wrong. Just plain wrong.
It is a caricature of reality to say that fascism is really a phenomenon of the left and that social democracy is equated with fascism---given that fascism was overwhelmingly an anti-liberalism with an antipathy to all things leftist. Its polemics structured around stereotypes not scholarship. It's an old theme that comes from the Right who refuse to take responsibility of the worst of regimes that they have spawned via their ideology - and to ignore the real American fascism---skinheads, neo-Nazis, the Klu Klux Klan, white supremacists, nativists, the Montana Freemen and right wing militias etc --lurking in the Right's closet. The economic shockwaves are going to continue for some time from the failures of an unfettered financial capitalism, and so the Right are going to contaminate the shift to government intervention and an expansion of the welfare state to deal with unemployment and social unrest with state repression, tyranny and dictatorship. The implication is that anything that enhances the power and reach of the state is bad. Only the state threatens us--not rogue corporations or Wall Street.The economic strategy is to bail out the banks, pay off the bond traders, keep the basic infrastructure working, and make the poorest bear the cost through welfare cuts in phrased steps.
Left-Wingers like to associate the Right with anything and everything that people consider bad. Everyone says that Hitler was a Right-Winger even though the Nazi Party was anti-capitalism and started as the Socialist economic DAP.
Mussolini considered himself an advocate of Third Position. "Third Positionists tend to advocate for the ownership of the means of producing goods and services to be distributed as widely as possible." Goods distributed between the people of the nation... sounds a lot like US (modern) Liberal Welfare system that every Right-Winger hates. We all know that Communism is a left form of politics so there's no need to go into that. The left are masters of demonizing the opposition, it's all they use to get votes. They know that there ideas don't work so they make it out like the right are a bunch of satanists or something.
goes to show that these tags of left/right are ridiculous and don't apply, they are used to simplify concepts for the under educated and overly emotional masses