Skip to main content

View Diary: Missouri bill 'nullifying' federal gun laws makes it through another hurdle (102 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Lots of governments (0+ / 0-)

    ,including socialist governments, have cooperated and or tolerated religious organizations. There is nothing unique to fascism about that. Fascists systems believe that the racial/ethnic state is the primary political and economic unit. Theocratic systems believe that a religious system and its religious structures are the primary political and legal structure. Fascism is inherently racist, xenophobic and (yes) socialist. Theocracy seeks universality and the primacy of it's hierarchy over the state. The two systems cannot exist together without (at least) a lot of tension.

    I would also point out that you were the one who began the name-calling. I seriously doubt that you would enjoy being called a fascist or a lunatic. It's that kind of empty and offensive rhetoric that holds back our movement.

    Roosevelt's quote was grounded in contemporary American politics. Conservatism and the Right-Wing in the US have never been on the same page as true Fascism because it desires a fundamentally different economic system. Roosevelt knew what real Fascism is, but he was trying to score points against the corporate powers in the US.

    If your agenda is an "amicable divorce" then stop being intentionally offensive. That is not "amicable". Also, there is no secessionist movement in the South. Your "divorce" means secession of the North from the US.

    •  Lot to unpack in this one as well. (0+ / 0-)

      Most socialist systems are agnostic to religion, if not down right hostile. Fascism uses religion to scapegoat an 'out' group, and focus the fears of the majority of populace on that. In the South, it uses Christianity to scapegoat women and homosexuals. It used to scapegoat dark skinned people, but that is a loser these days.

      Socialism seeks to eliminate private property and private means of production, and put it all under public ownership. Fascism seeks to put private property and private means of productive over the public. Instead of the people owning the property, the property owns the people. Fascism and socialism are mutually exclusive ideologies. Do not confuse socialism with national socialism, which are basic opposites, despite what their names might imply.

      At what point have I ever called you a name? I don't even know you.

      American conservatism IS fundamentally on the same page as fascism, because it is fascism, if fascism light. American conservatism in the South comes from the plantation owners from the Caribbean exporting their heinous, evil system to the North American continent.

      I am not being intentionally offensive, just blunt. Having grown up on the border of the Free State of Iowa and the Slave State of Missouri, I'm just calling it like I see it.

      •  You still don't seem to know what fascism is. (0+ / 0-)

        National Socialism was economically a socialist system. Read what Hitler and some of the other National Socialist founders wanted and it is clearly spelled out. Fascism does not seek to put private property over the public. It seeks to put the state/race over the public period. All aspects of the state including property and production were tools for the state to utilize. Hitler hated the traditional conservatives and capitalists in Germany. He cooperated with them (and the Churches) in order to consolidate his power (to maintain the army which in the early days could have easily deposed him, and the industrial economy which he needed to create his "Greater Germany"). The Junkers and capitalists of Germany are the equivalents of mainline American conservatism. I despise them both, but they are not the same.

        I agree with your comments about religion, but your should still recognize that fascism and theocracy are incompatible systems.

        American conservatism is many things feudalistic, aristocratic and theocratic, (and yes, in the South, the feudal character is derived in large part from its Caribbean equivalents) but it is not really fascistic. To claim otherwise seems foolish to me.

        As for being blunt, what your are calling and seeing are not supported by close inspection and therefore look like name-calling to me. Just being blunt.

        •  We are arguing over semantics at this point. (0+ / 0-)

          You seem to make a distinction in substance between the plutocrats/oligarchs and the state. In fascism, the two merge and are indistinguishable, and they rule over and own the people, depriving them of their rights.

          By the very nature of American conservatism being feudalistic, aristocratic, it is fascistic. The theocracy is a nice adjunct to keep the people servile and docile. It works pretty well in the South.

          What I am calling and seeing IS supported by close inspection. white Southerners like being ruled over by feudal/aristocratic/fascistic/plutocratic overlords. They consistently vote them in. I am not being critical of them as such. If they like it, they are welcome to it. I would like us to get a divorce so they can have what they like and we can have what we like.

          And FDR was spot-on with his definition of fascism.

          •  It's not semantics. (0+ / 0-)

            Sure, in a Fascist system, large parts of the economy are transferred to direct government control. This is true of many socialist economic systems. However, one of the defining characteristics of Fascism, in keeping with its racialist world view, is the drive towards autarky. (think contemporary North Korea, the closest thing around today to true Fascism) This is basically the opposite of the contemporary globalized economy of international capital that American conservatism, including the South, desires and supports. American conservatism is not Fascism. It is feudalistic. Theocracy has always worked well with this type of system. They are mutually supporting. Neither works well with Fascism. Fascism will not allow the capitalists to operate freely, nor will it for long tolerate the ideological competition of assertive organized religion.

            FDR's definition of fascism was a soundbite. As George Orwell observed, even by the mid 40's the term Fascism had ceased to have any real meaning in most of the instances in which it was used.

            •  Good points, but... (0+ / 0-)

              In fascism, the wealth owns the government. In socialism, the government owns the wealth. They are inverses of one another. And they often end up at the same place: with a privileged few controlling the wealth, and everybody else miserable.

              My old college poli-sci prof once explained fascism as feudalism, updated with technocracy, and utilizing religion and racism. A cult of personality around a Great Leader is often present, but not necessary.

              This is why I categorize the Southern States as fascist. They have a wealthy few controlling/owning the state governments. The government is used as a tool of oppression against the middle, working and poorer classes. Religion is the reliable lapdog of the State. Women are oppressed, and viewed as breeding stock. Racial, religious and sexual-preference minorities are scapegoated.

              North Korea is a textbook case of Soviet Communism, not fascism.

              I do not think fascism is limited to just the time and place of the 1930's. I think it is alive and well, obviously.

              Brings me back to my original point. If the North and South separate, the South could more quickly and completely go down the path to fascism. I think that is a good thing, and what white Southerners want. Their voting habits demonstrate this. I am not being critical. I want them to determine their own destiny. Similarly, us Northerners could go more quickly and completely down the road of social democracy, which is where we want to be.

              •  Thanks for the thoughtful reply (0+ / 0-)

                I don't think that wealth can ever really "own" the government. They can fuse, but government with its monopoly on executive power (ie violence and the power of the state) is always dominant. I agree to some extent to your poli-sci prof's definition of the political and social structure of fascism in practice. In theory, most Fascist ideologues wanted something a bit different (see my previous posts). The prof's definition almost completely ignores the economic structures of Fascism, which is key to fully understanding how such systems function.

                North Korea was a Stalinist state during the early part of Kim il Sung's rule, but by the mid 60's was functionally a fascist state. Juche Thought is a fascist system and world view. North Koreans may still use a Communist-derived visual culture, but that is about it at this point. I would recommend Brian Reynolds Myers's book "The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why it Matters" as a great discussion of the current North Korean system.

                I still strongly disagree that the South is Fascist society or that it even desires it, but I have enjoyed a good discussion.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site