Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Thread: Fascism Is Not Conservatism

  1. #1
    Senior Member Roderic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, May 27th, 2019 @ 06:09 AM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Gender
    Posts
    642
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    4 Posts

    Fascism Is Not Conservatism

    Someone recently emailed and asked me to rebut the claim that fascism is a right-wing system.

    I have given this question considerable thought over the years; even when I was in college, liberals routinely smeared conservatism as a fascist political ideology. Indeed, how many times have we heard the mantra that communism and Nazism represented the two extremes of the political spectrum, left and right, respectively? This never made sense to me, as I knew that conservatism championed political and economic liberty and that communism and fascism were the direct antithesis of these.

    I am thankful that my friend Jonah Goldberg has written the definitive work on this subject and set the record straight, in his scholarly and entertaining "Liberal Fascism." I strongly recommend it.

    But let me share some thoughts I've developed over the years as to how the misunderstandings on these terms evolved, points which may or may not be addressed in Jonah's book.

    Both communism and Nazism are evil totalitarian systems characterized by enormous power in the central government. It's true that in theory, Karl Marx predicted the eventual withering away of the state and the "dictatorship of the proletariat," when the people would rule, which was sheer fantasy because it was based on grossly erroneous assumptions about human nature, as history would repeatedly demonstrate.

    But no one can deny that communism, in practice as well as theory, is a form of socialism, as evidenced, among other things, by the Soviet Union's proud self-identification as a "socialist republic." Likewise, Nazism and fascism, by definition, are socialist systems, with the state owning or controlling the major means of industry and production.

    But there are differences in these systems, and I think these differences, along with historical reasons so well chronicled in Jonah's book, contribute to the left's soft identification with one and strong rejection of the other.

    Apart from being centralized political systems, Nazism and fascism were nationalistic, patriotic and militaristic. Some have even said they were religious, but I see little authentic evidence of that. The Soviet system was more international in its orientation, being driven less by national fervor and more by world expansion. I'm not disputing that Hitler and Mussolini were expansionist, as indeed they were, but the Soviets were more focused on making communism a global system and diminishing the role of the nation-state in comparison with Nazism and fascism.

    But there's something even more telling. Communism, as conceived by Marx, was based on the perceived class struggle. Marx envisioned that the "workers of the world" would unite against so-called capitalist oppression. Marxism was thoroughly materialistic and rooted in class warfare. Nazism was probably not so virulently anti-capitalist -- at least in terms of its ideological emphasis. It was more racially and nationally driven.

    So where does that leave us? Well, today's liberals see themselves as champions of the "working man" and enemies of corporate interests and the wealthy. Their political lifeblood is class warfare on behalf of the "working man" (read: labor unions). Redistributionism is at the heart of their philosophy.

    When those on the left today call conservatives "fascists" or liken Bush to Hitler, they are betraying their contempt for what they perceive to be excessive nationalism, patriotism and militarism on the part of conservatives. But there's a darker side to their thinking. The left's worst-kept secret is that many liberals believe -- or would at least like the electorate to believe -- that conservatives are racist. So there you have it. Conservatives are nationalistic, jingoistic and racist. Point, set, match. They're fascists.

    But it's as divorced from reality as it is sinister. Conservatives are driven by liberty and a healthy skepticism for centralized government. They aren't enemies of the federal government but believe it ought to be limited in its powers and scope, as contemplated and designed by the Constitution. They are the opposite of racists, aspiring to colorblindness and equality of opportunity and rights for everyone. We will proudly accept, however, the charge that we are nationalistic, patriotic and firm believers in American exceptionalism.

    Liberals can definitely identify with communism, as indeed they have through the years, as in their glorification of the Soviet Union in years past and their romanticizing of communist dictators, such as Cuba's Fidel Castro. But they also have far more in common with fascism than conservatives do, given their penchant for centralized governmental power and too much state control over business and industry, as we've seen most strikingly under President Barack Obama.

    As political theory and actual practice throughout history demonstrate, both communism and fascism are left-wing political and economic ideologies -- as far as they can be from the right wing of the spectrum.
    http://patriotpost.us/opinion/david-...-conservatism/
    "Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society."

    ~Aristotle

  2. #2
    Senior Member Gall Óglach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Last Online
    Thursday, February 23rd, 2012 @ 11:40 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Irish
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Northern Ireland
    Gender
    Age
    31
    Religion
    Science
    Posts
    78
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    free-market libertarianism isn't conservative.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Alfadur's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    Friday, June 15th, 2012 @ 07:10 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Ethnic Nationalism
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    676
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    Indeed, fascism is not conservatism. At least they got that right.

    Equating fascism with the neo-conservatism of Jonah Goldberg is a grave insult to fascism.

  4. #4
    Senior Member Austin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Online
    Tuesday, December 13th, 2011 @ 05:36 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Scottish/German
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Location
    Austin
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    work sucks
    Politics
    ethno nationalism
    Religion
    Catholic Texas German
    Posts
    474
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2
    Thanked in
    2 Posts
    No Fascism is not Conservatism and never has been. Modern conservatives are just fiscally and morally reserved liberal capitalists, whereas the modern left is fiscally and morally unreserved yet still very capitalist.

    The irony is we have to discuss the right as Fascist when there is no true "Right" any longer. Modern conservatives cannot be considered under the historical meaning of right by any measure.

    Modern conservatives:

    -capitalist

    -ultimately liberals with reservations

    -consumerist to the core

    -multicultural on the whole

    -anti-racist or unwilling to take race on any longer


    NONE of that even comes close to the historical meaning of the political right. That is all neo-leftism. Conservatives aren't really nationalist so much as they are for a slow cultural raping whereas the modern left is for a fast, violent cultural raping.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Schopenhauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Online
    Sunday, July 22nd, 2012 @ 08:31 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    England, Ireland, and Wales
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Arkham, MA
    Gender
    Occupation
    Cultist
    Politics
    Cthulhic
    Religion
    LHP
    Posts
    763
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Actually, Fascism has more in common with Socialism/Communism than Conservatism, at least the Goldwater type of Conservatism.

    Personally, I just don't get the allure of Fascism, or any other form of statism for that matter.
    Omnia risus et omnis pulvis et omnia nihil - HPL

    "Oh, you should never, never doubt what nobody is sure about." - Willy Wonka

    “niemand bleibt hier” - Maria Orsic

  6. #6
    Anachronism "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Huginn ok Muninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Germany, Norway, England
    Subrace
    Nordeby
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Texas Texas
    Gender
    Zodiac Sign
    Leo
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Farther right than you.
    Posts
    3,062
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    644
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    767
    Thanked in
    368 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Schopenhauer View Post
    Actually, Fascism has more in common with Socialism/Communism than Conservatism, at least the Goldwater type of Conservatism.

    Personally, I just don't get the allure of Fascism, or any other form of statism for that matter.
    Sigh.. it isn't about any kind of "ism," it is all about power and where that power lies. That's it. The end.

    And where does that power lie now that we as a people are crumbling away? Either on what is termed the "left," which means cultural marxists leading a bunch of potheaded hippies who just love our racial enemies so much they forget to feed their own children, or the "right," which wants less government to get in the way of multinational megacorps, to whom they delegate the power, and to whom our people are simply "overpaid," so they support LaRaza and import some illiterate brown slaves to work for a penny less per hour.

    Why is either of these options any option at all? Both are diametrically opposed to the primary functions of government, which are to protect the borders and secure the general welfare of the people. Such basic good sense has become muscled out of the picture and is nothing more than a talking point for politicians who have no idea what it means. Why? Because too much power has been gradually delegated to corporations on one side, and leftist-minority special-interest groups on the other.

    How did this occur? Well, some would put the onus on the people at large, and say that, well, it's s democracy, so it's their fault for letting it happen. Well, the fallacy is that it is not a democracy, but a republic, and those selected to represent the people, in fact, do not. The system is set up so that moneyed interests have the ear of politicians and have indeed gained such power that they threaten the careers of politicians who become their enemies. Power is a big game, and people who have no idea how to play it have allowed it to fall into the wrong hands. Now it is going to take someone with the utter ruthlessness of Stalin and the charisma, political guile and ethnic patriotism of Hitler to clean up the mess.
    Most people think as they are trained to think, and most people make a majority.

  7. #7
    Senior Member Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    5 Days Ago @ 12:42 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    56
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    55
    Thanked in
    38 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    How did this occur? Well, some would put the onus on the people at large, and say that, well, it's s democracy, so it's their fault for letting it happen. Well, the fallacy is that it is not a democracy, but a republic, and those selected to represent the people, in fact, do not. The system is set up so that moneyed interests have the ear of politicians and have indeed gained such power that they threaten the careers of politicians who become their enemies. Power is a big game, and people who have no idea how to play it have allowed it to fall into the wrong hands. Now it is going to take someone with the utter ruthlessness of Stalin and the charisma, political guile and ethnic patriotism of Hitler to clean up the mess.
    It's all about organization towards a purpose. Sure, the people en masse is more powerful than the elites, but it is not organized while the elites are. It is the same thing as with the Jews, they are organized whereas their host population is not. 4 000 legionnaires and some support troops massacred 100–250 000 Britons at Watling street only because they were better organized and better led. Jews, capitalists or nobility, the concept is still the same.

    Smaller groups are easier to organize, and in relative terms the benefits from organization are, ceteris paribus, far greater for smaller groups compared to larger ones. Also: majority populations will always identify with the state and the government (even if they are run by minorities) while the minorities will not.

  8. #8
    Senior Member Heinrich Harrer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, July 7th, 2018 @ 07:54 PM
    Ethnicity
    German
    Country
    Germany Germany
    Gender
    Religion
    none
    Posts
    786
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    77
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Huginn ok Muninn View Post
    Sigh.. it isn't about any kind of "ism," it is all about power and where that power lies. That's it. The end.
    And what is the nature of power?

    Why is either of these options any option at all? Both are diametrically opposed to the primary functions of government, which are to protect the borders and secure the general welfare of the people.
    True, after the incident in Norway I remember reading that the old left-right-dichotomy is outdated and that today it's basically about nationalists versus globalists (not that this is news to us, but more and more people seem to be realizing it). Both the (neo-)conservative right and the mainstream left pursue policies that enable open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism - either for cheap labor and tax reductions for the large corporations/the rich elite or for the dissolution of our traditional socities to ultimately create their nationless global utopia. It's an unholy alliance, and as long as people only switch between these two political poles, for which the mainstream media is largely responsible, our nations and people will continue on this path into oblivion. In a way it's an elaborate scam, giving people several choices so that they have some fake freedom and remain docile, while all of these choices are the same regarding the truly important questions of our time.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 19th, 2019 @ 04:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Conservatives who are afraid of being labeled fascists, in accordance with tactics that take a page from the komintern in 1943, will inevitably take refuge in liberalism in the hopes of upholding some degree of respectability and legitimacy in the public sphere (as in the sphere controlled by the media and the parties). This then sets the framework for what Conservatism is and can be, with ideologues and politicians adapting themselves to this new and more restricted framework. The problem with this strategy is that the left doesn't accept compromises. The left will go after every last position that the Conservative right holds until they have been completely neutralized. That which used to be common sense positions, untouched by controversy, becomes new targets for the left wing media.

    Only when the Conservative right takes a consistent stand against the left can this process be halted, as has been the case in the US where the right has actually managed to stave off the advances of left wing dogma on several issues, issues where the Conservative right in other parts of the world has caved.

    There can be no peace between tradition and progress and in order for tradition to stand a chance, it needs allies in high places. Once the parties, the media and other actors in the public sphere surrender to progress there are no longer any dissenting voices heard, and the public finds itself without representation. The substitutes that might emerge to represent the public on these issues can be of low quality and wont achieve, or restore the level of legitimacy and political clout that the former representatives, and in extention the positions themselves, once had.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Neophyte's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Last Online
    5 Days Ago @ 12:42 AM
    Ethnicity
    Scandinavian
    Subrace
    Nordic + some Atlantid
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Family
    Single adult
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Posts
    1,947
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    56
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    55
    Thanked in
    38 Posts
    So true. Leftist tactics are to attack their opponents and profit from their (human and civilized) tendency to assume good faith in their opponents and to compromise. But, instead of compromises bringing the two sides together they will only lead to the left increasing their demands and assuming an even more confrontational stance.

    You cannot compromise with a committed Communist, or any more modern derivation thereof. The only thing that works is attack and confrontation, because they will never compromise.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Thursday, June 1st, 2006, 07:17 PM
  2. The origin of conservatism
    By morfrain_encilgar in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, May 27th, 2005, 09:28 AM
  3. The Failure of Conservatism
    By infoterror in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, February 4th, 2005, 05:23 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •