Extreme right-wingers seem to be bandying about these terms interchangeably these days. I really don't get it. Why does the media focus on the idiots at the fringe? Why do they get so much airtime? They annoy me just as much as the extreme left-wingers who claim that 9/11 was the work of the Bush government. Then there's the comparison with Hitler (for both presidents). But that's another matter. Seriously. Why don't we hear more about people like this guy?
Anyway, so I keep hearing about how the Obama government is turning America into a Socialist nation... or maybe it's a Communist nation... no wait... it's Fascist. Either way it's apparently undermining the foundations of our republic and turning us into Russia... or maybe it's China... no wait... maybe it's Nazi Germany. Oh yes, before I get accused of being a crazy liberal let me say (as a disclaimer) that yes, I do lean a little bit left-of-center, but I don't agree with everything the left says. I'm also not a fan of big government. That being said, let's analyze three different political ideologies and see what they actually mean.
Communism
Communism is a political ideology as well as an economic system. Communism aims to create a classless society where everybody is equal. In an ideal communist-society, there is no government and everybody owns everything. People are nice to each other and no one really has any desire for power. It's one big party. Communism sounds pretty nice in principle. But since human beings are far from perfect and since there are many who are power-hungry and greedy, communism is impractical. Now obviously the United States is quite far away from being a communist nation. Firstly we are neither classless nor egalitarian. Finally, we have a government. Those who accuse the Obama government of turning America "communist" do so because they say that the government is getting too big - which contradicts what communism is about. Besides this main point, there are numerous other points that make America not communist, and that also show that it is not moving in that direction. Anyone who takes the time to look up what Communism really means, can see that. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant, deceitful, or fear-mongering.
Fascism
Fascism isn't a party. Actually it's kinda like a party except the hosts tell you exactly what you have to do. You are also supposed to have fun even if the party consists of just knitting and cutting colored paper into random shapes. If you don't have fun, you can be killed or put in prison. Hell, even if you are having fun but the hosts don't think you are, you can still be thrown in prison... or killed. Also, don't even think of saying that the party sucks. You will be killed. Oh yeah, you also go around trashing other people's parties and killing them also. Fascism is a radical ideology. It advocates a nationalistic and authoritarian single-party state. Fascists believe that a nation (or people) can only advance by being in perpetual conflict with other nations (or people). The weak perish and the strong survive. Fascist governments are authoritarian and dictatorial. There is suppression of free speech, and opposition against the government is not tolerated. It's rather obvious that the United States if far from being a Fascist nation. Also, in no way is the current administration "Fascist" in any way (neither was the Bush administration). "Fascist" has turned into an adjective that people use, to label governments whose policies they do not like. The fact that those on the extreme right can speak and make their (ridiculous) theories heard points to the fact that the Obama administration is far from "Fascist". If the administration truly was Fascist, we wouldn't be hearing these dissenting (and downright crazy) opinions. So if you hear anyone use the term "Fascist", ask them what it actually means. You'll find that they really don't know what they're talking about.
Socialism
Socialism isn't a concrete doctrine or ideology like Communism or Fascism. It's a set of theories of economic organization which advocate a society where the public or workers directly own and administer the means of production and its distrubtion and allocation. A socialist society is characterized by equal access to resources through an egalitarian method of compensation. Sounds nice, but once again, impractical. Human nature prevents a practical implementation of socialism. Finally I think most people are averse to a system where everything is publicly owned. People want something that they can call "theirs". Socialism in its purest form results in Communism. Now most rational people will look at Socialism and think of it as an idea that's nice and utopian, but ultimately impractical. Although socialism tries to address the inequalities between people, human nature will always get in the way. You either end up with free loaders living off those who work, or you end up with the ones with resources opressing everyone else. The fact remains that the United States is committed to being a capitalist nation. Forgive me for being cynical here, but the coporations and the politicians will never allow anything else. There's simply too much money in being Capitalist. Furthermore, if you analyze the Obama administration's policies they're not really Socialist. They're actually anti-worker and pro-corporate. Ironically, the final act of the Bush Administration was more Socialist than anything else: bailing out Wall Street. So if you hear more extreme right-wing nonsense about "OMG SOCIALISM", ask them exactly what it means and how these policies are Socialist. They may come back with vague statements about how Obama is "redistributing the wealth" or "promoting Government interference" or something like that. Redistribution of wealth by itself is not a "Socialist" policy. It will alleviate some problems, but it's not going to cause true economic change. For the United States to actually turn Socialist, a lot of things have to change. None of that is happening. The American people won't let it happen. "Socialism", like "Obama is Kenyan" is another red herring thrown out by the extreme-right. Rational folks, on the left and the right, don't take such things seriously.
No government is universally accepted by the people. There are always critics and detractors. What I'm generally sad about is the current state of political debate (if it can even be called that) in our country (and it's not limited to the current "debate". It dates back to the early days of the Bush administration). It's full of vitriol, fear-mongering, and hyperbole. In general I wish the media would focus on rational views from the moderate left and the moderate right. There is very real rational opposition to the Obama administration's plans, and there are very real concerns. These are the things American people need to hear instead of garbage like "Bush planned 9/11" or "Obama is not actually an American and he wants to kill all the old people!".
References
The polarization of editorial by news organizations is nauseating at best. Some fringe conservative pundits immediately claim the mainstream media is “liberal.” But, they immediately cease their antics the moment they cover their divisive topics. News today is not journalism — you know, that thing that news was once respected for.
News has become more sensational, doing anything for the Sweeps. It’s no wonder that the most distasteful, editorialized, pure bleeding-edge (pun intended) is placed first in priority pushing out mainstream issues. If you watch the news during Sweeps weeks versus non-Sweeps periods, you’ll notice the snark is considerably edgier so people watch. (Nielsen Sweeps Weeks – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Ratings#Sweeps ). Page Views are the equivalent to Ratings in the broadcast industry, and the adage, “Do anything for a page view,” is apropos for the broadcast media — but for ratings.
It’s not that I necessarily refute anyone that questions government, but when personalities such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh (this pretexts that they posses souls and conviction) rise to mainstream power, this is when people need to check their own moral standards and check their opinions at the door. If FOX News would invest their investigative journalism resources into /all/ government officials, it would be fair. Interviews are loaded whenever they stage them … how can someone adequately explain their logic and perspective if they are given a total of 90 seconds of air time in a show that’s an hour long?
On the other side of the polarizing matters is the Michael Moore crowd who blame capitalism for the problems of many. Many of Moore’s points are well articulated, but give rise to his motive. If capitalism was as perplexing as he make it out to be, how would Flint, MI ever become industrial, giving thousands of residents jobs in factories. If anything, he should be all over Capitalism, attracting — not attacking — General Motors and other domestic car manufacturers to his city for socioeconomic growth. I’m a fan of his documentary style, but I never leave a solid supporter (and hopefully no one else).
It’s shameful when organizations such as ACORN pour salt on their PR damage and fail to internally address the lack of education, corruption and other immoralities they seem to be doing. They should know, take care of problems internally, before it requires an act of Congress to shut things down and everyone’s down and out. I think it’s reflective of their desperation to salvage the damaging footage as they file suit with the videographers under a MD state law requiring mutual consent for recording. When the footage itself contains possible criminal acts they’re just asking for more damning media coverage. Oh and their spokesperson is rather polarizing — speaking from emotion, not the issue at hand. That doesn’t help either.
The claims of socialism, communism, fascism are purely used to hook viewers who haven’t heard of anything other than capitalism. For an administration that’s allegedly becoming socialist; juxtaposed to the PATRIOT acts of the previous one makes them seem rather conservative.
This is a great post. Thanks for taking the time to share it. I know I’m rather critical of both ends of the political spectrum, and I seem to hold the mainstream media to a high regard. I can only hope that real people don’t possibly believe the spin, hype, opinion-enriched vitriol that’s being spewed. Maybe.
~Joe
Thankyou for this, really helped me understand what all these terms meant…
Now I have to just look up capitalism! lol, I can already see you rolling your eyebrows at how stupid I am…
@Chris Allan
Haha, no worries Chris. I don’t think you’re stupid! These terms are somewhat nuanced and it is hard to get them exactly right. I don’t think I have it completely right either!
I think you did a great job describing these political and economic systems. I agree with you almost completely. The only part I would comment on is about communism. You say communism intends to move towards a stateless society. For Marx, this is an accurate statement. However, as you said, the ideology is impractical and has not yet succeeded. I would stress that although Marx’s ideal was a move to a stateless and classless society, in practice communism has resulted in a very large government that controls everything. In other words, calling something communist can pertain to the ideals of the theory, or the reality of the experienced outcomes. (USSR, Cuba, China, all with big dominant government and dominant single party politics.)
I was pleasantly surprised to find that I agreed with \This Guy\, the Reagan campaign director. I forget his name. The article you linked to was a breath of fresh air. I agree that the level of polemics has gone to far. I agree that Olbermann is biased, as are all of the commentators on MSNBC. We are all biased. However, there is a difference between being biased and distorting the truth and or intentionally creating a high level of mistrust and animosity. Yes, Olbermann rants and gets angry and has a strong opinion, or at least he pretends to, but to what degree does he misrepresent the news? I can agree that his show may not add much intellectually, he may not further the debate in a meaningful or constructive way, but he is still much different than what we see on FOX and what we hear on right wing radio. (In my opinion)
Yes I am a liberal, but I like to try and be fair. I think there is a very big difference between being biased, as are Rachel Maddow and Olbermann, and being dishonest and engaging in disinformation, as do Beck and Hannity. In my opinion, what we see on FOX goes much further than what we see on MSNBC. The level of distortion, disinformation, and use of fallacious arguments goes far beyond bias. So does the level of blatant support for right wing agendas. (Tea Party organization, anti-health care rally organization, Becks 9-12 organization, calling for voters to elect Republican in New Jersey and Virginia to make a statement…) For the most part, what I get from Maddow is news with her biased liberal/progressive opinion and commentary. What I get from FOX is manufactured garbage to back up an invented and over hyped story and consistent promotion and campaigning for the right. Not just opinion, but serious promotion and endorsement, such as with the tea parties.
For example, I may be wrong, and I would like to be corrected if I am, but the comparison offered is that of the \extreme left\, who promoted the \Bush 9-11 conspiracy\ with the \extreme right\ who promote the \Obama Nazi/Fascist/Muslim/Ayers/Wright/Terrorist/Acorn/socialist/Kenyan where is your Birth certificate conspiracy\ , does not seem to be a fair comparison.
It seems to me that the \conspiracy\ of Obama and the Nazi/Fascist/socialist/etc. rhetoric is mainstream, in that it appears regularly on FOX and right wing mainstream radio and even to some degree on other shows not on FOX such as MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. MSNBC is undeniably biased and left leaning in general, but the degree of difference seems to be large and important to me.
When did mainstream media, such as MSNBC or the NY Times, which is constantly declared to be \left wing media\, promote a Bush government involvement with 9-11? When did any mainstream media, such as FOX is, (and the highest rated), engage in the kind of \news\ that FOX does with the level of fear and hate mongering that we see today on FOX? FOX appears to be often based on factually false and evidence free \news.\
My point is that I do not see a fair comparison. The Left wing Conspiracy theorists of 9-11 were far left fringe, and these views were not broadcast regularly over mainstream news outlets, or even over most left wing radio shows, such as Thom Hartman or Al Franken.
However, the Right Wing conspiracy theory news is broadcast daily, on the highest rated news channel, full of animosity and generally based on fabricated nonsense. One would have to go out of their way to hear 9-11 conspiracy theories about Bush yesterday. One can not escape the right wing accusations today.
I see a big difference in degree and a big difference in the type of bias. But then again, I am rather biased myself.
@Patheticus
Ah, I see your point about communism – I guess they’re clamoring about the attributes of communist societies that we’ve seen over the past 60-70 years. As always theory is different from practice.
You make a good point about bias versus wanton distortion. FOX News is guilty of both. I’m not sure if you’re aware of FOX vs. Akre. You can take a look at here. Essentially FOX successfully won the case by stating that:
They essentially were defending their right to make up any news they see fit. Perhaps I wasn’t completely fair in my comparison; I wrote my post on the spur of the moment and I was pretty annoyed with media bias at the time and I simply lumped everything together. But I do agree with you. FOX’s “doom and gloom” and “extreme right-wing conspiracy theories” do get much more airtime than the extreme-left conspiracy theories ever did.
I enjoy listening to Rachel Maddow as well. I sometimes listen to Keith Olbermann but his ranting gets to me sometimes. Yes, I also think that these commentators are different from Limbaugh, Beck, or Hannity. Beck is probably the worst of the three.
I will admit, I am also left-leaning (left-of-center libertarian) and so I do see your point. The comparison is not completely fair. Right-wing news today is dominated by the conspiracy theories which is probably due to FOX (they make the loudest noise). It truly is unfortunate that FOX has turned out to be the mouthpiece of the Republican party. For example, there are valid, mature, and reasonable right-leaning news sources; The Wall Street Journal being one of them. You can get the Republican viewpoint without the sensationalism, distortion, and fringe theories that you hear on FOX.
When I started becoming politically conscious, I was definitely left-leaning but I’ve had an opportunity to be in touch with “the other side” (so to speak) due to my service in the military (largely conservative) and also where I work (most of my co-workers are conservative). Of course, my conservative friends have their right-leaning bias but I’ve heard valid concerns and logical arguments from them regarding their disagreements with Obama’s policies. This, I can understand. But I have also heard conspiracy theories and hyperbole from some of them, largely in part due to FOX’s disinformation and distortion. Once upon a time (as you saw from Stuart Spencer a.k.a. this guy) debate seemed to be cultured, rational, and valid. That time seems to have passed. I guess it wouldn’t be an issue if FOX news was simply biased. Too bad they’re so far from a cultured, valid, or rational news source. They simply seem to be a breeding-ground for crazy conspiracy theories and hate.
So in a nutshell, I agree with you! Thanks for your comment!
@vivin
Thanks for the info on FOX vs. Akre. I had no idea. I do not believe in censorship or infringement on free speech, but legal intentional falsification of the news is just scary!!! I am glad to see that someone agrees with me. Often, I feel I must be crazy, as many people I express the above opinions to argue vehemently that FOX and Beck are no different than MSNBC and Maddow. Personally, I think her liberal/progressive bias is blatant and open and she does not try to conceal it and that feels honest. And, she is brilliant. Again, my own bias, but she really is quite intelligent.
Something I am interested in looking into further is what you allude to as the once upon a time rational and cultured debate that existed in the past, as did Stuart Spencer. It seems like this idea may be a bit primitivist. Part of me believes (or wants to believe) that this is true to an extent, but another part wonders how true it is. I will concede that the level and amount of irrational debate, invalid arguments, and disinformation feels like it has increased dramatically very recently and it feels dangerous.
I agree that some news seems to have taken on a new exaggerated level of unenlightened discourse, but I think the difference is not that this unenlightened and dishonest discourse exists, but that it has to a large degree managed to replace enlightened discourse. I mean to say that it has always existed, but now it is more accepted and prominent and thus more influential.
I hope it is limited, though it appears to increasingly make up what is mainstream. We have a large and increasing number of radical opinion pundits and commentators who masquerade as news anchors. People go to them for news, and forget that they are actually getting entertainment driven opinion injected with hi jinks, hi drama, and scandal instead of real news. And they buy it because it is easier than forming opinions on ones own. In other words, people are ignoring the available cultured, valid, rational news sources because they do not provide the entertainment or combativeness that so many have come to depend on.
What I meant to say is that I really wonder to what extent the level of polemics is really that much different from what it has been in the past. I think it has always existed, but today it seems to be making a bigger impact because it is more widespread. More people accept it. Maybe because of technology, maybe because education is suffering. Maybe the media is getting more effective with propaganda and so it is having a bigger and bigger impact.
I am going out on a bit of a limb, and I would like to do a lot of research on this, but irrational and crazy conspiracy theory politics have existed to different degrees since our founding. Jefferson was labeled an atheist and greatly disparaged. Jefferson retaliated both against the clergy and against Adams. Nixon destroyed McGovern. FDR and Huey Long. There are countless examples, many more than I am aware of, I am sure. The media has always played an integral part.
Sometimes I wonder if what has really changed is not so much the existence of the exaggerated and fabricated conspiracy theories but the amount of people susceptible to them and their prominence in mainstream thought. I hate to make this comparison, but with a population such as that of the U.S. in which 40% of the population rejects evolution, it appears that there may be a relationship to the lack of critical thinking ability and an increased susceptibility to propaganda. Or an increased dependency on entertainment style news that depends on creating us vs. them controversy and a constant state of fear and danger. Hence all of the Nazi/fascist rhetoric. I have actually heard Michele Bachmann on FOX warn against participating in the 2010 census and relating it to WWII Japanese American interment camps.
We all need to enroll in a critical thinking course.
I am sorry this is so long and drawn out. I can be rather long winded. Thanks for responding to my last post. You wrote a great article outlining the political systems.
The first time I read about FOX vs. Akre, I couldn’t believe what I was seeing. Like you, I do not believe in censorship either but there is something very unsettling with the legal distortion of news.
Like you said before, I guess there is a difference between outright bias and distortion. Bias doesn’t necessarily make you dishonest, but it makes you subjective and will probably make you cherry-pick your facts, or see things the way you want to see them. But distortion and lying is something else entirely. It is sinister and insidious. You’re right about seeing more of this from the FOX side (and like I mentioned before FOX == right-view view these days, unfortunately).
I might be a little naive about the cultured debate. It seems that times that have passed always seem more cultured when compared to the present. It might be true, but then again it’s probably idle romanticism. For example, I was just reminded of the fact that paranoia and hate-mongering was rife during the McCarthy era. I think the reason for the level of irrational debate and disinformation is due to the fact that communication is so much faster these days, and [dis]information also travels faster. Furthermore, enlightened discourse is nowhere near as profitable or sensational as some idiot on a talk-show claiming that he’s “only asking questions”.
You bring up an excellent point about people looking at radical opinion pundits and commentators for news. The line between “news” and “political commentary” is getting increasingly blurred today. I will admit that I don’t watch news on TV that much these days (I get my news from the BBC and NPR) but when I do I often find that I’m not sure whether I’m watching the news, or whether I’m watching some commentator talking about his opinions on some political point. It’s intertwined.
As far the the level of polemics, perhaps there is always an average or baseline level, which goes up during times of war or political turmoil. But, as you said, the effect of polemic these days is much greater because more people are able to hear it.
Research on this topic would be very interesting; I don’t know if anyone has devised a metric for measuring polemic or media impact! I guess what it comes down to is, no matter how vicious or aggressive the debate, as long as they based on sound logic, fact, and information, it remains a debate. Once it devolves into hate-mongering, conspiracy theories, or outright distortion and lying, we’ve left the realm of rational debate and entered something else. So a good metric might be to measure the percentage of radical opinion in mainstream media. Using that metric, it looks like polemic has gone up seriously, especially with FOX news.
I also wonder why so many people are susceptible to disinformation. FOX news isn’t successful simply because of what it says, it’s because there are people out there who are willing to believe in what FOX news says. Your point about evolution is also interesting. While I completely disagree with creationism, I understand that some people believe in it. It’s fine with me and I look at it as a matter of faith. The problem is when they try to claim it is science and then want to push it down our collective throats. The evolution vs. creationism debate is a great example of the generation of the “us vs. them” complex. I’m sure there is a very strong correlation between lack of critical thinking and being susceptible to manipulation by disinformation. You’ll find that the ones who shout the loudest about the crazy conspiracy theories are not the people who actually came up with them, but they’re actually their fans or followers. Oh, and I had no idea Michelle Bachmann made that comment. This is seriously why I cannot stand more than a few minutes of FOX news. The amount of stupidity, idiocy, and hyperbole on that channel is staggering.
Yes, I agree there is a significant lack of critical thinking. It really doesn’t take a genius to pick apart the stupid theories floated by Glenn Beck or any one of the commentators on FOX. I’m just surprised that people accept what they say so blindly. What’s even more telling is also how duplicitous certain people can be. I was watching Jon Stewart the other day and he was playing clips of Giuliani in the context of the terrorism trials. He played clips of Giuliani from 2006, praising the Bush administration for carrying out the trial of Moussaoui on American soil. He then spliced in Giuliani’s comments denouncing the Obama administration for carrying out the trial of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad on American soil. I’m not sure you can even call this an extreme case of bias. It’s nothing other than hypocrisy.
On a slightly related note, I read somewhere that The Daily Show is actually ranked one of the highest in terms of actual news content.
Oh, I don’t mind that your response is long and drawn out! I enjoyed reading it, and I’m glad you enjoyed my article!
I have enjoyed conversing with you as well. You are clear and interesting and you make good sense. Rare these days… I do not have much time to continue at present, but I will respond to what I can.
As far as your romanticism, that is completely normal. We always tend to think the past was more simple, more honest, safer, better….It is hard to keep perspectives and make rational comparisons that look at the whole picture. You bring up the McCarthy era, and that is a great example for seeing past divisions and extremism. The scary thing is that we seem to be hearing a similar level of vindictiveness from certain pundits, and that is greatly amplified, as you said, in the fan base, without the specter of communism. This is all based on the policies of a president who has been in office less than 12 months. At least with McCarthy communism was seen as a very real threat by many. Today it seems to be completely fabricated.
You said “Research on this topic would be very interesting; I don’t know if anyone has devised a metric for measuring polemic or media impact!” That is really funny. No, I know of no polemic metric either!. However, we can document the level of polemics in print media (and more recently film coverage) from ages ago and get an idea of how common it was and to what level it went to. It would be a historical analysis of political coverage in the media. I am sure there are already good documentations of it. I will look for some info when I have time.
You mentioned Jon Stewart. I will have to look for that clip. I absolutely love when he puts before and after clips of people demonstrating their lack of truthiness and utter hypocrisy. He needs to do it more often and I should try and see his show more often. Here is a link to one that I loved, you have probably seen it. It is a little bit petty, but fun nonetheless.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-3-2008/sarah-palin-gender-card
I must say, one probably does get more accurate news from Stewart, even if it is not higher in content. That is scary, which brings me to another thing you said.
You get your news from NPR and BBC. It is a little sad, but it is likely that the BBC is the most reliable place to get info on U.S. politics. It makes some sense, since they can be more objective. But it is still sad that much of our media and much of our population has been so hijacked by shows and stations more concerned with sensationalism, as you said, that they seemingly intentionally create this propaganda filled fantasy world. Fear sells, and they have mastered the art.
As far as Giuliani and Stewart’s clips, and being surprised that people accept what they say so blindly, I too am shocked. People seem to have no memory. Concepts, ideologies, and positions taken a very short time ago and accepted and promoted by “the people” as dogma seem to disappear with one charismatic re-claim. The Orwellian references have been overused, I am sure, by both sides. But I can not help but see the correlation. (As a side note, I hate it when the right, especially Beck, tries to use Orwell against Obama and the left, as Orwell was a socialist who argued against the far right fascist movements. I also hate it when he invokes Thomas Paine, who also had very leftist tendencies.)
Any way, back to the point, beyond the political correlation between Orwell and modern politics, there is a scary popular correlation. When someone like Giuliani makes their overtly obvious hypocritical claims, the torch is picked up by their followers and the old slogan is completely erased from memory. We are at war with….We have always been at war with…. They do not even blink (you can’t blink, Charlie) when the party slogan changes into an opposite chant. How do they not remember praising the Bush admin. for the trial of Moussaoui on American soil? How do they adapt…so eagerly and complacently?
Anyway, I must get going. I want to clarify that Michelle Bachmann did not directly accuse the present administration of having sinister Japanese American interment objectives, she only slyly and sinisterly made a possible correlation. You know, like “only asking questions.”
Concerning the Creationist Evolutionist debate, I can also appreciate choice and faith. Like you, I can not appreciate creationism, or intelligent design, dressed up as science. And, I can not tolerate anything being shoved down my throat, especially that. My biggest problem is when people take a dogmatic approach to denying evolution, not just based on faith, but based on the denial of scientific evidence. To me, this seems dishonest. Ignorance of the science is forgivable. Denial of it without attempting to get educated is another matter. Even worse, is the bold faced distortion of the science and the intentional disinformation that is used against evolution by creationists to levels that make FOX look like amateurs.
Got to go.
Mad props man!
So OK i agree with the analysis but help me out here. There is an ongoing (repeated by Glen Beck in his historic video last week) that Hitler was not right wing but a socialist. It seems that nobody wants to claim poor \Dolph.\ About a year ago, there was a Newsweek article about WWII and the right or left of Hitler came up it screamed out in bold type that he was a Right-Wing extreme something or other. So right or left. I know the party was National Socialist but he moved away and from what I see adopted the Fascist model of Italy. Help me out/
@Jim Bob
I wouldn’t take Glenn Beck’s word at face value since he seems to be an ignorant buffoon and a personality, rather than an educated and intelligent individual ;). But that aside, “Right Wing” generally refers to politics that stands for a return to traditional and historical cultural values as opposed to more progressive ones. In that sense, Hitler was definitely on the “right” since he always hearkened to Germany’s traditional and historical values. The “right” also has a strong sense of nationalism and militarism. If you carry these to the extreme, you end up with Hitler’s nationalistic and militaristic fanaticism.
Since the Nazis were “Nationalist Socialists”, it is easy to assume that they are left-wing. But saying that the Nazis were socialist is quite far from the truth. The name itself is a misnomer and it was for political reasons than to be implemented in practice. Germany during the Reich was pro-corporate and militaristic. Power definitely rested in the hands of an elite few. Workers had no power. Prior to the Reich, there were demonstrations across Germany by the workers in response to the Great Depression. Hitler used this to his advantage to get more supporters for his Nationalist Socialist Party. Of course, once he came to power he was anything but Socialist. Hitler abolished trade unions, and gave employers more rights over employees. Hitler’s Germany was a very capitalistic society.
Hitler’s writings make it very obvious that he was against Marxism. It therefore follows that he was against Socialism. Like I said before, he said the party was “Socialist” purely for political reasons.
Wikipedia’s entry on Nazism says:
Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism, eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism. (emphasis mine).
Note that Nazism was against communism and also against political liberalism, which fall on the left of the political spectrum. So to sum it up, Hitler was on the right. I’m not sure why some of the right in America seem to take offense to that. It’s simply a historical fact and has no bearing on them.
What a great article. Thank you, it has helped me out a lot.
I found this as a great article. It’s helpful, although I don’t take just one man’s word on it. I still have yet to do research on all three of these topics. I like how you have a solid set of beliefs. I don’t agree with all of them, as I fall farther to the right. My concern is how ignorant some of these comments are.
I do watch Glenn Beck. If you watch it for as long as I have, it starts to make sense. In this article, you state that communism has no government, when, in fact, this is not the case, as I have learned–not just from Glenn Beck, but a number of other sources. Communism is when all factors of production are controlled by the government. Essentially, complete government control. Yet, it’s view are opposed to Fascism, which is what separates the right from the left. This is not to be confused with the general “right” and “left” of modern politics. I don’t know anyone who is either Fascist or Communist…okay, there are a few self-proclaimed Communists I have heard about, but I don’t personally know anyone. Communism is the greatest idea that doesn’t work due to lack of resources and human nature. I don’t have an opinion on whether Obama is Communist, but I am sure that he is Socialist. Socialism is when some of the factors of production are controlled by the government. And there are socialistic parts of the government. Most of them don’t work so well: Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, that new Health care thing, and spreading the wealth is socialist.
I am personally in favor of a flat tax of about 12-24%, which may convince that 60% of people who don’t pay their taxes to pay them, but that is a different story…
Overall, I love capitalism, and I think you do too, as you shun these other three governments. Your facts might be somewhat misplaced, or perhaps I am wrong. However, there are already socialistic parts of this government.
@Anonymous
Thank you for your comments! I agree that we all have our set of core beliefs and that they may not coincide. But regarding Glenn Beck, I have to say that I cannot find any rationale to listen to anything that man says. He is an alarmist. He’s an ignorant person who makes money off the fears of people. A lot of what he says doesn’t make sense, and is quite simply ignorant supposition. For example, his arguments usually go this way:
“Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. I’m not saying that he did, but he hasn’t denied that he raped or murdered a young girl. You know, he even went so far as to try and shut down a site that claimed that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. If this isn’t true, why hasn’t Glenn Beck tried to deny this?”
What I stated about Communism is purely in theory. There haven’t been any “pure” Communist governments, and there haven’t been any “pure” Capitalist governments either (in a pure capitalist system, monopolies are legal and inevitable. We know that this is not the case in the United States). What I was trying to point out, was that the comments that Glenn Beck et al make is simply hyperbole or red herrings. The United States is far from being socialist, and will never become socialist. Government control of some facets doesn’t immediately make a government “socialist”. There isn’t really any redistribution or reallocation of resources. I don’t know about Obama personally, but I wouldn’t say that he is Socialist, because aside from Health Care, he has been pro corporate. If you want to argue Socialism, then you have to say that both Bush and Obama were socialist because both of them supported and implemented bailouts.
As far as the tax goes, I think that a flat tax or a sales tax might be a good idea instead of the complicated mess that we have now.
Regarding parts of government that might be “socialist”, I think that is somewhat subjective. Like I said, we don’t have governments that are purely socialist, communist, or capitalist. Furthermore, government control of certain sections doesn’t immediately imply socialism.
@Anonymous
@Anonymous:
I do not intend to be mean or insulting, but do you think that if ” you watch it (glenn beck) for as long as I have, it starts to make sense” may in itself contain the answer as to why you find him acceptable? Maybe you have been…assimilated, to put it nicely.
Again, I do not intend this as an insult. I simply wonder if you can actually listen to him with an open and critical mind after having watched him for so long. It can be hard to do that after becoming “acquainted”with and or identifying with someone such as beck. He wins you over, and his discourse can appear rational. It can seem to make sense. He seems to have your best interests in mind. He convinces you that he cares. He is passionate. He means well. He is looking out for you and America…He shares your concerns and wants what you want….but at what cost? Can he have ulterior motives? To what means is he willing to go to justify his ends. What are his true ends? Why is he so often mean, cruel, angry, ridiculing….
That is what Beck does. He works hard to get people to identify with problems and with him. These problems are often imaginary, worse case scenarios. He will plead for logic, rationality, understanding and get the viewer to identify with some issue. This issue ofen appears to be well argued and well presented.
He then misrepresents or exaggerates an event and incorrectly correlates that event with the issue he has won the viewers over with by getting them to identify with the hypothetical issue he has so convincingly demonstrated. The man is masterful. For both the imaginary situation he wishes you to identify with and the correlating event he wants to connect it to he makes amazing use of logical fallacies such as appeals to authority, false dichotomies, appeals to emotion, red herrings, strawmen, laughter as a diversionary tactic, Ad hominem, abuse of tradition…etc.
I advise you to research propaganda methods and then apply what you learn to Beck’s tactics and see if you can’t make some startling comparisons. That man twists, distorts, misrepresents, misapplies, lies, takes out of context, and then denies it all nightly while hypocritically blaming others of doing the same thing. Worst of all, I fear he is perfectly aware of doing it. Read all of Thomas Paine’s works, and then see how Beck tries to claim him as a brother in arms. Paine and Beck have nothing in common.
As for the political ideologies Vivin has defined above, they are very complicated. These ideologies are not easy things to define or pinpoint in any given state as perfect examples, as Vivin has already said. Political ideologies evolve, are reinterpreted, assimilated, morphed, and adopted and rejected to different degrees at different times. Today’s liberal is not the 1700’s liberal. Today’s conservative is not the the 1700’s conservative.
I suggest this book for working out what entails the many isms, including the ones talked about in Vivin’s post. It is a useful introduction, or starting point.
A great introduction to Political Ideologies from an objective view is:
Political Ideologies, Fourth Edition: An Introduction by Andrew Heywood.
This book is very expensive. Look for it at a library. If you want to purchase it, look for the third edition on Amazon. You can find very cheap used copies of the third edition. I bought one for under 5 bucks.
This is a good book for understanding the origins, evolutions, core beliefs, and positions of different political isms. One thing is for certain, it is difficult, if not impossible, to pigeon hole many of the characteristics of these different ideologies into any one government or state.
Again, not to be insulting or presumptuous, but I also recommend a very brief but useful intro to logic:
Being Logical, by D.Q. McInerny is a very small, easy to read book that I keep handy to keep critical thinking skills up to par and I try to apply it to all the media I interact with. I apoligize if my suggestions are insulting. In my defense, you do watch Glenn Beck….Just kidding.
Good luck with your research. And again, this is not meant as an insult, but I challenge you to review some rules of logic, logical fallacies, and methods of propaganda and apply that as you watch Beck. Actually, I recommend applying those skills and that knowledge to ALL OF THE MEDIA and all of your life. Beck is not alone, but in my opinion he is one of the most perverse and frequent abusers of the media.
@vivin
You guys are incredible; you denigrate someone like Glenn Beck who in large part uses video clips of individuals to show in no uncertain terms the various positions of these individuals. Why would you not believe when you are hearing the evidence from the vary mouths of those who he exposes? He may be a little theatrical in his attempts to unmask the truth but you really can’t object to people who espouse their political agenda on video tape and then say that it is false…
In reference to his commentary on framers of the constitution, I don’t believe you could point to a single falsehood in what was said given the empirical evidence of documentation on these fine people and their intentions. The bulk of what Glenn Back says is based on these documents juxtaposed to what was stated on video by those exposed. The simple facts are these: Obama is a supporter of Unions, Organizing people (including children), Card Check, and Big Government. The evidence is far more indisputable than Al Gore’s conclusions the “the Science has been settled and there is no debate needed”.
@GWT
Thank you for your comment. I’m sorry to say, but anyone who actually believes what Glenn Beck says needs a strong lesson in “Critical Thinking”. Glenn Beck is a theatrical idiot. Well, I shouldn’t say “idiot”, because he knows what he is doing: making money off the fears of people. Glenn Beck uses clips. So what? He usually uses them out of context and even after using them he’ll usually go off on a tangent using ignorant speculation. That’s what it is: speculation. For example, I could use a video of you, GWT, where you opposed a bill on money for animal shelters. Maybe you had a valid argument. Maybe the government plan was flawed. Who knows? Definitely not the viewers, and that’s how Glenn Beck likes it:
You also have someone like Glenn Beck make fun of the beliefs of Hindus when he says that their most sacred river sounds like the name of a disease. Hardly the mark of a respectable or knowledgeable individual. Pay close attention to Beck. You probably agree with what he says because you like hearing what he says. But next time, see if there is a logical train of thought. There isn’t. It’s mainly just ignorant supposition and speculation.
Regarding Glenn Beck and the constitution, I cannot comment because I have not heard his comments. But based on his track record, I can be reasonably sure that picks things out of context. Rest assured that those great men who framed the constitution would look upon a charlatan like Beck with utmost disdain.
Do you get your news and facts from Beck? Because that is most unfortunate. Perhaps you are not aware, but Obama isn’t very union-friendly as evidenced by his non-support of educational unions. Or are you even aware the Obama administration has hired the nation’s top union-busting firm? I’m sure Glenn Beck wouldn’t tell you any of these. Could you also clarify what you mean by “organizing people (including children)”? Did Glenn Beck tell you that as well? What was his reasoning? Did it involve Obama’s speech to school-children? Perhaps you are not aware, but former first-lady Laura Bush actually supported Obama’s speech to school-children. I’m not sure what your issue is with Card Check and Obama; it was instituted in 1935 under the National Labor Relations Act and so it has been in place for a while (I’m on the fence on this one; I’m not such a big fan of unions, but recognize that they can be useful in certain situations). Finally I’m rather perplexed by your comment about “Big Government”. Perhaps you aren’t aware, but the greatest expansion of Executive powers has been under the Bush Government. But I’m sure Glenn Beck hasn’t talked about that. He probably doesn’t even bring up the fact that the initial bailout (which I’m not of a fan of – neither the first one nor the subsequent one) was by the Bush Administration. So if you’re talking about Big Government (which I don’t support by the way), you need to assess the situation evenhandedly, and that I’m pretty sure is something that Beck will not do.
There really is no “evidence” with Beck. It’s like I said, supposition. I’m not sure if you’ve heard of the internet meme “Glenn Beck raped and murdered a young girl in 1990”, but maybe you should take a look at it. It puts Beck’s style of argument into perspective. Perhaps it may interest you to know as well, that Beck tried to get that site shut down, but hasn’t denied that he raped and murdered a young girl in 1990. Does that mean it’s true? Who knows? All I want you to know America, is that you are not alone in your fears for young children.
@vivin
I don’t blindly believe that Glenn Beck’s commentary is necessarily true or accurate – I way all the evidence before I come to a conclusion. From time to time I believe that his antics detract from his message and as a result I believe that you need to take his show with a grain of salt. Sometimes I believe that his message is wrong. Having said that, I have seen some very interesting video clips on his show that I feel don’t require his analytical antics and stand irrefutable on their own merit. Two pieces of irrefutable video evidence came out recently that showed polar opposites relative to Obama’s knowledge of ACORN. The first Obama clip was directly after the ACORN scandal started to take shape; in this clip he indicated that he didn’t really know that much about what ACRON was doing and that he had only limited contact with them in the distant past. The second clip was recorded during his presidential election bid; in this video Obama was praising ACORN for what the organization had done for him and other democrats in past elections, and that he would seek out counsel and help from ACRON members, solicited or unsolicited, in future endeavors. The only logical conclusion is that Obama is a liar… How can you dispute such evidence?
@GWT
First line should read “weight all the evidence” not “way”.
@GWT
Ok, can you clarify your stand? I took your initial post to be a defense of Beck rather than a disagreement with Obama’s policies. If you disagree with his policies, that is fine. I understand. I do not agree with all his policies as well.
Saying someone is lying isn’t that clear cut. For example a lot of people say that Bush lied about WMD’s in Iraq. I do not believe this is so. To show that someone lied, the burden of proof is on the accuser to show that the alleged liar had knowledge contrary to his statement and thus willfully stated the opposite. So to say that Bush lied about WMD’s you need to show that he knew there wasn’t any. In my opinion, I think he personally believed that there were WMD’s in Iraq. But that turned out not to be the case, so we can say that he was misguided but not a liar.
In the case of Obama, the burden is on Beck to show that Obama knew what ACORN was up to. Let’s say that you have an acquaintance and a friend and you praise him publicly for the support that he has given you. It then later comes out that this acquaintance or friend was involved in a serious embezzling scam and tax-evasion scheme. Would it make sense then, to call you a liar because you praised him publicly? You may have had no knowledge of his actions. There is no logical flow from your acquaintance or friend’s actions, your not knowing about his actions, and calling you a liar. To prove that you are a liar, one has to first prove that you had prior knowledge of your acquaintance or friend’s actions.
Beck pulls this stunt all the time and it is a very poor and illogical argument.
@GWT
@GWT
As Vivin said, Glenn Beck takes videos out of context, just like Hannity does quite often. The ‘no uncertain terms\ of the \individuals various positions\ is quite different when the story, clip, document, and or other relevant information is viewed and or read in is entirety.
How can I \not believe when (I am) hearing the evidence from the (very) mouths of those he exposes?\ I can withhold belief because I do not believe everything I see or hear without getting more information. I go to the source. If Beck shows a clip of a speech that I find to be damning, I will find the entire speech and watch it with an open mind in order to get the context and full meaning. when Beck quotes a paper, a document, a show, etc. I will find it and check it. He misleads regularly. What we see and hear can be very misleading even when used with good intentions and innocent portrayals. . It is not that difficult to create false impressions with video and quotes.
If Beck quotes Thomas Paine, familiarize yourself with all of Thomas Paine and see if the character Beck promotes is in line with your understanding of the whole reading. Check out the facts for yourself, no matter who is showing the clips. Ask yourself questions about what is being asserted. Does it make sense? Look for other explanations and see which one is more convincing. Beck may in fact show clips that are honest….that does not mean that all of his clips are honest.
It may certainly be true that you can find examples where Beck more or less shows an honest depiction. However, there are many where he does not. He uses propaganda tactics constantly and fallacious arguments regularly. We will probably continue to disagree if we simply continue to state our perspective opinions, so maybe some sort of evidence is in order. What do you have in mind to demonstrate that our claims about Glenn Beck are wrong?
Here is a very short list of lies spouted by Glenn Beck, on Politifact. These are just the tip of the iceberg. Obviously, you can dispute whether or not Politifact is biased, but it is a starting point for getting to the primary source of the information, which politifact usually provides.
As an example, I recommend beginning with Beck’s claim that John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, \has proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.\ This is an excellent example of Beck being willing to exaggerate and take out of context individual’s positions.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/glenn-beck/statements/
There are countless examples of Beck bringing up slanderous arguments as fact, only then to suggest that what he has asserted are just questions. Questions, that \if true\ are very worrisome. This is a classic technique of planting unfounded seeds that never actually pan out as true. However, by planting the seeds, or thoughts, the intended damage is done. That way, his innuendo, misleading quotes, etc. continue to thrive in the minds of his viewers as facts and continue to do damage.
There are examples of Beck’s hypocrisy as well. He will disparage the health care system one year, and then spout its virtues the next. He will take out of context quotes made about Mao by Anita Dunn, intentionally leaving out the parts that are most relevant. Dunn makes use of Mao as a philosopher to make clear a very particular point. Something Beck has done in the past regarding Hitler and other \bad\ people himself, as well as have many other conservatives. However, Beck demonizes Dunn for doing what he himself has done in the past by cropping her comments and distorting the context. http://mediamatters.org/research/200910190052
Beck’s analogies are often so far stretched as to be flat out lies….not just \simple facts.\
He compares Obama’s talk about expanding the Americorps and the PeaceCorps to Hitler and the SS. This is ridiculous. It is absurd.
Organizing children??? Please explain.
You said: \In reference to his commentary on framers of the constitution, I don’t believe you could point to a single falsehood in what was said given the empirical evidence of documentation on these fine people and their intentions.\
\Fine people and their intentions.\? Some of them without a doubt…all of them…maybe, maybe not…
But the point is, has Beck misrepresented them, or what we know about them? Yes, Beck has at times demonstrated that he knows much about the founders. At times, he is willing to show as much and say things that are truthful, in order to counter criticisms against him. For example, on one show he admitted that Paine was an atheist. However, he did not admit to Paine’s very leftist tendencies. Because Beck often invokes Paine as a conservative, this remains very misleading. (Read Paine’s Agrarian Justice and Rights of Man)
In the same show that Beck tried to demonstrate his knowledge of the founders in order to debunk the criticism about him, he claimed John Adams was one of the \most christian of our founding fathers…\ Well, if Adams was one of the most christian, what does that say about the rest of our founding fathers. Obviously, many of our founders were christian, many were not. However, Adams was a Unitarian, and rejected many of the fundamental doctrines of conventional Christianity. This is hardly the most Christian of the founders. This is very obvious to any one who has read Adams, especially his correspondence with Jefferson, and is about as \simple\ of a fact as one can get.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PftNbx9UOs&feature=related
I do not have time to offer more specific examples of Beck’s lies. If you have any specific claims made by Beck that you want to discuss, please let me know. I recommend familiarizing yourself with propaganda tools and applying what you learn to Beck.
Good luck
@patheticus
Thanks for that link to politifact and also for your reading suggestions in an earlier post. I’ll have to take a look at them!
@vivin
You are welcome. I get the impression that you do not need the “Being Logical’ book. You obviously have good critical thinking skills and it is a very basic book. However, the Political Ideologies book is very informative for anyone wanting to learn more about them.
Have you used Politifact before? If not, it is a pretty good site to begin research on some issues. Especially the ones that continue as media propagated rumors. I like Factcheck.org as well. Both sites give info for the primary source, so one can check the facts themselves.
I am on the fence about Bush and the WMDs. I hope your opinion is right, but I am not sure. There seems to be ample evidence to suggest that there was no good reason to believe there was WMDs, and some evidence to suggest there was not WMDs. Based on that, one would have to wonder why Bush would so strongly believed that there were infact WMDs. And why act against so many intelligence sources who were claiming otherwise. Why create a special White House intelligence office to gather or “cook” up evidence that was not satisfying what you wanted to hear?
Hey, why can’t I type quotes without them turning into slashes when I submit my post? And, how do you offset your quotes, like you did in your recent post to GWT?
As usual, it this has been fun and interesting.
@GWT
You say: Two pieces of irrefutable video evidence came out recently that showed polar opposites relative to Obama’s knowledge of ACORN. The first Obama clip was directly after the ACORN scandal started to take shape; in this clip he indicated that he didn’t really know that much about what ACRON was doing and that he had only limited contact with them in the distant past. The second clip was recorded during his presidential election bid; in this video Obama was praising ACORN for what the organization had done for him and other democrats in past elections, and that he would seek out counsel and help from ACRON members, solicited or unsolicited, in future endeavors. The only logical conclusion is that Obama is a liar… How can you dispute such evidence?
Please provide links or information about the specific show that showed these two clips. Can you find the entire statements in context? If so, will you provide them? And just because Beck is able to catch Obama in a lie does not make Beck honest any more than me showing Bush’s lies makes Obama honest. It would be a good example for you, to show that 100% of Beck’s shows are not lies….but no one here ever claimed that.
@patheticus
Thanks! Yes, about Bush I am on the fence as well. I just like to point out the logical fallacy in simply calling people liars just because a statement they made turned out to be false. You have to look at the context of the earlier statement and you have to see if they knew what they are saying was false. The burden of proof is on the accuser.
Hmm, I’m not sure why quotes wouldn’t be showing up. I just use the regular quotes “like this”. And this seems to work. As far as off-setting, do you mean how my posts show up offset from the right? I think that is a feature of the WordPress theme that I am using. It distinguishes the author of the post from people who are commenting.
@vivin
I agree with you and I understand what you were getting at regarding the burden of proof being on the accuser to demonstrate the liars knowledge and intention. It can be difficult to do, but not impossible. I am curious to see more about what GWT mentioned about Obama and Acorn. The whole Acorn thing got so blown out of proportion with so many false attacks I quit paying attention to it. Regarding Obama, I have never thought that he was above telling a lie. Maybe wished…but I do not agree with Obama all the time. Few people do. Few people are, if any. Especially if it concerns pandering to an audience, or patronizing them for support. What politician has not done that, as it appears he may have been doing at the Acorn meeting, according to GTW. Still, if what GTW says is accurate…
Every time I use “quotes” they turn up as /slashes/…oh well. Regarding the offset, I was referring to when you offset your Beck style argument about puppies that began:
I’m not saying that GWT supports the killing of puppies.
You boxed it and offset it…I was just wondering how you did that. I understand that your posts are offset compared to commentators.
Hmm your quotes seem to be appearing fine to me now 🙂 Oh, I’m sorry I misunderstood your question about the offsets. For that, I use the <blockquote> … </blockquote> tags.
@GWT
all acorn, all the time. tell you what, i’ll listen till your acorn stuff till you’re blue in the face
if you’l listen to me about the umpteenth GOP congressman in the closet who gets caught texting minors about hooking up..something the GOP is noticably silent about.
@jeff <Hmmmm wasn't the latest a Dem named Masa? Hey he just wanted to tickle lol.
It’s obvious that you know absolutely nothing about Fascism.
@Maria
Well, then I’m sure you’ll educate us all with more than a drive-by comment?
@Maria
It’s obvious that you know absolutely nothing!
just testing, can’t seem to post anything…..
@Maria
Really, this is to anyone interested in furthering their understanding of fascism.
The comment \It’s obvious that you know absolutely nothing about fascism.\ made by Maria, says much more about Maria than it does about Vivin’s knowledge of fascism. However, that does not mean that Vivin’s description of fascism is perfect. Indeed, anyone who has actually tried to educate themselves on what fascism actually means will quickly see that what Vivin has written is lacking and not universally applicable to all fascist regimes. (Here I am referring to both what is in the article and in some of his responses, such as about Nazi Fascism and socialism. Still, overall, the article is fairly representative of all fascism, just not comprehensive.)
However, Vivin has written a very strong basic summary that gives a correct general understanding of what fascism is. I do not think he intended to be nor did he have time and space to be comprehensive, so that is hardly a criticism. Not all of his examples are equally applicable to all fascist regimes. Fascism is a notoriously impossible thing to define. Many historians/political scientists do not even agree on whether or not it is an ideology or a movement or world view.
Definitions for fascism are many and varied depending on what the definer sees as being the most important or prominent aspect of the regime in question. In fact, many argue that fascism in itself can not be defined outside of the actual regime in question. In that case, we would talk about Nazism, or Nazi Fascism, as it had differences regarding other \fascist\ regimes. There are no real core principles of fascism that are easy to identify, although there are typical characteristics that tend to be identifiable. That makes it different than socialism, liberalism, conservatism..etc, which are easily definable as ideologies.
There are undoubtedly general characteristics that can be applied to fascism in general, and Vivin has done a very good job of doing this. If anyone really has any disagreement with his description, specific examples would really be necessary and I assume appreciated, because he seems to be someone who is really concerned with understanding and knowledge over unexamined opinions. He also never seems to resort to personal attacks or emotional responses, which is commendable.
If I was going to add to Vivin’s description of fascism, I would say that fascism has some ties to both the extreme right and the extreme left, and fascism has some somewhat conflicting, or contradicting positions. Nazism and Italian fascism both seriously criticized socialism and were rabidly anti-communism, anti-liberalism, anti-enlightenment and anti rationalism, and pro elitism. However, they were focused on the good of the state over the good of the individual, and ultranationalism. They promoted the idea of the struggle and domination of the strong over the weak, yet they promoted certain socialist policies that protected the worker and or peasant. In other words, at times fascism can be contradictory.
The socialism of the Nazi party was basically meant to gain support of the lower and middle class workers. Once control was gained, the socialist aspects and support of the average worker was tossed out. In fact, they assassinated the leader of the SA and purged leftist elements beginning in 1934….continued in next post
continued from last post…
Also, Fascism uses economic policy to its own ends. It courts big business, and attempts to control it at the same time. It will pander to the people when necessary, but will not long maintain real socialist policies. Above all, fascism is anti equality and seeks in no way to develop an egalitarian society. However, it does not want pure capitalism either, as fascism is against the materialism of capitalism and the pursuit of self interest. Still, fascism will use capitalism for its own ends. Fascism subdues capitalism to the objectives of the fascist state. Capitalism is based on self interest, and fascism based on the good of the nation, or race. Fascism is neither purely capitalist nor interested in socialist ideologies.
My only point here is to show that fascism is not an easy thing to define. It is possible to have different correct definitions and understandings of fascism. It is easy to pick and choose specific examples of a fascist regime and show it to be right wing or left wing, as Glenn Beck does so well. In fact, it is easy to point to single examples of individuals who may have supported fascist regimes to make this case for both left and right. It is not a long stretch at all to call Henry Ford a proponent of both fascism and capitalism. So, fascism is capitalism. Easy, huh? Ford did recieve the Nazi’s highest honor and was supportive of the Nazi regime. How is that for pulling a Beck? In my opinion, it is too honest an account to be compared to Beck. Beck on the other hand likes to say that Ford was against the New Deal, and the New Deal is fascist and socialist….It is mind boggling. continued below:
Nevertheless, if one looks at fascism in the big picture, a very complicated, hard to define, regime specific entity is revealed. What is identifiable and clear is the ultra conservative, ultra nationalistic, authoritarian/totalitarian, anti-rational, anti-liberal/progressive stance of fascism. This leaves little doubt that whatever fascism is, it is not socialist, progressive, or liberal. In fact, although it may be hard to define exactly what fascism is because of its inherent character, it is not as difficult to define what it is not because fascist regimes have made clear what they despise and oppose, namely progressive and liberal ideology, enlightenment philosophy, socialism, communism, individualism….There is much still left unsaid here about what fascism is. There are entire books written on it.
So, given the extreme difficulty of defining fascism, I think Vivin did a good job and his description offers a good basic understanding of a generic fascist regime. The problem of defining fascism along with the misuse of the word “fascism” as defamation without merit has been going on for a long time. To see just how long, I recommend this essay by George Orwell called “What is Fascism?” just Google it…
In case anyone does not know, Orwell was a avid socialist who was strongly anti fascist and anti communist, as his writing so well establishes. This debate has been going on for some time.
Another interesting essay I have found gives some insight into the long debate over the definition of fascism and how historians have struggled to agree on a definition. It can be found by googling fascism a definition a knol by hans klaus
can’t seem to include links…won’t let me post anything at all.
In reality; isn’t Capitalism a lot like Fascism, but without the overt killing of people who speak out against its worst abuses. Instead, opponents are marginalized and crushed by social and econonomic means.
It is possible to moderate Capitalism with programs like subsidized health care, paid with tax money. What is so horrible about that? The Western Europeans have done that for more than 100 years. And contrary to right-wing republican rantings, they have plenty of money left over for capitalists to become multi billionaires.
Our government insists on conducting useless and unwinnable wars, (paid for with taxes, and loans from enemy nations [China]) and not enough people object to that. If they are going to tax me, at least give ME something in return. Something more than an illusion of freedom.
Just think if we used that money for health care and infrastructure programs.
Great job addressing Fascism and Communism. I also especially like how much you support being middle-minded.
However, I do not think you detailed socialism correctly. From the above paragraphs, it sounded very much related to Communism. Yet Socialism does not result in Communism, just the opposite. Socialism “lets off the steam” of capitalism, as one writer put it. When you said the bail-out was designed to “alleviate some problems,” that is, by definition, socialist. That is not necissarily a bad thing, either. Socialist acts are any acts that economically support the bottom and help to establish some sort of equality. This is why giving the lower class tax money that the upper class paid in the first place is, indeed, socialism. In that regard, the U.S. is socialist. We have been socialist since the great depression. Admittedly we are not as socialist as we could be, but it is technically incorrect to say that the American people will never let us be anything but capitalist; socialism is exactly what many of the American people are driving for.
I actually think you did a horrible job of providing an analysis of communism, socialism, and facism. You provided no references, no scholarly information to back up your work, you made some very extreme generalities as if you had just read the definition out of a dictionary. I will say that your definitions are basically right but that is nonwhere near an analysis. When you hear the term facist, communist, and socialist used to describe the current system you need to add the term “like” to it: Communist like, socialist like, facist like. These political analysts aren’t stupid, they know the administration is not a pure form of socialism or facism or what have you but its actions can be perceived as such. For example, the white houses strangle hold over the media and their methods of providing only interviews and up to date information to politically favorable networks is facist like. The passing of an ineffective health care bill for the purpose of providing some semblance of state sponsored health care is socialist like, and the constant rhetoric that those who oppose the legislature of the super majority should just go along with it instead of debate against it for “the sake of” the country (I mean just ignore your constituents who voted you in, just vote for what we say its for the best…really?) is communist like. What you also failed to mention is how incredibly similar all of these “forms” of government/economics/politics is. Think of it like an unclosed circle. At one point is socialism (which has never been accomplished in its marxist sense or another words communism) and then at the other point, which by the way is right next to socialism because it is a circle, is facism.
@Jason
No government is purely communist, capitalist, or fascist. Sure you can pick and choose instances and say “this is fascist-like” or “this is communist-like”. That’s called “cherry-picking”. Overall, our government and economic system is vehemently capitalist.
Secondly, this blog post was by no means meant to be a formal analysis of political and economic systems. So I’m sorry if I disappointed you by a lack of references; perhaps you would like to check out some scholarly treatises on the subject. I was going for a tongue-in-cheek and layman’s explanation of these different political/economic systems and why those on the extreme right have no idea what they are talking about.
“Americans won’t let it happen.” How naive of you. Just because a pundit disagrees with a policy by calling it socialist doesn’t mean that it is NOT socialitst. And he doesn’t mean that the government is now socialist just because taxes go way up or down. We know that a lot of things have to happen for this to be a communist or facist nation, but what you don’t seem to realize is that is doesn’t have to happen all at once. Do you think Madison or Jefferson ever envisioned gay marriage? And no American communist would be stupid enough to label his ideas as communist, even though they are. Radical change could happen over night (Hiyroshima) or it could take a while (slavery). But if we are not vigilant against it, if we don’t say enough is enough, and if we allow enough socialist policies to pass, one day we will wake up and realize too late that we are indeed a socialist nation.
So when you say that redistribution of wealth is not a socialist policy, you are either stupid or you have a vested interest in socialist policy. You’re right, redistribution by itself will not do much. But do you honestly think radical democrats will be satisfied with that? Do you think that they don’t want to make it permanent, and then add more socialist policies? Where does it end? Spain used to be a major player in world politics. And Argentina. And what are they now? Sure, they’re still there, but for what? Don’t tell me that we should just let this policy slide or that policy slide. If a policy is socialist, we should not let it pass. We should not give socialist another puzzle piece to making America a communist or facist state. It’s great that you’re all for moderation. But the people to the left of you are not. And it seem that, in these times, the only counter for one radical, is another radical.
@Anonymouse
Well, I have more faith in the American people.
Actually, it does. See, \words\ have \meanings\. So if you call a dog a cat, it doesn’t actually make it a cat. So if you call something that is not socialist, socialist, it doesn’t actually make it socialist.
That’s just a conspiracy theory. All democratic governments have elements of socialism. If you really hate socialism then maybe you don’t need the police department, or the fire department, or the interstate system. Just because there are elements of socialism in a country, it doesn’t that it is catastrophically sliding towards socialism.
How does gay marriage equal socialism? Furthermore, what exactly is wrong with gay marriage? You hate it simply because it doesn’t agree with your religious beliefs. It seems to me that instead of arguing, you’re simply throwing around random talking points, and hoping they connect. We can only speculate what Jefferson or Madison would say. But since both Madison and Jefferson were deist (not Christian) we can probably assume that they would not subscribe the semitic religions’ condemnation of homosexuality. Furthermore, since both Madison and Jefferson stood for the rights of individuals I would also think that they would support the rights of homosexuals (since they are human beings as well).
This is a conspiracy theory and a logical fallacy. Check out the \No True Scotsman\ fallacy.
So are you against the Hiroshima bombing and are you against the ending of slavery? This is nothing but paranoid speculation a la Glenn Beck. I’m not exactly sure what you’re saying we need to be vigilant about. You seem to forget that while the ignorant Tea Partiers keep screaming about Big Government, they all seem to ignore the fact that the biggest expansion of executive power happened under the Bush Administration. You also seem to forget that it was the Bush administration that initiated the bailout.
Wow, that’s such a strong argument! You’ve made an ad hominem argument followed by an assertion that you have failed to back up with anything. Sorry, that’s not how arguments work.
You’re speculation without providing anything to back up your speculations. We can all speculate till the cows come home, but that doesn’t do anything.
I think you’re woefully misinformed about Spain and Argentina. Specifically you’re misinformed about the effect despotic and dictatorial governments can have on a country.
Alright, then the next time your house catches on fire, don’t call the fire department. See, that’s because it’s \socialist\. Also, the next time a burglar breaks into your house and threatens your family. Don’t call the police department. That’s also \socialist\. Oh, and the next time you need to travel across a state, don’t use the interstate because that’s also \socialist\. You also seem to be mixing up fascism with socialism. Like I tried to make it clear in my post, they are two different concepts. So simply screaming about \OMG FASCISM\ doesn’t make it so. You actually need to point out specific instances to back up your argument. But you seem to have learnt your style of arguing from the camp of Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck, unfortunately, is an opinionated idiot and an ignorant buffoon — so you won’t learn much from him.
The problem with radicals is that they think that everyone outside their spectrum is another radical. Of course, that is the only way they can justify their radical thoughts. This is because radical thoughts are never logical and are never based in fact (even if they are, it is based on a severe and often dogmatic re-interpretation of a fact which eventually renders the radical’s argument null and void). I mean, just go through your arguments once again. You’ve made a lot of assertions, but haven’t provided anything to back them up other than simply saying \it is because it is\.
I think you are way off on your definition of Communism. Communism is the supposedly necessary step on the way to socialism. It aims to increase the power and authority of the state towards eventually laying the ground work for socialism which can take many forms and involve government in one form or another.
Great article. Maybe you could do one on ‘corporatism.’
@Stephanie Larsen
Thank you! Yes, that’s something I’d like to write about sometime.
I lean toward the conservative side, but agree completely that nothing valuable is accomplished by fanatic vitriol.
As noted in the primary entry, communism is not practical due to human nature. But it is not just communism that is adversely affected by human nature. So are fascism, socialism, capitalism, corporatism, and “whateverism”. So are democracy, republicanism, monarchy, oligarchy, and every other form of government. Human nature is selfish – for money and goods, for power and prestige, for ease and pleasure, for honor and glory. That selfishness infects all, from those at the highest levels to the lowest. When that selfish nature gains more of one’s “fair share” (whatever that is), it invents all manner of justifications for having it, as well as contempt for any who would suggest it wrong. When it is denied what it believes is at least one’s fair share, it breeds animosity, jealousy, and contempt.
Capitalism under a republican form of government (what the USA has had, at least in theory, since 1789) seems to have been the most practical, for it tends to check and balance the selfishness of one person or group against that of others. But as history has shown, it has not fully succeeded. As John Adams said, as much as he favored our system, it will not work without a moral people.
The voluntary communism of the early Christian church worked because their selfishness was countered by a spiritually engendered love. I believe this, in part, demonstrates the need, whatever the political or economic structure, for the influence of spiritual argument and guidance away from selfishness and toward its opposite: love. Not the emotion or feeling of love, as in romance, but the consciously adopted attitude of giving of one’s self for the benefit of others. Not that atheists are incapable of love nor that Christianity has a monopoly on it (as a Christian I lament much of what has been done in the name of Christianity), but that without something stronger than laws, human nature will spoil every system.
@RDavS:
Thank you for that wonderful response. Yes, sometimes I think it is a cynical view, but in the end human nature gets in the way of an equitable system. It’s sad that we have to call it “human nature” because that suggests that inequity and greed are something that is innate and is something that we cannot rise above.
Perhaps there will be a time when humanity will sufficiently advance to rise above greed and inequity. I sincerely believe this is a possibility (though I know nothing of its probability) because we are able to recognize that there is greed and inequity and we seem to recognize that it is wrong.
I’m not sure if I’ve read more BS in all my life. Fascism and Communism are forms of Socialism. Do you people even know what Nazi meant? National Socialist German Workers’ Party – Nazi, English version of the German word NAtionalsoZIalistische, or National Socialists. They are all far-left on the political spectrum. The far right is NO government or chaos. The far left is TOTAL government. Capitalism, as in our Representative Republic, is right of center. Please stop indoctrinating these sheep into the never-ending quest for the Liberal (Socialist) mindless indiscriminate philosophy of the non-existent Utopian nirvana. Vivin is leading you sheep over a cliff and you’re happy to go, completely out of ignorance. baaaaaaaaaaaa
Roland, nice comment. Agree entirely. Ayn Rand describes the difference between fascism and socialism as such. In socialism/communism, the state owns the means of production, has all the responsibilities and reaps all of the benefits. In fascism, the state does not own the means of production, but orders it, having none of the responsibilities but reaps all of the benefits. In my opinion, we are closer now to fascism, at least in part, then socialism. The bank bailout, the GM and Chrysler bailouts have aspects of fascism, in that they’re being ordered how to act, what to do. In Obamacare, it appears also to be fascist, but if the private insurance industry collapses and the state takes over, I suppose it will be a full socialist enterprise, at least for healthcare. Joe Biden actually stated, “we want to control the insurance companies.” Totally fascist statement, though I’m sure he doesn’t recognize it as such. Typical.