Socialism = Fascism? - Page 10 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2009, 10:33 PM   #136
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Is there any other way to accurately present a quote? Or should I be embellishing or modernizing them in some way?
The cherry-picking, INDY. It's not a serious approach to answering a question this big, and when you see someone online attempting to do so, it usually means they're cutting and pasting from a single polemical work or site which told them what they wanted to hear, rather than arguing from an established knowledge base on the topic.
Quote:
Shall we discuss Mussolini's "Third Way" or how fascism came to be viewed as "right-wing" today? Anyway, now you know the context of the quotes I "cut & pasted."
Only if said discussion entails some studied familiarity with the theory and practice of corporatism under Mussolini (and its actual effects on the economy and workplace; for example, what happened to labor protection laws and average wages in Italy under his rule, how his corporatist pseudo-'unions' differed from our variety, etc.). Which, to be honest, I doubt I'd personally have much time to participate in at this point, since we're in the frantic final stages of preparing to move our family to Hong Kong for the school year, and I won't be around at all for at least a couple weeks after we leave next week. I did read the Mussolini chapter in Goldberg's book online last night, and was not impressed; it's basically just, well, cherry-picking autodidactic polemicizing. Then again, he's a journalist with a BA in English, not a historian, political scientist or economist, so best regarded as (at most) a provocative conversation-sparker rather than a serious authority on fascist polities.

Fascism's place on the political spectrum is in fact a continued topic of lively debate and discussion in academia, frequent foolish misuse of the term in popular discourse notwithstanding. I certainly wouldn't classify it as 'just another right-wing ideology,' and none of my colleagues would either; most political scientists would emphasize at the outset that fascism is a highly unique, distinct and eccentric phenomenon in the world of political ideologies, whatever descriptive similarities various policies of specific fascist states might bear to (non-fascist) regimes elsewhere. If Goldberg's purpose in writing Liberal Fascism was to reveal the hollowness of lunkheaded equations of Bush with Hitler or evangelical conservatism with fascism or whatnot, then he did that cause a disservice by choosing the 'Oh yeah? Well I can make ad hominem attacks too, nyah nyah' route.
Quote:
Even as he clashed with them he felt a kinship. Even as he quit the party and Avanti! he believed he had just found in the PNF a more efficient way to advance their cause.
Right, and David Duke's not really a racist or an anti-Semite, since after all he's repeatedly said he isn't and oh-so-credibly rationalized why. And "clash" is an incredibly callous euphemism for what both Mussolini and Hitler actually did to thousands of (indisputed) socialists, their earliest political adversaries, both during and after their respective rises to power (see also: Freikorps, initial rounds of deportation to concentration camps). Like all fascists, they rejected both the centrality of redressing class conflict to state goals and policies, as well as the antinationalist impulses, characteristic of socialism and its relatives; like all fascists they blamed the existence of democracy for socialism's rise, since after all free elections amounted to "systematic cultivation of human failure," as Hitler put it (well, he also added a Marxism-as-submission-to-your-'Inner Jew' spin to that, but Mussolini wouldn't have).

Me ne frego--"I don't give a damn," the offical Italian fascist motto--that's as revealing a starting point for discussing what Italian fascism really was (and how it differed from the Nazi variety) as any of the other contradictory bits of doublespeak which flowed from Il Duce's mouth.
Quote:
Perhaps BVS, martha, Tiger Edge or UberBeaver can contrast and compare for us.
The reason I asked you that was because Mussolini's own economic philosophy as PM/Duce of Italy, as spelled out in for example the Dottrina del Fascismo, is clearly more germane to understanding what sort of '-ist' he really was as Duce than what he believed in as a young man (and occasionally paid lip service to, as needed, later--his power was never as well-secured as Hitler's, and he often engaged in posturing and, where necessary, compromise to protect it).

If it's your feeling that specific posters are categorically disinterested in putting forth the effort at a constructive dialogue with you (and in certain cases I'd agree with you), then why not simply ignore them. That's generally what I do, and it saves a lot of time and stress. I don't come here to play tit-for-tat games, and there's no reason for you to either if you don't wish to. That may or may not make the unconstructive posters any less so, but at least it'll reduce the proportion of your posts which feel to you like a waste of time afterwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post
Interesting. I've never heard a distinction made between the two. What would be an example of a totalitarian state as opposed to authoritarian. Would you say North Korea or Myanmar are totaltitarian?
Stalin's USSR was totalitarian, Pinochet's Chile was authoritarian. I'd say North Korea is definitely a totalitarian state, while Burma/Myanmar is not--I'd probably 'just' classify that as a military dictatorship. Very, very broadly, the difference is that totalitarianism entails absolute, all-pervasive control of both the political and social spheres in the interests of pursuing an elaborate, exhaustively detailed agenda, with reference to which all state actions, no matter how minor, must be rationalized; whereas authoritarianism ultimately aspires only to total political control, with social controls playing a secondary and 'as-needed' supporting role in pursuit of that prime goal.

In totalitarianism, all aspects of the individual's life are subordinate to the government: for instance, all existing social institutions and organizations--churches, universities, social clubs, sports associations, youth groups, etc.--are either forcibly dissolved or else brought under government control (upon which membership in them may in fact become mandatory), and police and other security personnel operate unbound by any regulations limiting their powers against citizens, instead effectively operating as the visible wing of an extensive terror apparatus used to maintain absolute government control. That's the kind of thing I meant by "destroys civil society completely"--an enormous problem facing many post-Soviet states, for example, has been re-establishing any semblance of public discourse, since all the institutions which once supported it were wholly gutted by decades of totalitarian rule, so that the process basically has to be started over from scratch. Totalitarianism is always anti-pluralist, anti-individualist, and anti-liberal (in the classical sense of the term) to an extreme degree.

The authoritarian state, by contrast, doesn't seek to annihilate civil society (though it does inevitably weaken it, to highly varying degrees depending on which state and regime we're talking about). The government's ideology is typically fairly vaguely defined, and policymaking often proceeds in an opportunistic manner, showing blatant inconsistencies with principles professed to at earlier times. Considerable pluralism is usually tolerated at the level of social organizations (though not, of course, at the level of political parties). The totalitarian state's ability to mobilize its entire population very rapidly and efficiently for whatever its latest project is, is largely lacking in the authoritarian state. And the limits of power (official or unofficial) which are observed, in practice, by the leadership are typically far more predictable in the authoritarian state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
perhaps i should have said, "stalinism and the third reich".

better?
Nazi Germany is an interesting case with reference to the distinction, since in many ways it falls into a gray area between the two. Personally I'd probably describe it as a totalitarian state in the making which never quite arrived there--certainly not as spectacularly as Stalin's USSR. (And a quintessentially fascist one, with all the characteristic mystical exaltation of the supremacy of the state and the nation/race over individuals and groups, and the cult of personality surrounding a charismatic leader, which that term implies.) I wouldn't, though, describe fascist Italy as a totalitarian state (with all due regard to the irony of the term having originated there, totalitario--but, they didn't use it with reference to an actual mode of governance; that's a shift in meaning which occurred once the term moved beyond the Italian lexicon and was pounced upon as an ideal way to characterize Stalinism).

So, yeah, better by me, anyway.
__________________

__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 11:22 PM   #137
Blue Crack Distributor
 
VintagePunk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: In a dry and waterless place
Posts: 55,732
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Thanks yolland, that was an interesting read.
__________________

__________________
VintagePunk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2009, 11:54 PM   #138
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
Only if said discussion entails some studied familiarity with the theory and practice of corporatism under Mussolini (and its actual effects on the economy and workplace; for example, what happened to labor protection laws and average wages in Italy under his rule, how his corporatist pseudo-'unions' differed from our variety, etc.). Which, to be honest, I doubt I'd personally have much time to participate in at this point, since we're in the frantic final stages of preparing to move our family to Hong Kong for the school year, and I won't be around at all for at least a couple weeks after we leave next week. I did read the Mussolini chapter in Goldberg's book online last night, and was not impressed; it's basically just, well, cherry-picking autodidactic polemicizing. Then again, he's a journalist with a BA in English, not a historian, political scientist or economist, so best regarded as (at most) a provocative conversation-sparker rather than a serious authority on fascist polities.
Now that it's warmed up I'd just as soon enjoy the final weeks of summer as well. So you're leaving our great state? I currently work with a med student from Hong Kong. Very interesting to talk to.
Quote:
Fascism's place on the political spectrum is in fact a continued topic of lively debate and discussion in academia, frequent foolish misuse of the term in popular discourse notwithstanding. I certainly wouldn't classify it as 'just another right-wing ideology,' and none of my colleagues would either; most political scientists would emphasize at the outset that fascism is a highly unique, distinct and eccentric phenomenon in the world of political ideologies, whatever descriptive similarities various policies of specific fascist states might bear to (non-fascist) regimes elsewhere.
Couldn't agree more. Which is why I started off this thread by asking what type of fascism we should discuss first because they are very different and intertwined to cultural and nationality traits. Not to mention products of their Age and not especially relevant to modern day politics.
Quote:
If Goldberg's purpose in writing Liberal Fascism was to reveal the hollowness of lunkheaded equations of Bush with Hitler or evangelical conservatism with fascism or whatnot, then he did that cause a disservice by choosing the 'Oh yeah? Well I can make ad hominem attacks too, nyah nyah' route.
Maybe you'd have to be a conservative and so often on the receiving end of the Fascist or Nazi epitaph from people who have no idea of their history or meaning. Then again, maybe that's why some of our more liberal posters are so sensitive to the charge of Socialist.
Quote:
Right, and David Duke's not really a racist or an anti-Semite, since after all he's repeatedly said he isn't and oh-so-credibly rationalized why.
But Mussolini did institute many programs (which I mentioned in an earlier post) that are clearly more socialist than free-market or pro-individual. So look at one's true goals and aspirations, track their actions -- don't rely on their rhetoric.
Quote:
The reason I asked you that was because Mussolini's own economic philosophy as PM/Duce of Italy, as spelled out in for example the Dottrina del Fascismo, is clearly more germane to understanding what sort of '-ist' he really was as Duce than what he believed in as a young man (and occasionally paid lip service to, as needed, later--his power was never as well-secured as Hitler's, and he often engaged in posturing and, where necessary, compromise to protect it).

If it's your feeling that specific posters are categorically disinterested in putting forth the effort at a constructive dialogue with you (and in certain cases I'd agree with you), then why not simply ignore them. That's generally what I do, and it saves a lot of time and stress. I don't come here to play tit-for-tat games, and there's no reason for you to either if you don't wish to. That may or may not make the unconstructive posters any less so, but at least it'll reduce the proportion of your posts which feel to you like a waste of time afterwards.
Understood.
__________________
INDY500 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2009, 01:39 AM   #139
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,687
Local Time: 02:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post

That's the type of reform I support and just the type of reform this legislation ignores. That's the lype of reform that will lower prices and increase accessibility without adding to the national debt.
Yes this works in an ideal world. One where we have more access to disposable income, therefore can save more, and are generally A LOT more healthy.

Your plan reminds me of a U2 lyric:

Quote:
The rich stay healthy while the sick stay poor...
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2009, 03:04 AM   #140
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
So you're leaving our great state?
Just for a year; I have an administrative Fulbright to help their university system develop an East-West core curriculum. Looking forward to the professional change of pace, the regional travel opportunities, and the food; not looking forward to the language barrier and the smog. This will be the first time I've done an extended turn abroad in a place where I don't speak the primary local language.
Quote:
Maybe you'd have to be a conservative and so often on the receiving end of the Fascist or Nazi epitaph from people who have no idea of their history or meaning. Then again, maybe that's why some of our more liberal posters are so sensitive to the charge of Socialist.
I hear you; given my family history, it's easy for me to go through the roof when people direct 'Nazi' insinuations at policies and politicians I generally support, particularly if there's any hint of flippancy to it, and I'm sure I'd feel the same way about "Bush = Hitler" insinuations had I been a Bush supporter (as it is, I find them cheap, lazy and stupid). I don't generally feel as strongly about similar attacks on pundits or the like, since I tend not to hold their 'office' in all that high regard anyway, but with policies and politicians, yes. And yes, particularly in an American context, "socialist" commands similar, if perhaps not quite as dark, trigger associations--can't erase the legacy of all those decades of 'duck and cover,' 'bears in the woods,' and 'godless [read: evil] Communists' so easily.
Quote:
But Mussolini did institute many programs (which I mentioned in an earlier post) that are clearly more socialist than free-market or pro-individual.
I don't really want to belabor the point, but...'socialist,' as an ideological label and especially as a type of state, denotes something pretty specific, and at the end of the day either the shoe fits or it doesn't. Is Singapore 'more totalitarian' than the US? I understand what such a question means to get at, but why muddy the waters like this, especially in such a riskily charged way--Singapore isn't a totalitarian state, it's a procedural democracy with a robust market economy and also significant authoritarian components (extensive limits on freedom of speech, no trials by jury, very stiff criminal penalties etc.--which, yes, are all also features of totalitarian states, as far as it goes), arguably to the point of constituting a unique 'hybrid' state type unto itself. To someone asking such a question, I would say, Look, sit down with a good encyclopedia and read the sections on history and government of Singapore, then read the entry on Lee Kuan Yew (which will hopefully discuss his 'Asian Values' theory); think about how the form of government whose creation and evolution he presided over for three decades complements those ideas; then finally read the entry on totalitarianism, and I think by that point you'll have a pretty good idea why framing the question this way is problematic.

Same with Mussolini's Italy or any other fascist regime--read (again, from a good reference source) about the country's history immediately preceding and during that period, read about the leadership's vision of the state and then about the full sweep of their economic policies, then think about how the two complement each other, then consider the history of socialism and the vision of state and society it promotes, then ask yourself how much sense it really makes to describe this regime as a 'socialist' project. And of course Mussolini's programs weren't 'pro-individual'--that's impossible! 'Pro-individualism' and fascism are categorically, fundamentally incompatible. As is fascism in the absence of a muscular government presence in the economic sphere--that too would be unsustainable. Doesn't mean the regime's actual project was ultimately much like, let alone the same as, that of any other regime which shared or shares certain policy features with it, any more than Singapore's having certain political features also found in totalitarian states--more so than the US, certainly--therefore makes it 'like' or 'de facto' a totalitarian state.
Quote:
Understood.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2009, 10:43 AM   #141
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by yolland View Post
And yes, particularly in an American context, "socialist" commands similar, if perhaps not quite as dark, trigger associations--can't erase the legacy of all those decades of 'duck and cover,' 'bears in the woods,' and 'godless [read: evil] Communists' so easily.



i found this helpful getting into the mindset of many older voters.

i certainly remember the USSR growing up as a child in the 1980s, but even at that point, we sort of knew that those people didn't really want to kill us, they just wanted Michael Jackson CDs and Diet Pepsi and higher quality skin care products. sure, it would come to a head at the Olympics with the proverbial East German figure skating judge, but i never had a sense of being locked into a life-and-death struggle with "the Communists."

i suppose that is different for people who grew up during the height of the Cold War and were acutely aware of what was going on during the Bay of Pigs and likely supported intervention in Vietnam (at least in the mid-1960s) because they felt that we had to contain the spread of Communism.

i still think that wielding words like "socialist/communist" are cheap, lazy, and stupid, but i think i can pause for a moment and understand just why those words might be so much more relevant for a certain segment of the population, and why some of the more hysterical reactions might be rooted in a history where actual annihilation seemed not that far fetched.

shame on the Right for exploiting it and using it to (as ever) scare a group of people into voting for them, a group of people who would almost unquestionably benefit more from Democratic policies than Republican policies. but taking a longer view of 20th century American history, i think that fear becomes much more understandable. since when you hear "socialist" some people's immediate association is Stalin, rather than your typical Swede.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 01:19 AM   #142
Forum Moderator
 
yolland's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 7,471
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i suppose that is different for people who grew up during the height of the Cold War and were acutely aware of what was going on during the Bay of Pigs and likely supported intervention in Vietnam (at least in the mid-1960s) because they felt that we had to contain the spread of Communism.
I don't think you necessarily even have to go back that far. I'm only about six-and-a-half years older than you; nonetheless, the consequence of that is that my childhood memories are of the 70s whereas yours are of the 80s, and I think even that makes a significant difference, because I actually can't relate to this "they just wanted Michael Jackson CDs and Diet Pepsi" perception of 'the Russians' you're recalling. We did duck-and-cover drills at my grade school, I heard all the "godless Communists" and "Evil Empire" stuff from doom-and-gloom adults plenty of times, and I also remember Reagan's presidential campaign ads featuring this scary-looking grizzly pacing around while a deep, growly voice intoned, "There's a BEAR LOOSE in the woods. SOME say the bear is tame, but SOME say the bear is DANGEROUS..." (they never actually mentioned Russia or Communism, but they didn't have to; merely showing a menacing bear in the context of a political ad was enough for everyone to recognize immediately what scenario was being invoked). For sure, at least by Gorbachev's time there was a different feeling in the air here, but as a kid, seeing Brezhnev in magazines or on TV, I remember being distinctly aware that one was supposed to be deeply afraid of this man. Then there was all the urban-myth stuff, e.g. "OMG OMG, [name of our city or town] is #20 on the Russians' strike list!!" that so many people my age or a little older remember hearing--they must've had an awful lot of #20s on that list, haha. And a bunch of movies and pop songs from the 80s about nuclear war too.

It's not, of course, that people were literally walking around constantly chomping their fingernails and nervously glancing up at the sky, rather a question of the kinds of deep-seated emotional associations between certain terms and concepts and places which were being formed. And I'm sure that gets all the more vivid the further back into the Cold War era your memories go.
__________________
yolland [at] interference.com


μελετώ αποτυγχάνειν. -- Διογένης της Σινώπης
yolland is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 02:28 AM   #143
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
BonosSaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 3,566
Local Time: 04:01 PM
I don't recall that fear at all and I'm older than both of you. I did duck and cover and certainly heard the undercurrent of Russian/USSR and Communism was a bogeyman, but an abstract one. I can't speak for generations older than mine and the fear may have been more potent then although I don't remember my parents or my grandparents quaking in their shoes. The fifties were before my time and I was too young during the Bay of Pigs. I do remember an uneasy qualm. But what I took from it is they'd like to destroy us (I did get that message) but they can't, so bite me. MAD was a comfort, even though that brought its own fears. I never saw it as the battle between two ideologies as I saw it a battle between two (then) superpowers with demonization being then and now the rather trite but effective battle strategy.

I can't argue that yolland isn't dead on. I think she is. I just don't remember that fear as being a significant part of my childhood and certainly not one that carried into my adulthood except that I am wary of any superpower, including us. Not saying I don't fear a mushroom cloud. Just that any of us can set it off, ideology be damned. Then again, I could have just been oblivious. That's a distinct possibility. Or I was taking a perverse delight in danger. Another distinct possibility.

People are always fearful. I remember after 9/11, a few people around here being afraid our area would be a target. I had to laugh. Why would they bother? I could imagine a terrorist scoping us out in a plane and thinking this area must have already been hit. No, children, it wasn't our nuke plant that was going to get hit.
__________________
BonosSaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 10:34 AM   #144
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 03:01 PM
i never did duck-and-cover, and i don't remember being aware of any Soviet leader other than Gorbechev. i did not have any awareness of Brezhnev. i've seen the Big Russian Bear Will Kill You ad, but only in college when i took a social psych class. i was too young to see "Red Dawn," though i do have a vague memory of "The Day After Tomorrow" being on TV, and of course i was forbidden to watch it.

i suppose i was also advantaged because my father did a physician exchange with the USSR in 1985 and was gone for, like, 2 months (again, i barely remember this), and he came back with all these books and trinkets and stories so i never had a concept of the Russians as really "evil," so to speak. i was in 5th grade when the Wall came down, and then Communism suddenly ended, and i really think that the most palpable sense of Communism and how it was "bad" was watching the Olympics in 1988 and knowing that the East German women were all steroided up (and yet Janet Evans still beat them). and then, by 1992, it was all over.

by the time the 1990s came around, all the movie bad guys were Muslim terrorists anyway.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2009, 11:34 AM   #145
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 12:01 PM
My husband was born in mid-October, 1962, and his parents weren't all that sure if there would be a world for him during the last few months of the pregnancy. It was that real. My duck-and-cover experiences during the '60s were for tornadoes in Omaha, and those drills were real and necessary, but for people just ten years older than me, the Soviet threat was as real as those tornadoes.

So I think for a certain age group, the buzzword "socialism" is a very effective word to make them very afraid. They remember all that crap, and it's a cynical use of their fear. But I expect nothing less.
__________________
martha is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-26-2009, 08:00 PM   #146
Refugee
 
Max_theHitman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Planet_Portugal
Posts: 1,138
Local Time: 09:01 PM
Don´t believe the hype.
__________________
Max_theHitman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 11:08 AM   #147
Breakdancing Soul Pilgrim
 
UberBeaver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: the most serious...douch hammer ever
Posts: 20,318
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post


Perhaps BVS, martha, Tiger Edge or UberBeaver can contrast and compare for us.
I will gladly give you a discourse on each (with pictures, and maybe graphs!) if you can answer the following:

Quote:
Originally Posted by UberBeaver View Post

Can someone explain to me - using logic and facts (OMG!!!) what is wrong with Universal Healthcare - is it just the price point? And also, why pushing for universal healthcare is somehow related to Hitler, who as far as I can tell, was adamantly opposed to any sort of health care for large segments of the German population.
__________________
UberBeaver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 01:54 PM   #148
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Wait, what? What am I supposed to compare and contrast? I totally missed that post.
__________________
Tiger Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 01:58 PM   #149
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,694
Local Time: 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger Edge View Post
Wait, what? What am I supposed to compare and contrast? I totally missed that post.
it was buried between several paragraphs of "insight"
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-27-2009, 02:46 PM   #150
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Tiger Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: The Everglades
Posts: 4,740
Local Time: 04:01 PM
Oh.

Either way, I don't know about Mussolini's policies or what he thought about cappuccinos. Alls I know is...

I don't know.
__________________

__________________
Tiger Edge is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is Fascism? Ormus Free Your Mind Archive 13 12-02-2006 09:53 PM
The Christian Right and the Rise of American Fascism joyfulgirl Free Your Mind Archive 156 05-02-2006 10:26 PM
Socialism is an ideology the iron horse Free Your Mind Archive 8 03-29-2006 09:33 PM
Genocide,Fraud and Fascism. FatBratchney Free Your Mind Archive 0 10-31-2005 10:59 AM
Capitalism and Socialism. Reality vs idealism Basstrap Free Your Mind Archive 3 06-12-2002 08:10 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com