Socialism = Fascism?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Socialism certainly does not equal fascism, although, as I pointed out in another thread, some modern European far right political parties have quite left leaning, or at least, anti-globalist economic and social policy platforms.

Britain’s survival depends on a technology-intensive manufacturing base, protected from globalisation and rampant internationalist exploitation – the core of the British National Party’s plan for rebuilding this nation’s economy after decades of Tory and Labour neglect.

Globalisation has caused the export of jobs and industries to the Far East, and has brought ruin and unemployment to British industries and the communities who depend on them.

ECONOMY : The British National Party

“Marketisation,” and particularly the Conservative-created Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes imposed by Gordon Brown, has been a disaster which is saddling Trusts and the taxpayer with enormous debts. We totally reject this attempt to turn the nation’s health service into a private profit centre for giant corporations.

HEALTH : The British National Party

That said, the statement that socialism equals fascism is drivel and not worthy of a kindergarten debate.
 
Once again:
cantbe4.jpg
 
If we can't expect them to know the definitions and historical context of these terms, how do we expect them to understand healthcare, economics, or justice?
 
That's actually what my husband's been saying all along. "Socialist" means "black." He said it during the election. The word has been used to allow white Americans to express their fear of a black man as president. I almost posted it in the insurance thread. Look who is using it and why.

It's not that far-fetched an idea at all. Older Americans remember Socialists as the enemy, a very, very scary enemy. Calling a black man a "socialist" allows them to express their fear in an acceptable way.

And now of course, calling him a Nazi will really make them afraid. But that could backfire. Could. Never underestimate either the fear of some less-educated Americans or the willingness of the right to exploit that fear and lack of education.
 
Who did you wish to begin with? The Italian Fascists, the German Nazis, the Russian Communists or Wilson Progressivism? Or perhaps the myth that fascism and communism are opposites?

Association fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An association fallacy is an inductive formal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

Some syllogistic examples of guilt by association are:

  • Hitler was a vegetarian. Hitler was pure evil. Therefore, vegetarians have evil ideals.
  • All dogs have four legs; my cat has four legs. Therefore, my cat is a dog. (This argument is made by the wordplay-prone Sir Humphrey Appleby in the BBC sitcom Yes, Prime Minister).
  • Barack Obama does not wear a United States flag lapel pin. A lapel pin represents patriotism. Therefore, Barack Obama is not patriotic.
 
Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium (dog Latin for "reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is a formal fallacy in logic. The name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum. The phrase reductio ad Hitlerum was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card.

It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context. Hence this fallacy fails to examine the claim on its merit.

The fallacy most often assumes the form of "Hitler (or the Nazis) supported X, therefore X must be evil/undesirable/bad." For example: "Hitler was a vegetarian, so vegetarianism is wrong." The tactic is often used to derail arguments, as such a comparison tends to distract and to result in angry and less reasoned responses.
 
That's actually what my husband's been saying all along. "Socialist" means "black." He said it during the election. The word has been used to allow white Americans to express their fear of a black man as president. I almost posted it in the insurance thread. Look who is using it and why.

It's not that far-fetched an idea at all. Older Americans remember Socialists as the enemy, a very, very scary enemy. Calling a black man a "socialist" allows them to express their fear in an acceptable way.
It's only not far-fetched in the everything-is-about-race Grievance Factory of the Left. I seem to remember the same thing happening 15 years ago to those crackers from Arkansas that tried a government takeover of heath care.

And now of course, calling him a Nazi will really make them afraid. But that could backfire. Could. Never underestimate either the fear of some less-educated Americans or the willingness of the right to exploit that fear and lack of education.

Nancy Pelosi saw Swastikas at townhall meetings well before anyone accused Obama of being a Brownshirt.
 
But they do have several underlying philosophies in common.
So did Hitler's anti-Semitism and Martin Luther's (ever read Luther's On the Jews and Their Lies?). You can't draw absolute distinctions between the cumulative expressions of the former ideology and the cultural influence of 400 years of the latter. That's almost always true with totalizing ideological systems; they have precedents both philosophically and culturally, and in breaking them down for analysis, you're inevitably going to find certain components reminiscent of, and in some cases outright lifted from, those precedents.



Anyhow, 60 million people didn't die in the most destructive military conflict in human history in order for a bunch of ...there's no word contemptuous enough here... to score cheap propaganda points by exploiting the lingering emotional resonance of that conflict two-thirds of a century later. And that is what gives this 'equation' whatever rhetorical pull it has.
 
Last edited:
That's actually what my husband's been saying all along. "Socialist" means "black." He said it during the election. The word has been used to allow white Americans to express their fear of a black man as president. I almost posted it in the insurance thread. Look who is using it and why.

It's not that far-fetched an idea at all. Older Americans remember Socialists as the enemy, a very, very scary enemy. Calling a black man a "socialist" allows them to express their fear in an acceptable way.

And now of course, calling him a Nazi will really make them afraid. But that could backfire. Could. Never underestimate either the fear of some less-educated Americans or the willingness of the right to exploit that fear and lack of education.




now i get it ! i was seriously stuggling to understand why americans wouldn't want universal health care , and this sums it up .

its a shame becasue the country is going to miss out on a fantastic opportunity to change . i guess its not free and equal for all.
 
Nancy Pelosi saw Swastikas at townhall meetings

Are you still believing Rush's spin on this comment? How can we expect you to critically think your way through these connections without your own agenda guiding your thought, if you can't even critically think about this comment?
 
Properly understood, whether you agree with either or not, socialism and fascism have absolutely nothing in common. Fascism uses (or used) the tools of the modern state and mass industrial society to further fundamentally anti-modern objectives. Quite a trick. Socialism, in whatever form I can call to mind, bases itself on a doctrine of 'progress'. Again, whether you like or dislike what either is about.

Fascism is not just a word for nasty people you don't like. It is a Holy Roman Empire of an ideology, stranded mysteriously in the age of bombs and mass media. It probably hasn't gone away, it's just that Hitler is the example that always springs to mind. I could think of others. Franco's Spain, Mussollini's Italy, Peron's Argentina.
 
Also, social democracy does not "=" socialism. The idea that the United States of America is governed by anything resembling socialism is insanity.

The insanity. It burns.
 
Every time the right starts screaming about socialism, I laugh at their stupidity. Yes, that's right we should call it stupidity, because that is precisely what it is.

How many people here actually ever lived in a true socialist state? I did. And if you think that what Obama or Pelosi are peddling is socialism, then you are stupid. And no, I won't apologize for it, it's time we get over things like this and called a spade a spade.
 
That's actually what my husband's been saying all along. "Socialist" means "black." He said it during the election. The word has been used to allow white Americans to express their fear of a black man as president. I almost posted it in the insurance thread. Look who is using it and why.

It's not that far-fetched an idea at all. Older Americans remember Socialists as the enemy, a very, very scary enemy. Calling a black man a "socialist" allows them to express their fear in an acceptable way.

And now of course, calling him a Nazi will really make them afraid. But that could backfire. Could. Never underestimate either the fear of some less-educated Americans or the willingness of the right to exploit that fear and lack of education.

Martha, let me ask you something. What percentage of us evil white conservatives do you believe have a problem with a black person with a funny name being president? 1%? 2%? Because that's about what I think it is. What about me? You don't know me that well, but what about me? Do you think I'm opposed to him being president because of his policies, or because of the color of his skin? Tell me. Because I'm fine with a president Colin Powell, or a president Condoleeza Rice, or a president JC Watts. So if you think I have a problem with his skin color, I think you owe me the decency of telling me so.

I find the use of race (almost all of it on the Democratic side) quite upsetting and very telling, though not surprising. I knew that once Obama and his administration and his policies- not to mention the Democratic Party as a whole- start to plummet in the polls, then they would throw the ol' "Well it's because he's black!" tantrum. It's actually pretty funny.
 
Because I'm fine with a president Colin Powell, or a president Condoleeza Rice, or a president JC Watts. So if you think I have a problem with his skin color, I think you owe me the decency of telling me so.



i totally went to a BBQ in PG County on Saturday, and Memphis and i were the only white people, and you know what? i was TOTALLY not freaking out at all!
 
For starters;
Eugenics
Racism (Jews for one, blacks for the other)
Thought children should be raised by the state rather than parents (I'm sure you've heard of John Dewey.)


A list is not an argument, it's just a list. You haven't made any point at all, none. No one believes you've made a point. You've just done your usual job of avoiding the issue, avoiding the real point, and not answering questions.

So, now, make the link. You brought it up. Put up or shut up.
 
Back
Top Bottom