Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 5:12 am
Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 2:05 am
(A 'fascii" is a collection of people based upon familiar/family heritage/inheritance)
Well, it can also be based on anything else, like the Roman Empire was, from which the term comes. The fascii is an old emblem for
collectivism (hence the bundle of sticks bound together, as a "collective") which is the key dogma of Socialism and Communism. And this is why Mussolini started off in the Communist Party; it was a short leap from there to the fascists. They were the same type of person. All that happened there was Mussolini became more nationalistic, but he retained his old dogma of collectivism...his Socialist ideology, in other words.
Now, as for the Nazis, you are correct that they hated Communists. But the part both sides objected to in each other was nothing to do with Socialism, which they both held in common to be the correct economic arrangement. Rather, the Nazis were
national Socialists, and the Communists were
international Socialists. What they were fighting about, then, was not their Socialism, but the scope of the Socialism -- should it be a kind of Arayan Supremacy thing, or a "Soviet Union" led thing -- and which leader, Hitler or Stalin, should run the show when it was all over. But they were really the same type of person, with the same types of values, who did the same types of inhumane things, and subscribed to the same economic and ideological strategy -- to Socialism.
Both were on the Left, because both were devout Socialists. It was really the one thing on which they agreed. And that is why for every Socialist regime, you can also find a Stalin, or a Hitler, or a Mussolini, or a Castro, or a Maduro, or a Mugabe, or a Ceaucescu, or an Enver Hoxha, or a Tito, or a Pol Pot, or a Kim Jong...Socialism and dictatorship always end up in the same places.
You would think today's Socialists would be smarter than to reproduce a pattern that has been repeated every time Socialism was allowed to rule...but they're not. The next generation of dictators sure know what they stand to gain from Socialism; but the masses of Leftists just never seem to get a clue what they're setting themselves -- and everybody else -- up for.
You are absolutely WRONG about linking fascism to the left as well as all to almost everything you claim here. What I think is needed to discuss with you are classification schemes on politics. What I think would
help would be to first note that while the politics are often divided binary, the reality is that there are a lot of 'dimensions' that have to be noticed. The prime dimension of interest here that I think needs addressing is...
Ownership dimension
This is the first factor that all societies initially had to adapt to with consideration to
settling down in ONE spot. The term, "ownership", was moot prior to this point because it is defaulted that one's OWN was limited to one's body, their life, and ONLY what they could literally keep BY FORCE. The 'family' was the
tribe and all that was deemed one's OWN depended upon how that family lived and to the leading patriarchs/matriarchs of them. And to the tribe as a whole, the 'ownership' concept IF negotiated between other tribes (as a 'treaty'), was to hunting and gathering areas where one was literally AT THE MOMENT. The negotiations were only an option from warring and it helped to find agreement between them as wholes as to which tribal
ownership was TRANSIENT. This also refers to the beliefs about one's own genetic roots (family) and so in today's terms, this would be identical to those who believe in PURITY of race and an extended 'trust' in others ONLY of thier own genetic-class (thier race). The 'collective' form of those on this scale is 'fascist' and refers to one's own genetic and cultural choice to associate ONLY with this limited form. It doesn't matter where this particular term originated given the
meaning is what it refers to as a fact.
If you are a 'fascist', you believe in your family, an expectation to some 'culture' (like one's associated religion) and a coinciding belief about one's race whereby one demands their offspring to stay within this group (not be allowed to marry outside of this 'tribal' group.) [note that 'tribe' is not merely one's personal family nor necessarily the particular group you are living transient with but to one's extended family in all the groups. When tribal families attempt to appeal to the strength of them AS a collective, the bundle of sticks (the fasci) is universally common expression independent of where the tribes exist anywhere in all times. That is, the particular choice of the 'fasci' as a bundle of sticks metaphor for arguing why they should stick together in wars or conflicts, refers to the TRIBAL groups in all cultures around the world that does NOT refer to any 'whole' regarding things like Communism. The belief in one's OWN genetics and culture are the defining group, NOT ALL PEOPLE, even where a similar argument CAN be expressed of the whole
logically if you treat human-kind versus all other animals as what matters. But the fascists and the associated 'nation' is their TRIBE, regardless of where they are at any moment. So, for instance, the Isreali Zionists as much as the German National Socialists, are both types of such fasci.
This is NOT to associate what BAD behaviors that specific historical governments but as an explanation of a type of POLITICAL view that is 'normal' to any animal. The only concern the world as a whole takes issue with this is due to their ISOLATION to their own with a 'civilized' counterproductive view because it threatens those OUTSIDE of these purists. This is NOT 'communism'.
"Communism" means that no person OWNS beyond what they NEED minimally, including the system formed by it as a 'community'. The MEANING comes from the initial formation of any settled society because it EXTENDED favor to other tribes. In other words, they are NOT 'racial purists' nor do they believe their children should require strict heritage. In PRACTICE, this too will have its abusers. But the concept, not this particular label, is also understood to be universally evolved in independence of others.
The abuses BEGIN when select subgroups formulate beliefs that align some 'culture' to one's 'genetics', as representative of many today who might believe that one 'sex' OWNS a universal set of behaviors. Today's left, thus, is not made up of ALL people who believe in the 'communist' concept, even in places like the U.S.S.R.. The problems begin when 'culture' laws are introduced REGARDLESS OF WHICH TYPE of government is CLAIMED to preside.
"Individual" OWNERSHIP is the default of each and every animal regardless of the above but the one major factor that contributes to ANY of the abuses of any of the collectives above. The problem with arguing for this is that it is NOT ABLE to formulate a system that contributes to the idea of CIVILIZATION. This can ONLY exist in isolating oneself like a hermit living in the deep forest who DOES in fact rely ONLY on their own. They would require building ALL their 'own' things from scratch to be sincerely 'indendent' individuals. If you are NOT a hermit, this argument cannot BE a system within a civil society because it is a default behavior of all individuals regardless of which political party you favor. It threatens civilization where it is NOT LIBERAL precisely because the only means to assure the individual has power would be to permit ANY behaviors that 'frees' oneself but at the EXPENSE of someone else's 'freedom'. "Liberal" means free, 'liberated', and has to have the caveate that one cannot be ABSOLUTELY FREE because of this factor.
The general classifications of '
ownership' then are
"individual", "tribal", or "communal"* [I am avoiding the terms like 'fascist' or 'communists' at this summary because these are often only hints of someones' political party and labels may not correctly map to the MEANINGS involved. Also, one can CLAIM they are some party but act in practice as another.
These are the ONLY classifications of 'ownership' types. Only the "tribal" or "communal" types are relevant for civil governments. The dictators IN governments, like North Korea, have stepped BEYOND their initiating political classification. But the "tribal" forms are the next threatening because of their RESTRICTION to favor their own at the expense of all others.
So, just limiting it to the 'ownership' dimension, where do you stand?
Edit note for the "*" above: the classifications for "
ownership" can logically be reduced to a belief in ownership is to
ONE, SOME, or ALL. The '
ALL' is synonymous to '
none' where
all is indifferent to meaning 'inifinite' ownership.
Different types of "government" claim to have different kinds of "legitimacy." A "legitimate" monarchy is said to be one that has "divine right;" and a democracy claims its "legitimacy" based on a mandate from the people. A Socialist regime claims its "legitimacy" comes from historicism, from the "dictatorship of the proletariat" or other utopian scheme.