News Orwell's 1984 becoming real in the US?

[russ_watters]

Care to tell me where I was wrong? How can I defend myself if you are going to just make generalisations. Its all good and that, but perhaps instead of making your (generally wrong) statements, care to put some explanation behind them?

I already did, but you repeated your main error right here for me:

Mussolini was brought up by socialist, but he certainly wasnt one!

That is quite specifically wrong - as it says in the link, Mussolini was a socialist.

I don't know how to make it more clear without seeming condecending, but...

You: 'Mussolini was not a socialist.'
Link: 'Mussolini was a socialist.'

You do see how those two statements (paraphrased) are direct opposites, right?

 

[Anttech]

Here I agree fully with Anttech. Mussolini was not a socialist he was a fascist.

Now I take it Anttech that you have no issues with calling Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Kim socialists?

Lenin was a totaliterian dictator, So was Stalin, Mao and Kim presently.

I would say Prodi, Brown (UK), Bertie Ahern, Chaves, are Socialists to name a few.

 

[russ_watters]

Wasn't the gist of 1984 'mind control'? Demagoguery on it's best. Didn't Winston love Big Brother in the end?

Yes. '1984' included external means of control as well, but of course, the most effective/complete form is internal control.

Is 1984 near? Depends. Is there any hot subject right now where it's impossible to have a different opinion about? And why can't you think differently about it?

Well sure, but opinions not based on facts are pretty much worthless. It is probably the biggest problem in politics: people form opinions based on other opinions, or beliefs, or just supposition or ignorance, not based on facts.

 

[Anttech]

I already did, but you repeated your main error right here for me: That is quite specifically wrong - as it says in the link, Mussolini was a socialist.

I don't know how to make it more clear without seeming condecending, but...

You: 'Mussolini was not a socialist.'
Link: 'Mussolini was a socialist.'

You do see how those two statements (paraphrased) are direct opposites, right?

Maybe you need me to spell it out better for you then Russ:

From your link:

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (July 29, 1883 – April 28, 1945) was the fascist dictator of Italy from the year 1922 to his overthrow in 1943. Mussolini was a close ally of German dictator Adolf Hitler, whom he influenced. Mussolini entered the war in June, 1940 on the side of Nazi Germany. Three years later, the Allies invaded Italy; Mussolini attempted to escape, only to be assassinated by political partisans in April 1945.
...{SNIP}...
A section of revolutionary syndicalists broke with the Socialists over the issue of Italy's entry into the First World War. The ambitious Mussolini quickly sided with them in 1914, when the war broke out.

Just to recap, broke in this contex means he wasnt with them any more

LOL

 

[russ_watters]

Yes...

So you do agree then that at one time Mussolini was a socialist? Your previous posts seem to imply you believed he was never a socialist.

One step at a time...

 

[selfAdjoint]

You guys are arguing about different definitions of socialist. Russ is using the broadest of definitions, by his definition I am a socialist since a favor national health care. But I don't regard myself as a socialist because I don't advocate the government seizing the means of production.

Mussolini, and Hitler too, had many centrist ideas that Russ identifies as "socialist", recall for example that "Nazi" is a German slang version of Hitler's party name "Natzional Sotzialismus"; National Socialism.

So if you do a Venn diagram of "socialist ideas" and "fascist ideas" the circles intersect, but the socialist one isn't fully inside the fascist one, nor is the fascist one inside the socialist.

So "Was Mussolini a socialist" is sort of a glass half full, glass half empty kind of wiestion.

 

[MeJennifer]

So if you do a Venn diagram of "socialist ideas" and "fascist ideas" the circles intersect, but the socialist one isn't fully inside the fascist one, nor is the fascist one inside the socialist.

I agree with that!

 

[Anttech]

Yes...

So you do agree then that at one time Mussolini was a socialist? Your previous posts seem to imply you believed he was never a socialist.

One step at a time...

Hold on a little minute, you are implying that because He was brought up by a socalist -- "fascism grew out of his socialism"-- fascism is directly related to socialism?

Russ, you can hold out your hand, but I won't be lead up the garden path

Mussolini's legacy is not of a socialist, but of a facist dictator. Finnished.

So if you do a Venn diagram of "socialist ideas" and "fascist ideas" the circles intersect, but the socialist one isn't fully inside the fascist one, nor is the fascist one inside the socialist.

So "Was Mussolini a socialist" is sort of a glass half full, glass half empty kind of wiestion.

Same could be said of capitalism, communism, liberalism, etc etc IF you take a big enough generalisation

 

[russ_watters]

You guys are arguing about different definitions of socialist. Russ is using the broadest of definitions, by his definition I am a socialist since a favor national health care. But I don't regard myself as a socialist because I don't advocate the government seizing the means of production.

I wouldn't say that. Earlier on, Anntech pointed to Denmark and I said "Denmark is not very socialist". What I meant is that Denmark (like you - and heck, like me) may favor some socialist policies, but they are not a strong/pure/hard line (pick whatever you prefer) socialist.

As noted by someone else before, Socialism is a bit of a hybrid system, and as a result, countries (people) are more or less socialistic based on where they would fall on the scale. It is true that everything left of center could be labeled "socialist", but I am against doing that* because it confuses the issue here. The issue here is the pitfalls of more pure/radical socalism.

So "Was Mussolini a socialist" is sort of a glass half full, glass half empty kind of wiestion.

But that is kinda the point here: It seems to me that Anttech is arguing that Mussolini was not left of center, and the fact of the matter is that he was. That's where this one-step-at-a-time train of logic I'm going after takes us.

edit: *I prefer the term "socialistic": As in, 'sA supports some socialistic policies.'

 

[russ_watters]

Hold on a little minute, you are implying that because He was brought up by a socalist -- "fascism grew out of his socialism"-- fascism is directly related to socialism?

Yes, but one step at a time, Anttech. You changed the wording there. "was brought up by a socialist" and "was a socialist" are different.

Yes or no: do you agree that at one time, Mussolini was a socialist?

Russ, you can hold out your hand, but I won't be lead up the garden path

Who is leading who here, Anttech? You aren't making any arguments, just stating incorrect facts.

 

[Anttech]

But that is kinda the point here: It seems to me that Anttech is arguing that Mussolini was not left of center, and the fact of the matter is that he was.

I'd have to aggree with that statement, Anttech (Thats me) is arguing that Fascism is not left of center.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, so now we have:

Logic premise 1: Mussolini was a socialist at one time.

Next, we have.
Logic premise 2: Mussolini became (essentially invented) fascism.

Do you agree with that as well? And I must say I use the term "agree" loosely: these are premises, but from historical facts. There isn't much room to agree/disagree about facts.

Edit: And actually, I'm going to make a logical connection (Anttech already caught it), but it really isn't necessary. The historical facts are there and are clear on this.

 

[kyleb]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

 

[Anttech]

Yes --Mussolini, was involved in a socialist party in Italy
Yes --Mussolini was the fascist dictator of Italy
No --Mussolini did not 'invent' Fascism, he coined the phrase. Franko was at it before Mussolini in Spain.

Who is leading who here, Anttech? You aren't making any arguments, just stating incorrect facts.

Russ I have made my argument already, I have outlined what Socialism entails and what Fascims entails... You are the one making the statements, which I have yet to see any backing for.

 

[Anttech]

Adding to this:

In The dictators own words:

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

* "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." [1]

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

[SOS2008]

Yes, which is why I said communism and socialism are related: a good one liner way to say it is that socialism nationalizes some things, communism everything.

I don't see how that follows, because... ExxonMobil is a monopoly? You can't think of any other oil companies that exist and are similar in size?? Sorry, but it would be fair and good if it were based on reality but it isn't. The reality is that oil/gas prices are high ( <-for our foreign readers who pay many times what we pay) because of those free/fair market forces, not because oil is a monopoly - because oil is not a monopoly.

But look through recent history and see where totalitarianism has come from: virtually always from extreme leftist ideas. That (stated again below) is the irony of "1984". Orwell is arguing against the problem that his chosen ideology creates! [COUGH!]

Et tu?

Again, you are missing my point. I'm not saying that that was Orwel's point, but that it is ironic that he missed the reality that leftist ideas more easily lead to totalitarianim.

So if socialism and communism have differences, we agree these terms are not synonymous and should not be lumped together--thank you. Also, socialism is not exclusive of democracy (thus democratic socialism). Please stop perpetuating the "evil liberal" rhetoric.

The U.S. is a hybrid with regulations, and has had nationalized services such as postal service. In regard to natural resources in particular, these resources belong to everyone. Basic needs of our citizenry should be ensured. In regard to oil, I said nothing about how high the price is, BTW. Like everyone else, I use Exxon/Mobil as the example because of their size, but nonetheless where is the competition in price? Has supply and demand changed so drastically in such a short time that the price would jump to over $70/barrel? For example, we know U.S. oil companies have not invested in refineries and operate on a "just-in-time" basis thereby controlling supply according to demand. This is not purely free market phenomenon.

I believe in nationalizing natural resources, and if we had, we would have had a NASA-style program for alternative energy, and we would not be at the whims of foreign countries at this time. This is a national security issue. I would think the Neo Con hawks would jump right on it, but their greed prevents them from such enlightenment. But this is digressing from the OP...

What am I? A realist that is capable of thinking outside the box for solutions that will be win-win for all. If you review your history you might remember that our founding fathers were revolutionaries who created new systems the world had not yet seen. We should continue to evolve and not be set in stone by what some believe is the only way things can work.

As for your opinion of 1984 and that Orwell "missed the reality that leftist ideas more easily lead to totalitarianism," I would prefer a credible source for this. I stated that totalitarianism can evolve from any form of government or ideology such as radical right-wing populist movements, and while liberal ideology may be used initially to gain support, the ultimate result of totalitarianism (often a dictatorship-style police state) is considered to be the extreme right. Would you describe Nazism (which included racism), or fascism, etc. as left or right? It is extreme right.

 

[MeJennifer]

With regards to fascism being classified as right wing I disagree.

Right wing is conservatism.
Left wing are those ideologies that have "answers" for humanity. Plans that "will make the world a better place". "Modern solutions", "Education" programs the "teach" people the right way of thinking.
Fascism, Socialism and American style liberalism are all left-wing ideologies, they all have an ideal, a glorious society where everything will be a lot better than it is now. Their problem, the people who do not believe in their ideologies, their glory society.
Eventually they wil be either re-educated, be called mentally-ill, be executed or put in concentration camps. All for the greater good.

 

[Anttech]

With regards to fascism being classified as right wing I disagree.

Right wing is conservatism.
Left wing are those ideologies that have "answers" for humanity. Plans that "will make the world a better place". "Modern solutions", "Education" programs the "teach" people the right way of thinking.
Fascism, Socialism and American style liberalism are all left-wing ideologies, they all have an ideal, a glorious society where everything will be a lot better than it is now. Their problem, the people who do not believe in their ideologies, their glory society.
Eventually they wil be either re-educated, be called mentally-ill, be executed or die in concentration camps.

So you believe yourself as a better authority on fascism than Mussolini?

 

[Gokul43201]

So you believe yourself as a better authority on fascism than Mussolini?

Mossolini was a Socialist!

Fascism grew out of fascio, the Socialist movement in Italy, late in the 19th century.

Currently, Fascism looks (to me) at least as much like Socialism as it does Conservatism - but I believe the "consensus opinion" among scholars is that today, it more closely resembles right-wing philosophy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There seems to be a presumption that socialism is right-wing with a negative sign in front of it. But there are non-socialist varieties of left wing belief. Populism for example. Anarchism for another. The world just is not well described by Boolean Algebra 101.

 

[Gokul43201]

There seems to be a presumption that socialism is right-wing with a negative sign in front of it.

In my post?

No - to make this clear if I left room for misinterpretation - but I do consider Socialism better described as a subset of left-wing political thought.

 

[kyleb]

With regards to fascism being classified as right wing I disagree.

Right wing is conservatism.
Left wing are those ideologies that have "answers" for humanity. Plans that "will make the world a better place". "Modern solutions", "Education" programs the "teach" people the right way of thinking.

And fascism says that the liberal ideologies are corrupt and we should move back towards feudalism. That puts fascism way out on the right-wing which is conservatism.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes --Mussolini, was involved in a socialist party in Italy
Yes --Mussolini was the fascist dictator of Italy

Thank you. Jeez, was it so hard to admit that simple historical fact?

Anyway, ok: So then it follows logically that Mussolini's fascism grew out of his socialism, right?

And again, we don't have to use logic here - the article we've both read is quite specific about that point: Mussolini's fascism did grow out of his socialism. [edit, expand] Mussolini broke with the socialists because they weren't radical and militant enough, not because he suddenly flipped ends on the political spectrum:

A section of revolutionary syndicalists broke with the Socialists over the issue of Italy's entry into the First World War. The ambitious Mussolini quickly sided with them in 1914, when the war broke out. These syndicalists formed a group called Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista...

Just to be clear, the "syndicalists" are closely related to socialists - the Wik article linked even defines them as a subset of socialism.

Russ I have made my argument already, I have outlined what Socialism entails and what Fascims entails...

Sure - but based strictly on your own mind and devoid of the historical facts.

You are the one making the statements, which I have yet to see any backing for.

I provided the links, not you, Anttech.

 

[russ_watters]

Adding to this:

In The dictators own words:

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

The quote does not appear in that link.

 

[russ_watters]

As for your opinion of 1984 and that Orwell "missed the reality that leftist ideas more easily lead to totalitarianism," I would prefer a credible source for this. I stated that totalitarianism can evolve from any form of government or ideology such as radical right-wing populist movements, and while liberal ideology may be used initially to gain support, the ultimate result of totalitarianism (often a dictatorship-style police state) is considered to be the extreme right.

The source is just simple historical fact. I and others have given major historical examples of totalitarianism arising out of socialist ideas. Do you have any examples of, say, a fascist folower of Adam Smith?

Would you describe Nazism (which included racism), or fascism, etc. as left or right? It is extreme right.

Naziism is the tough one. As someone (perhaps you) pointed out, devious dictators manipulate labels and so the National Socialists weren't necessarily actually socialists. But at the same time, just because Hitler made socialists his enemy doesn't automatically mean that he was against the ideas. Hitler did, after all, build up Germany via government control of the economy - a very socialistic idea.

But like I said, Hitler is a toughie - he may be an entire discussion unto himself. I'd very much like to get into a debate about that. Heck, I'd like a reasonable debate on whether or not totalitarianism can grow out of rightist ideas. Even a hypothetical one if there are no good historical examples.

 

[russ_watters]

There seems to be a presumption that socialism is right-wing[you mean left?] with a negative sign in front of it. But there are non-socialist varieties of left wing belief. Populism for example. Anarchism for another. The world just is not well described by Boolean Algebra 101.

Again, I think it should be fairly obvious from my specific statement that *I* hold some socialistic ideas that I am not saying all socialistic ideas are a bad thing. You are right, however, that the corollary is a generalization - but I'm comfortable with that. The ideas are closely enough related that it doesn't detract from the main point and sometimes a label has to be applied for grammatic simplicity. As I said before, communism and socialism are related because both are about government control. And that's what most leftist ideas have in common. It also seems - and Mussolini is again a good example - that people who become fascist dictators often start off with idealistic socialistic views.

Frankly, there is a good discussion to be had about the political spectrum issues that you brought up. I'd really like to get into it, and it really annoys me how we get bogged down in arguing over relatively straightforward points of fact in this forum.

 

[russ_watters]

In my post?

sA was generalizing, but probably referring largely to me, since I'm the most active here.

 

[russ_watters]

I would like to get into a theoretical debate about this:

Fascism = Less government
Socialism = More government.

Add to that, for completeness:

Conseravative/right leaning = less government (this is about social and economic influence, btw).

But here's the problem: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fascism

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

How can fascism be about less government when by definition it is about strict - brutally oppressive social and economic control?

This is why, to me, the idea that fascism could arise from rightist ideas is simply a contradiction in terms. I don't see how such a thing could be even theoretically possible.

Look, Anttech, there are reasonable arguments to be made in favor of your point. If you look further down on that Wik page, it talks about just how muddled Mussolini's views became. He, like Hitler, kinda did his own thing in a lot of ways. If you want to argue that fascism is rightist, argue that stuff. Quit it with the arguing against the straightforward historical facts about Mussolini's origins in socialism.

 

[kyleb]

Thank you. Jeez, was it so hard to admit that simple historical fact?

Anyway, ok: So then it follows logically that Mussolini's fascism grew out of his socialism, right?

It grew out of his rejection of socialism.

As I said before, communism and socialism are related because both are about government control.

Only in the same sense that socialism and capitalism are related as they both offer private control.

I would like to get into a theoretical debate about this: Add to that, for completeness:

Conseravative/right leaning = less government (this is about social and economic influence, btw).

That isn't conservatism, it is libertarianism.

 

[Anttech]

It grew out of his rejection of socialism.

Correct:

Mussolini was always anti-authority (unless he was the authority) and so though he initially joined the socialist party when he realized these were not going to help him fulfill his personal ambitions he jumped ship and joined the syndicalists. He used their organisation to achieve publicity and support and then started his own party the Fasci di Combattimento. He set up a military style organisation and set about attacking anarchists, socialists and communists.

King Victor Emmanuel III chose Mussolini as prime minister in 1922 as the king feared otherwise there would be a civil war between the fascists and the socialists. Hitler (10 years later) modeled his party on Mussolini's both in structure and in ideology.

Russ you will find the quote from Mussonlini here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

[Anttech]

It also seems - and Mussolini is again a good example - that people who become fascist dictators often start off with idealistic socialistic views.

Sorry Russ, Just don't aggree with you. Mussolini was a meglomanic. He was after power lots of it. He wasnt a Socialist, he belived in order, the elite ruled everyone else. Everyone worked for the goals of the elite, not for the people. Its a right wing ideal, Mussolini was brought up by Socialist, but he never himself, as far as I see or read about the man, prescribed the socialist ideas.

 

[Anttech]

Mossolini was a Socialist!

Yes we have already been over this. Mossolini was a member of a Socialist party. In his life he is defined as a Fascist, however he was brought up by a socialist, and was a member of a socialist party. However it didnt suit his needs, he wasnt interested in helping the people against the elite of the time. He wanted to be the Elite, the very top. He was and will always be a Fascist!

 

[SOS2008]

The source is just simple historical fact. I and others have given major historical examples of totalitarianism arising out of socialist ideas. Do you have any examples of, say, a fascist folower of Adam Smith?

Naziism is the tough one. As someone (perhaps you) pointed out, devious dictators manipulate labels and so the National Socialists weren't necessarily actually socialists. But at the same time, just because Hitler made socialists his enemy doesn't automatically mean that he was against the ideas. Hitler did, after all, build up Germany via government control of the economy - a very socialistic idea.

But like I said, Hitler is a toughie - he may be an entire discussion unto himself. I'd very much like to get into a debate about that. Heck, I'd like a reasonable debate on whether or not totalitarianism can grow out of rightist ideas. Even a hypothetical one if there are no good historical examples.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Fascism

Neo-fascism is the term used to describe a range of movements emerging after the Second World War... This usually includes nationalism, nativism, anti-communism and various oppositions to parliamentary system and liberal democracy.

Aside from Italy, Greece, Turkey, and Latin America for example:

Argentina (1946-1955 and 1973-1974) - Juan Perón admired Mussolini and established his own pseudo-fascist regime, although he has been more often considered a right-wing populist.

There have been movements in the U.S. -- The American Fascist Movement, the National Alliance, and American Nazi Party. Though these movements are not directly related to someone like Adam Smith (does it have to?), and have not been prevalent since WWII, nonetheless

Noam Chomsky has warned that people in the U.S. need to remain vigilant to keep America from drifting towards fascism.[5]. Some link growing corporate power to fascism.[6].

So fascism could likewise grow in the U.S. due to support of big business by the government and blind pro-capitalism ideology of the conservative right -- and with the right conditions and a strong charismatic leader it could really take hold. Indeed there already are right-wing populist movements such as the militia or "Patriot" movement (that inspired Tim McVeigh). They're not active much in militias anymore, but they're still with us. They've been absorbed by the Republican party. They haven't changed, but they are changing the party, in which hate (against "baby killers," gays, Jews, or what have you) is becoming mainstream.

You can google on "populist parties of the right" and find many sources discussing the relation to totalitarianism, fascism, and even communism.