Who it the author of fascism?

[Votto]

Is Fascism Right or Left?

Does anyone know who is credited with being the author of fascism? Well for capitalism we have Adam Smith and for Marxism we have Karl Marx, but who is credited for fascism? Don't worry, none of you know, and that is the way the Left wants it.

The author if none other than Giovanni Gentile, a socialist

 

[Votto]

The antithesis of fascism is decentralization, which is the opposite of collectivism and Progressivism. In fact, a dictatorship requires centralized control. Without it, a dictator cannot exist.

To this point I have kept saying that the Federal branch and federal government has too much unchecked power, and whether you are a Obama hater or Trump hater, both haters have one thing in common, they see abuses go unchecked.

To this point I have suggested that the system needs to be revamped to avoid this sort of thing in future, such solutions as the Article V movement to return power to the states that they once had, but the Left's only solution is destroy Orange man and have a one party democrat rule

 

[Votto]

I would like to add that I believe anarchy should not be counted as being a method for decentralization. No, anarchy breeds crisis, confusion, and the general need for someone to restore order and sanity to society which only opens the door for fascism.

This is why some elements of the Left promote anarchy like Antifa.

 

[irosie91]

Japan, Greece, Rome

 

[irosie91]

also the Mayans and Aztecs

 

[TheReaper]

Is Fascism Right or Left?

Does anyone know who is credited with being the author of fascism? Well for capitalism we have Adam Smith and for Marxism we have Karl Marx, but who is credited for fascism? Don't worry, none of you know, and that is the way the Left wants it.

The author if none other than Giovanni Gentile, a socialist

Bumping is response to Mark ATL fake false thread about fascism being right wing

 

[Votto]

Bumping is response to Mark ATL fake false thread about fascism being right wing

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]

Funny thing, that all describes Marxism and the Left, other than the made up notion of "right wing"

What is right and left measuring? You say you don't know? Neither do I.

Now if the scale measures centralized despotism, then it would look like this

I would argue, however, that anarchy leads immediately to despotism.

 

[TheReaper]

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement,[1][2][3] characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of society and the economy.[2][3]

Funny thing, that all describes Marxism and the Left, other than the made up notion of "right wing"

Thats because Fascism IS of the Left. The lie that it is of the right is more made-up crap.

 

[TheReaper]

Is Fascism Right or Left?

Does anyone know who is credited with being the author of fascism? Well for capitalism we have Adam Smith and for Marxism we have Karl Marx, but who is credited for fascism? Don't worry, none of you know, and that is the way the Left wants it.

The author if none other than Giovanni Gentile, a socialist

We know the name of the philosopher of capitalism: Adam Smith. We know the name of the philosopher of Marxism: Karl Marx. But who’s the philosopher of fascism?

Yes—exactly. You don’t know. Don’t feel bad. Almost no one knows. This is not because he doesn’t exist, but because historians, most of whom are on the political left, had to erase him from history in order to avoid confronting fascism’s actual beliefs. So, let me introduce him to you. His name is Giovanni Gentile.

Born in 1875, he was one of the world’s most influential philosophers in the first half of the twentieth century. Gentile believed that there were two “diametrically opposed” types of democracy. One is liberal democracy, such as that of the United States, which Gentile dismisses as individualistic—too centered on liberty and personal rights—and therefore selfish. The other, the one Gentile recommends, is “true democracy,” in which individuals willingly subordinate themselves to the state.

Like his philosophical mentor, Karl Marx, Gentile wanted to create a community that resembles the family, a community where we are “all in this together.” It’s easy to see the attraction of this idea. Indeed, it remains a common rhetorical theme of the left.

For example, at the 1984 convention of the Democratic Party, the governor of New York, Mario Cuomo, likened America to an extended family where, through the government, people all take care of each other.

Nothing’s changed. Thirty years later, a slogan of the 2012 Democratic Party convention was, “The government is the only thing we all belong to.” They might as well have been quoting Gentile.

Now, remember, Gentile was a man of the left. He was a committed socialist. For Gentile, fascism is a form of socialism—indeed, its most workable form. While the socialism of Marx mobilizes people on the basis of class, fascism mobilizes people by appealing to their national identity as well as their class. Fascists are socialists with a national identity. German Fascists in the 1930s were called Nazis—basically a contraction of the term “national socialist.”

For Gentile, all private action should be oriented to serve society; there is no distinction between the private interest and the public interest. Correctly understood, the two are identical. And who is the administrative arm of the society? It’s none other than the state. Consequently, to submit to society is to submit to the state—not just in economic matters, but in all matters. Since everything is political, the state gets to tell everyone how to think and what to do.

It was another Italian, Benito Mussolini, the fascist dictator of Italy from 1922 to 1943, who turned Gentile’s words into action. In his Dottrina del Fascismo, one of the doctrinal statements of early fascism, Mussolini wrote, “All is in the state and nothing human exists or has value outside the state.” He was merely paraphrasing Gentile.

The Italian philosopher is now lost in obscurity, but his philosophy could not be more relevant because it closely parallels that of the modern left. Gentile’s work speaks directly to progressives who champion the centralized state. Here in America, the left has vastly expanded state control over the private sector, from healthcare to banking; from education to energy. This state-directed capitalism is precisely what German and Italian fascists implemented in the 1930s.

Leftists can’t acknowledge their man, Gentile, because that would undermine their attempt to bind conservatism to fascism. Conservatism wants small government so that individual liberty can flourish. The left, like Gentile, wants the opposite: to place the resources of the individual and industry in the service of a centralized state. To acknowledge Gentile is to acknowledge that fascism bears a deep kinship to the ideology of today’s left. So, they will keep Gentile where they’ve got him: dead, buried, and forgotten.

But we should remember, or the ghost of fascism will continue to haunt us.

I’m Dinesh D’Souza for Prager University.

 

[BlindBoo]

He ghostwrote for Benito Mussolini, who was a socialist before he renounce it and formed his new Fascist party to oppose the socialist.

 

[Votto]

He ghostwrote for Benito Mussolini, who was a socialist before he renounce it and formed his new Fascist party to oppose the socialist.

There is no socialist despot that is sold on socialism

No, the reason all despots are drawn to socialism is that for it to even stand a chance of working, the state must have full control of every aspect of your life in order to not only monitor any and all financial transactions, but then redistribute money from each financial transaction. For you see, the issue here is control.

So it ends up that every Marxist despot fails to 100% follow Marx in all he says and does, which leaves people like yourself to say, "They did not do it right, but this time it can work"

 

[Rigby5]

The origins of fascism come from ancient Rome, where the lictors carried an axe handle, called a "fascia" as a badge of office.
Once a year they would have a ceremony where the axe handles would be bundled together, as a symbol of "strength through unity".
Roman fascism was a coalition of the military, aristocracy, and priesthood.
They were capitalists, not a democracy or republic, although they had been a republic in the past.
They became the single greatest colonial imperialists oppressors of their time, and murdered millions.

Mussolini and Hitler did not invent fascism, but deliberately copied the Roman concepts.
The only change was to replace the priesthood with corporate capitalists.
Capitalism is always tending towards fascism, which is a dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

What makes people confused is that Stalin obviously was a dictator as well, even though he claimed to be communist. But clearly there was never any communism under Stalin or his replacements.
The USSR was always a capitalist and fascist, controlled by a wealthy elite.
Communism always has to be egalitarian and decentralized.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no socialist despot that is sold on socialism

No, the reason all despots are drawn to socialism is that for it to even stand a chance of working, the state must have full control of every aspect of your life in order to not only monitor any and all financial transactions, but then redistribute money from each financial transaction. For you see, the issue here is control.

So it ends up that every Marxist despot fails to 100% follow Marx in all he says and does, which leaves people like yourself to say, "They did not do it right, but this time it can work"

Wrong.
Socialism does not at all require any state control over ANYTHING at all.
Nor does socialism require one bit of wealth redistribution.

Socialism is just communal, cooperative, and collective enterprise.
It is NOT ALL enterprise.
It is not at all a political system and has nothing at all to do with how laws are passed or leaders picked.

Socialism is just if people want a particular service, and decide to pool some of their own resources, in order make it happen.
Like public schools, public roads, etc.
Rural coops are common, and they are always socialist, being collective, cooperative, and communal.
All public utilities are always socialist.
Anything run with pooled public funding that is not run for profit, is socialist.
Like fire fighting.

 

[Votto]

The origins of fascism come from ancient Rome, where the lictors carried an axe handle, called a "fascia" as a badge of office.
Once a year they would have a ceremony where the axe handles would be bundled together, as a symbol of "strength through unity".
Roman fascism was a coalition of the military, aristocracy, and priesthood.
They were capitalists, not a democracy or republic, although they had been a republic in the past.
They became the single greatest colonial imperialists oppressors of their time, and murdered millions.

Mussolini and Hitler did not invent fascism, but deliberately copied the Roman concepts.
The only change was to replace the priesthood with corporate capitalists.
Capitalism is always tending towards fascism, which is a dictatorship of the wealthy elite.

What makes people confused is that Stalin obviously was a dictator as well, even though he claimed to be communist. But clearly there was never any communism under Stalin or his replacements.
The USSR was always a capitalist and fascist, controlled by a wealthy elite.
Communism always has to be egalitarian and decentralized.

England used the East Indies Co. to conquer India, they even had their own standing army

And when the British corporation tried to make a monopoly on tea, the colonists revolted

Most think the Boston Tea Party was over higher taxes, when it was really over British control

Corporations are government created entities. Looking at how the government uses them to censor social media, like Facebok and Twitter, etc., and when you see how Obama and company bailed out these corporations while throwing the smaller businesses and individuals into the garbage heep after the Credit Crisis, using your taxpayer money, it becomes obvious as to the truth you speak here.

And just look at all the corporations who gave BLM money, even though BLM are confessed and sworn Marxists.


Very telling

 

[Rigby5]

Everyone likes to claim they are socialist because that is instantly popular, positive, and will get support.
But obviously anything that is not communal, cooperative, collective, and egalitarian, is not at all socialist.

 

[Votto]

Wrong.
Socialism does not at all require any state control over ANYTHING at all.
Nor does socialism require one bit of wealth redistribution.

Socialism is just communal, cooperative, and collective enterprise.
It is NOT ALL enterprise.
It is not at all a political system and has nothing at all to do with how laws are passed or leaders picked.

Socialism is just if people want a particular service, and decide to pool some of their own resources, in order make it happen.
Like public schools, public roads, etc.
Rural coops are common, and they are always socialist, being collective, cooperative, and communal.
All public utilities are always socialist.
Anything run with pooled public funding that is not run for profit, is socialist.
Like fire fighting.

You either force the issue of the redistribution of wealth and the government oversight of regulating commerce, or you allow free trade.

Stop lying.

 

[Rigby5]

England used the East Indies Co. to conquer India, they even had their own standing army

And when the British corporation tried to make a monopoly on tea, the colonists revolted

Most think the Boston Tea Party was over higher taxes, when it was really over British control

Corporations are government created entities. Looking at how the government uses them to censor social media, like Facebok and Twitter, etc., and when you see how Obama and company bailed out these corporations while throwing the smaller businesses and individuals into the garbage heep after the Credit Crisis, using your taxpayer money, it becomes obvious as to the truth you speak here.

And just look at all the corporations who gave BLM money, even though BLM are confessed and sworn Marxists.


Very telling

Yes, and the East India company was totally capitalist, the British monarchy of King George the III was totlaly capitalist. Capitalism is the greed motive, and is always behind every bad thing.
Capitalism is only acceptable when carefully restricted so that it converts pure greed into productivity.

 

[Votto]

Everyone likes to claim they are socialist because that is instantly popular, positive, and will get support.
But obviously anything that is not communal, cooperative, collective, and egalitarian, is not at all socialist.

Correct, the Amish have such a society that people can opt out of at any time.

And it is all held together by their faith.

Nothing is forced.

No need to hire 80,000 new IRS agents with guns like Biden

 

[Rigby5]

You either force the issue of the redistribution of wealth and the government oversight of regulating commerce, or you allow free trade.

Stop lying.

You NEVER allow "free trade".
That allows the use of force as with monopolies, colonization through the use of armed forces, etc.
Government oversight of regulating commerce is to prevent abuses, not to centralize the profits.
There does not have to ever be any "redistribution of wealth" in socialism.
But if everyone invests in a public means of production, then all should benefit appropriately from it.

If individuals want to make their own means of production in order to make their own profits from it, that harms no one else and is fine under socialism.
Socialism in no way implies any central control over profit making, as long as it is not illegally coercive.

 

[Votto]

Yes, and the East India company was totally capitalist, the British monarchy of King George the III was totlaly capitalist. Capitalism is the greed motive, and is always behind every bad thing.
Capitalism is only acceptable when carefully restricted so that it converts pure greed into productivity.

Corporations are only as powerful as government makes them