Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

The Left, Right, Hubris, Fascism and Changing History

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:26 PM
Original message
The Left, Right, Hubris, Fascism and Changing History
Edited on Sat Sep-11-10 09:39 PM by 20score
If one follows the progression of the nineteenth century’s adage, “lies, damn lies and statistics,” propaganda would be the next logical step in the increasingly worse set of deceptions. Propaganda can crush economies, kill millions in unjust wars, change reality and alter history itself. As George Orwell said, “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future.”

There is now a concerted effort by those that would fit the definition of corporatists, to change what it means to be on the left or the right, politically. Corporatism is of course a more polite and less politically charged way to say, fascism. Whatever word is used to describe it, it means a philosophy that gives more power to corporations than other more conventional political systems do. And despite what people like Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck say, it is a system started as a reaction against Marxism and liberal concepts such as social justice.

When Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism came out in January of 2008, many were a little shocked and it elicited more than a few laughs. But after Obama’s election, people who control right-wing messaging saw an advantage to pushing this meme. Glenn Beck and others on Fox News and right-wing radio pushed this untrue version of history between fictional stories about ACORN and the poor taking down the economy. Within a year, millions had changed what they believed about Hitler’s place on the political spectrum and how they defined the left and the right. After about seven decades of being the very definition of the far right, Hitler had moved to being on the far left - at least for those easily manipulated by these types of propaganda campaigns. But there was nothing other than one word, ‘socialist,’ as in National Socialist Party, to help back up their new definition of the left and of fascism. So, enter a new falsehood in the war on reality and history. A fabricated graph showing the left as meaning 100% government control, and the right being portrayed as no government, or complete anarchy.

There is a year old video still making the rounds in certain circles, titled, Republic vs. Democracy. As with all good deceptions, it has truth in it, also. The definitions of a republic and a democracy are correct. The video points out, contrary to what many on the right believe, that if a law is not constitutionally sound, it will not stand in a republic. There is history in the video that is also correct, albeit incomplete. These truths are put forward in order to garner support for a complete falsehood. In this video, the more authoritarian and the more government control there is, the more left wing the ideology falls on the videos graph. The less government, the more right wing on the graph. Monarchies, oligarchies and dictatorships all fall on the left, according to this video. It ignores the etymology of the words, left and right with regard to politics. Those words came to mean certain political views because of the seating of the National Assembly, during and after the French Revolution. The more conservative and authoritarian people, supporting the monarchy on the right; and the more liberal supporters of the common man and the revolution, on the left side of the National Assembly. The video ignores not only the origins of the words, but the current definitions also. Words mean what they mean because people agree to their meaning, arbitrarily creating one’s own definition of words does not change their correct definition. For years, being on the right meant being conservative - being for the status quo. Since society has generally moved in a more progressive direction, giving more freedoms to individuals as the centuries pass, those hanging on to the past are more authoritarian by definition. Even if the ideas they are holding onto were once considered to be liberal positions.

There is a reason for changing the history and definition of what it means to be on the left or the right. The people who made this video, along with others who are pushing this meme of the fascist liberal, are doing so in order to make people okay with supporting far right ideologies. If the left is proposing programs that benefit the poor and middle class and the left can be tied to Hitler, then obviously the left is on the wrong side and should be fought tooth and nail. If the right is supporting ideas that help the rich, but are on the same side as those who fought Hitler, then they must be on the right side of the issues today.

To be infuriated with those who are pushing the falsehoods concerning liberal fascism is a rational response. These people are ignoring reality and changing history to be able to make things decidedly worse for a majority of the country. They are tarnishing the memory of those who came before us and made the world a better place than it otherwise would have been. They are taking what has been and continues to be, some of the best of humanity that works for a better society and defaming them as some of the worst elements of mankind. These people are also arrogant enough to disregard what people have chosen to call themselves, and decided for others what they will now be labeled.

We have all seen in recent years some extremely unlikely memes take hold. We should not ignore this one in hopes that it will disappear on its own.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Suich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 09:53 PM
Response to Original message
1. I used to think Glenn Beck was funny.
I don't anymore.

K&R!

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Hello Suich!!
Edited on Sat Sep-11-10 10:24 PM by 20score
Hope you've been well!

Yeah, I know what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hbskifreak Donating Member (43 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
3. Patriotism....sigh.
A nut-bag is a nut-bag, whatever side they say they are on. If they succeed in flipping the meaning of Left and Right...and they probably will to some degree thanks to spineless Washingtonian Democrats unwilling to stand toe to toe with this growing evil, then so be it.
Americans vote for the politicians that run this country. Americans saw GWB waving an American flag on 9/11 and decided that he was the man for the job for (given the election fraud in 2000), at least 4 more legitimate years. America is responsible for its own future, as I see it, because of an ignorant population having voting rights.
Americans, by and large, have a huge superiority complex that corporatists capitalize on. All they gotta do is put an American flag graphic on it, and the right wing could get Americans to endorse slavery and child porn. It is horrific how the right saw fit to torture Iraqi and Afghani POWs, and then vilified the left for opposing it....AND AMERICA AGREED WITH THE RIGHT...at least the A-holes I speak about it with do. So much for the shining beacon of hope for the world.
I love(d) my country so much that I was willing to die for it. But guess what, I could love Ireland or Canada or New Zealand just as much if this country don't get its shit together and stop its self-destructive slide into the abyss.
Thank you 20score for your efforts in this area; thanks to the efforts of TRUE Patriots like yourself, perhaps this won't happen. Time will tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-11-10 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thank you Skifreak!
Appreciated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadHound Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 12:04 AM
Response to Original message
5. OK, first thing, I like where you are going with this, however
You need to brush up on your knowledge of fascism, what it is, what it means, where it comes from. You are correct in that it is located on the right, or conservative side of the political spectrum. But you can't blithely equate fascism with corporatism. Corporatism is putting the machinery of the state at the disposal of the corporations, whereas under fascism you put the machinery of corporations at the disposal of the state.

Furthermore, and this is a deep, dark chapter in politics that neither side wants to acknowledge, but it is true anyway: Fascism and Marxism come from the same nineteenth century political roots, and in many ways they are simply flip sides of the same political coin. The key difference between the two is that fascism puts the people into the hands of the state, while Marxism puts the state into the hands of the people. But both fascism and Marxism have roots in the same political soil, and it is this similarity that many people think motivated the absolute blood hatred that fascism and Marxists have for each other.

If you have access to a good academic library I would suggest that you see if you can't find and read a copy of "The Political Doctrine of Fascism" by Alfredo Rocco. He was the poli sci brains behind Mussolini and in this tract he provides and excellent, clear cut definition of fascism, what it is, what it stands for, and how society and fascism interact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 01:45 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Thanks.
And sorry if there was any confusion. I realize that both Marxism and fascism have their "roots in the same political soil" as you rightly pointed out, but their divergence was marked by a radical difference in outlook. I was brushing up for hours today to make sure I got my facts straight as there are numerous facets and definitions of both fascism and corporatism. (Not new to reading about either.) It just so happened that one of the people I looked up and read about was Alfredo Rocco.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfredo_Rocco#cite_note-0
There is a definite overlapping, and a shared value system between corporatism and fascism. Although there is not complete interchangeable, the similarities are undeniable. There are arguments to be made that a philosophy of corporatism goes back to East India Company or even further, but the philosophy remains as a merger between corporations and state power. No matter which was the dominant partner.

For my purposes here, the general definition I used, "a philosophy that gives more power to corporations than other more conventional political systems do," I thought sufficed to cover both fascism and corporatism as used by the general public. (Sans those I was complaining about in the first place.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. + 1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 12:26 AM
Response to Original message
6. The actual game is not one of definitions but of organizing for political power.
Organizing means: developing continuing relations with flesh-and-blood people, to analyze and confront and transform the actual power-relations that govern our lives

The games of definitions are an ersatz replacement for that, and it is guaranteed to fail, because it assumes people base their activities on philosophical views and linguistic habits -- but in reality their philosophical views and linguistic habits usually develop to justify their activities. If one wants to change the power relations of society, one must aim immediately at changing people's activities; through activity, people can develop the experience necessary to analyze and confront and transform power-relations. But if one instead aims firstb at changing definitions and philosophical views and linguistic habits, then these definitions and philosophical views and linguistic habits will develop without being tied to experience, and so they will not lead to an effective theory and practice
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suede1 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 09:34 AM
Response to Original message
8. Well said! You got that right! This is the type of thoughtful article that should be recced
Edited on Sun Sep-12-10 09:46 AM by suede1
to the top.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punkin87 Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. You got that right. k & r!
Well said 20score!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Why thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
20score Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 06:46 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. I thought it was important.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
punkin87 Donating Member (257 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. It is important. tea baggers think we are Nazis. It gets old fast.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
suede1 Donating Member (770 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Sep-12-10 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
12. Kick.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 07:46 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC