Why do people think Fascism is right-wing? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Any other minor ideologies.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14853892
Unthinking Majority wrote:Communism is extreme leftism because it desires equal outcomes for everyone.


Maybe in theory but in actual practice it was quite a different matter.

Fascism is on the extreme right because firstly it is a racist ideology where certain races (and cultures/ethnicities) are deemed superior vs inferior on a hierarchy, where the most "inferior" (Jews etc) are even executed.


Not all fascist regimes were racist. Fascists consider individuals inferior or superior, not necessarily races.
#14854229
Not all fascist regimes were racist. Fascists consider individuals inferior or superior, not necessarily races.

If that's all there were to fascism, then capitalism would be fascism in practice. After all, the justification for the unequal outcomes in the capitalist mode of production is that some individuals are more 'deserving' of success than others, since they contribute more to the process of production (i.e., by investing capital, by inventing new production methods, and the like). Despite the theoretical equality of capitalist society, in practice it implicitly espouses unequal outcomes as being the result of the unequal qualities of individuals.

Of course, fascism is more than this. Its key signature seems to be a rejection of materialism, whether bourgeois materialism or dialectical materialism. It explicitly espouses human inequality, and does so not on the basis of economic production but on the basis of 'race' or 'spirit' or the like.
#14854235
My understanding is that fascism is, at least it is supposed to be, based on corporatism. So society is an organism, and each individual is like a cell of that organism, each ultimately expendable for the good of the greater society. Facism is a total rejection of the enlightenment and humanism. Individualism, equality, popular sufferage, accountable authority,...none of this matters to a fascist. Society is everything, the individual is nothing.

I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of what facism is supposed to be about.

OK, so is this right wing? Well, I’d say no. Right wing should be about where one would sit in the French revolutionary parliament. The right wing was pro-aristocracy. Fascists typically are not pro-aristocratic. Left wing or right wing doesn’t make sense. If they had to be squeezed into that dichotomy, then they would be left wing.
#14854265
foxdemon wrote: So society is an organism, and each individual is like a cell of that organism, each ultimately expendable for the good of the greater society. Facism is a total rejection of the enlightenment and humanism. Individualism, equality, popular sufferage, accountable authority,...none of this matters to a fascist. Society is everything, the individual is nothing.

I could be wrong, but that is my understanding of what facism is supposed to be about.


I agree but you could substitute State for society. Adolf's conduct at the end exemplified the fascist attitude. He lived for his cause, his State, a greater Whole much more important than any individual, even himself. What did Adolf do in 1945, when the war was lost? Did he run away to South America with a lot of wealth? He stayed in Berlin directing the war until the very last hope was gone for his State and cause. At that point, he no longer had a raison d'etre and killed himself.
Last edited by starman2003 on 21 Oct 2017 10:56, edited 1 time in total.
#14854270
At that point, he no longer had a raisin d'etre and killed himself.

I bet he didn't have any sultanas either. Seems a bit extreme to kill himself just because he'd run out of snack food to nibble on though. :eh:
#14854291
The Immortal Goon wrote:Lenin died in 1924. While Mussolini was a name at that point, Lenin was more worried about what would happen with the USSR after he died than some jag-off in a small defeated country was whining about.

Italy was on the winning side in WWI? Also arguably without little Italy's victory over the great Ottoman Empire, there would have been no First and Second Balkan wars or WWI. Russia the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungry were destroyed and Germany was relegated, although like when Man United was relegated in 1974 they bounced back quickly. After World War I Italy had moved up to fourth or fifth in the world rankings.
#14855164
Rich wrote:Italy was on the winning side in WWI?


Is that a question?

Italy was nominally on the winning side but their war aims were not secured and the Treaty did not recognize the agreed upon expansion into the Balkans that Italy demanded.

Also arguably without little Italy's victory over the great Ottoman Empire, there would have been no First and Second Balkan wars or WWI. Russia the Ottoman Empire and Austria-Hungry were destroyed and Germany was relegated, although like when Man United was relegated in 1974 they bounced back quickly. After World War I Italy had moved up to fourth or fifth in the world rankings.


Despite your glance at whatever cereal box you're using to try and have a talk with the grown-ups, your imaginary counter-history has nothing to do with anything in this topic. If you want to know about Italy not securing its goals and starting fascism, I left some helpful links.

Most users could start here.

But Rich, this is the link for you :up:
#14855333
The Immortal Goon wrote:Italy was nominally on the winning side but their war aims were not secured and the Treaty did not recognize the agreed upon expansion into the Balkans that Italy demanded.

There was nothing nominal about Italy's membership of the winning side. It was on the winning side. I don't know if any of the parties to were really happy, maybe Romania. Italy achieved significant territorial expansion being given territory in Africa by both France and Britain.

If you want to see a real loser nation in World War II look at the Brest Litosk treaty signed by Lenin.
#14855378
Rich wrote:There was nothing nominal about Italy's membership of the winning side. It was on the winning side. I don't know if any of the parties to were really happy, maybe Romania. Italy achieved significant territorial expansion being given territory in Africa by both France and Britain.


You apparently had some trouble with the National Geographic for Kids reference I recommended. It can be a lot of reading! Here, I will give you the most important part for the discussion you're trying to engage with:

National Geographic for Kids wrote:In 1914, Italy took the side of the United Kingdom and the U.S. in World War I, but was left in poverty at war's end. Benito Mussolini and his Fascist Party rose to power promising to restore the Roman Empire. He ruled as a dictator and entered World War II on the side of Germany and Japan. He was later captured and executed.


Rich wrote:If you want to see a real loser nation in World War II look at the Brest Litosk treaty signed by Lenin.


Your grasp of history seems feeble enough that I'm not sure whether you actually mean World War II or not. Thus I cannot comment as the meaning of the post would be different in either case.
#14857169
The Immortal Goon wrote:You apparently had some trouble with the National Geographic for Kids reference I recommended. It can be a lot of reading! Here, I will give you the most important part for the discussion you're trying to engage with:

Your grasp of history seems feeble enough that I'm not sure whether you actually mean World War II or not. Thus I cannot comment as the meaning of the post would be different in either case.

My typing mistake I meant World War I. Between 1911 and Lenin's effective political death in late 1922, Italy had hugely expanded its territory. As I said it was Italy's victory in Libya over the Ottoman empire that unleashed the sequence of events that led to the first world war. Italy was no loser nation when Lenin died.

Lenin promised "Bread Peace Land", three lies in three words. He promised a just peace enforced on the German high command by ordinary German soldiers. Instead he delivered a humiliating surrender to the German high command at Brest Litosk, which the nationalists of the surrender territories nor the Left SRs or any of the other Russian parties would accept. Hence he achieved surrender without peace.

Potemkin wrote:After all, the justification for the unequal outcomes in the capitalist mode of production is that some individuals are more 'deserving' of success than others, since they contribute more to the process of production (i.e., by investing capital, by inventing new production methods, and the like).

That's not my justification for the broad outlines of the current system, which the (right) Libertarians rightly point out is not Capitalism. The system has much injustice, but much less injustice than the alternatives. I'm a Republican but I prefer the rule of the Windsors to Tsar Stalin, king Pol Pott or Lord Saddam. You can't have Capitalism with full adult suffrage democracy and it seems more of the Libertarians are starting to realise this and fantasising about limiting the suffrage.
#14857294
You can't have Capitalism with full adult suffrage democracy and it seems more of the Libertarians are starting to realise this and fantasising about limiting the suffrage.

Indeed. In order for Libertarianism to be implemented, it would first be necessary to prevent most of the population from voting against it, as they assuredly would if they understood what it would mean for them. The more intelligent Libertarians seem to be toying with the idea of an absolutist monarchical system, though the details remain to be worked out. Thus we see the spectacle of classical liberalism, when taken to its logical conclusion, inevitably abolishing itself.
#14857326
So if we did have full and equal sufferage and somehow got the political system money free what would happen?

As for libertarians, they are gross and think silly thoughts and should not be given power.
#14857402
Rich wrote:My typing mistake I meant World War I. Between 1911 and Lenin's effective political death in late 1922, Italy had hugely expanded its territory. As I said it was Italy's victory in Libya over the Ottoman empire that unleashed the sequence of events that led to the first world war. Italy was no loser nation when Lenin died.


It is frustrating to try and debate with an apparent illiterate. I've already posted this, which addresses your little tizzy about Italy.

More:

USHMM wrote:The newly formed German democratic government saw the Versailles Treaty as a "dictated peace" (Diktat). Although France, which had suffered more materially than the other parties in the "Big Four," had insisted upon harsh terms, the peace treaty did not ultimately help to settle the international disputes which had initiated World War I. On the contrary, it tended to hinder inter-European cooperation and make more fractious the underlying issues which had caused the war in the first place. The dreadful sacrifices of war and tremendous loss of life, suffered on all sides, weighed heavily not only upon the losers of the conflict, but also upon those combatants on the winning side, like Italy, whose postwar spoils seemed incommensurate with the terrible price its nation had paid in blood and material goods.


History in an Hour wrote:Italy, lured into war in 1915 by territorial promises, was treated dismissively during talks causing its prime minister, Vittorio Orlando, to walk out. Italy was disappointed by its spoils of war. Orlando, heavily criticised by Italy’s rising Right, led by Benito Mussolini, was soon ousted.


Reference.com wrote:Italy had originally entered World War I on the side of the Allies as the result of the Treaty of London in 1915. This treaty promised an enormous amount of territory to Italy, including lands along its border with Austria-Hungary, islands in the Adriatic, portions of Albania and territory in the Ottoman Empire. When the war was over, Italy expected the treaty to be honored, but to do so would have interfered with the sovereignty of several groups in the region. The Allies were also disappointed with Italy's performance in the war, so they reduced the rewards Italy would receive. In response, the Italians pulled out of the treaty negotiations for a time, but ultimately accepted the terms offered.

The Treaty of Versailles was incredibly unpopular in Italy, and fueled significant anti-British, anti-French and anti-American sentiment in the country. Benito Mussolini later capitalized on this anger during his rise to power, and Italy's perceived mistreatment was one of the reasons he cited for Italy's entry into World War II on the side of Germany.


Thoughtco wrote:The weakest of the four major victorious powers, Italy sought to ensure that it received the territory that it had been promised by the Treaty of London in 1915. This largely consisted of the Trentino, Tyrol (including Istria and Trieste), and the Dalmatian coast excluding Fiume. Heavy Italian losses and a severe budget deficit as a result of the war led to a belief that these concessions had been earned.

During the talks in Paris, Orlando was constantly hampered by his inability to speak English.

... For the early part of the conference, many of the key decisions were made by the "Council of Ten" which was comprised of the leaders and foreign ministers of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, and Japan. In March, it was decided that this body was too unwieldy to be effective. As a result, many of the foreign ministers and nations left conference, with talks continuing between Wilson, Lloyd George, Clemenceau, and Orlando. Key among the departures was Japan, whose emissaries were angered by a lack of respect and the conference's unwillingness to adopt a racial equality clause for the Covenant of the League of Nations. The group shrank further when the Italy was offered Trentino to the Brenner, the Dalmatian port of Zara, the island of Lagosta, and a few small German colonies in lieu of what was originally promised.

Irate over this and the group's unwillingness to give Italy Fiume, Orlando departed Paris and returned home.


Wikipedia wrote:Reaction in Italy to the treaty was extremely negative. The country had suffered high casualties, yet failed to achieve most of its major war goals, notably gaining control of the Dalmatian coast and Fiume. President Wilson rejected Italy's claims on the basis of "national self-determination." For their part, Britain and France—who had been forced in the war's latter stages to divert their own troops to the Italian front to stave off collapse—were disinclined to support Italy's position at the peace conference. Differences in negotiating strategy between Premier Vittorio Orlando and Foreign Minister Sidney Sonnino further undermined Italy's position at the conference. A furious Vittorio Orlando suffered a nervous collapse and at one point walked out of the conference (though he later returned). He lost his position as prime minister just a week before the treaty was scheduled to be signed, effectively ending his active political career. Anger and dismay over the treaty's provisions helped pave the way for the establishment of Benito Mussolini's dictatorship three years later.


I can go on virtually forever. Apparently you are the only person that thinks that Italy got a great deal out of World War I.

Lenin promised "Bread Peace Land", three lies in three words. He promised a just peace enforced on the German high command by ordinary German soldiers. Instead he delivered a humiliating surrender to the German high command at Brest Litosk, which the nationalists of the surrender territories nor the Left SRs or any of the other Russian parties would accept. Hence he achieved surrender without peace.


Image

Go back under the rock you crawl out from before returning to embarrass yourself.
#14949554
Potemkin wrote:And this, indeed, is precisely what we see happening in the USA right now. From the 1990s and Newt Gingrich's gridlocks onwards, the self-proclaimed "conservatives" in the US have been doing everything in their power to make America ungovernable. Their reasoning is that all political power, all government, is by definition socialistic. Bill Clinton was therefore a "socialist", Obama was a "socialist", even the two George Bushes were "socialists" simply by virtue of the fact that they were the head of government. In reality, we see the bourgeois class trying to abolish its own rule; we see the bourgeois class turning its sword against its own right to govern society. It's astounding.

To elaborate on this self destruction of governance, I think it is specifically aimed at the state as the basis of taking value from the market and revealing more clearly than ever capitalist rule of the state in being reduced to an arm for capitalists showing the anomaly of the welfare of the last century.
https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/ethics.htm
However, the accelerating commodification of social relations accompanying the break-up of social support and repression mechanisms such as the family has been linked to the acceleration of rights which correspond to the atomisation of society. For example, the right to divorce, equal pay, anti-discrimination laws etc., have gone hand-in-hand with the growth of the service sector so that the market has stepped into the vacuum left by domestic labour carried out under kinship responsibilities. Litigation increasingly replacing social responsibility and regulation; even trade unions have come to resemble insurance services. Universal compulsory education has become, in reality, a fiction with state schools increasingly under-funded and crisis-ridden and higher education more and more an employment requisite.

Bourgeois society is becoming a society of abstract people with abstract political rights.

But, during this same recent period, even the "safety-net" of the welfare state has also been subject to the same process of extended commodification and has been attenuated: public health and education have suffered in quality and more and more attract payment; old age pensions are being supplanted by self-funded superannuation schemes; public housing and public transport have suffered from reduced public funding with the private sector moving into the sector. Despite hopes to the contrary, capitalism is fashioning society into an image of itself. Workers have fought for welfare rights in the only way possible, by forcing the state to appropriate a portion of the revenue of capital and allocate it to welfare, and by forcing the state to legislate the gains made in bargaining with the employers.

Abstract political rights should ensure that the capitalist class ultimately control the state which is being relied upon as the custodian of workers' (and women's and children's, etc.] rights. Still, the bourgeoisie are systematically shrinking the state and stripping it back to its essence - the military and police. In their zeal, the bourgeoisie don't know when to stop, and we see things like the contracting out of logistics by the army.

Those rights which are exercised by taking labour out of the commodity market and entrusting them to the State have an inherently anti-bourgeois character. The development of capitalism is antithetical to such rights and the bourgeoisie is responding everywhere by diminishing the capacity of the state to do anything.


Which is making me think of those who rightly discern how civil life is being taken over by commoditification. Changing traditional hierarchial relations into one's of mutual exchange but not essentially human relations and as such there isn't a return to the old hierarchy's but instead a need to create life beyond value in collaborative and human relationships.
Spoiler: show
https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/help/lib.htm
The post-war period and the upsurge of the national liberation movement and the socialisation of women's labour particularly in the industrialised countries has had the result of extending the value relationship, the commodity relation, into every pore of human life and into every corner of the globe, the destruction of all forms of public enterprise, the elaboration of the division of labour to its highest level alongside the reduction of labour to its most abstract form, the drawing into the world economy of every last refuge of feudal or tribal society, the penetration of trade into the family by the actual destruction of the family and of all relations of kinship, the substitution of recourse to litigation for all forms of moral obligation or state and judicial regulation, the provision via the market of sex, love, friendship, pleasure, comfort, revenge, parenthood and child-care, education and religion.

How do we react to these phenomena of the final stage of development of capitalism marking its complete maturity while threatening to plunge humanity into unspeakable global poverty? One can hardly resist the argument that we must defend the public sector (education, health, transport, etc.), family life and ordinary human relationships, the environment, the right of nations to manage their own affairs - all in the process of being eradicated by capitalism — in other words to defend those enclaves from which the value relation was formerly excluded. [c.f. Communist Manifesto]

However, would it not be more rational to aim to go “beyond value”? To supercede the exchange of labour altogether in favour of world-wide cooperative labour?

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/For%20Ethical%20Politics.pdf
Kant tells us that we must always treat another person as an end and never as mere means [Metaphysical Elements of Ethics, Kant 1780]. The relation of exchange of commodities at their value, is one in which each uses the other as a means to their own end. This relation is by definition mutual (symmetrical), but it is a relationship of mutual instrumentalism, of mutual manipulation, and so must still fall short of a genuinely human relationship. What I mean by a "genuinely human relationship", is expressed in Agnes Heller's formulation of the "golden rule": "I do unto you what I expect you to do unto me. [Luke 6:31] What I do unto you and what you do unto me should be decided by you and me". [Beyond Justice, p. 253] but with the additional determination that "what we do", is "decided by you and me".

An example of this process can be seen in the higher education "industry". Corporatism, by casting the student as a "customer" purchasing knowledge from the academy, has broken down the hierarchical and bureaucratic teacher-centred and elitist notions of learning. But the "customer focus" notions which have replaced them is a nonsense hardly worthy of critique. However, the best academics respond not with a call for a return to the former hierarchical teachercentred relationship, but rather with a move forward to collaborative learning. It is on this notion of collaboration which I rely in critique of the commodity relationship.


And this emphasis on collaboration I think is to be found in project not defined by temporary mutual interests but in emphasis on something that stands above individual interests as exemplified in the Greek Amphictony.
Spoiler: show
The remarkable success of the amphictonies must cause us to reflect on their significance for our own times. The establishment of an amphictony recognises that the relevant subjects do not intend to make an alliance or union, but are prepared to deal with each other as moral equals and make common sacrifices in order to protect and maintain something of common value to them all, and are prepared to continue doing that even when at war with one another. Participation in an amphictony in no way sacrificed the sovereignty of the participating states, since maintenance and protection of the sacred site was the only responsibility of the amphictony, even though that duty could have profound repercussions for any state.

The inclusion in the scope of an amphictony of the inviolability of water sources gives us a clue as to what a modern amphictony would mean. It is the institutionalisation of the recognition by subjects, that there is something which transcends them and whatever may separate them. The nearest thing to a modern amphictony would be a league of independent sovereign subjects which accepted the responsibility to protect the environment or a particular feature of the environment relevant to them.

Amphictony provides for bonds with other subjects with whom we would not form an alliance or even make a peace, but which is in many senses stronger and more long-lasting than an alliance. An amphictony can be exceptionally long-lasting because the object to be protected defines its continuity, rather than the parties.

An amphictony differs from a hegemony because the controlling entity (on one hand the hegemon, on the other the sacred site) is outside, and it is not a subject. Amphicton, the mythical founder of the Great Amphictonic League was born of the soil of the sacred site. The maintenance of shared festivals (like May Day) and institutions (the unions) are possible examples, but above all of course, protection of the environment, create opportunities for the establishment of amphictonies.

At a deeper level, what the amphictony represents is the collaboration of mutually sovereign and independent subjects in a common project, itself a sovereign and independent project outside or above the life of each participating subject. The shared religious rituals and beliefs of the Greek people provided this opportunity, just as do shared religious beliefs and institutions today, though it is stewardship of the environment which is more paradigmatically modern.
#14949616
Blook wrote:The idea of the Right is more liberty and individual freedoms, each person having sovereignty with less government involvement and a freer market.

No its not. The idea of the Right is deference to the established order, to what is the established order, or what was until recently the established order. Gladstone on the Left was more in favour of free markets, Disraeli on the Right was less free market. Washington, Jefferson et al were parasitic freeloaders on the British empire. They loved the Hanoverian military machine and its decisive defeat of French power in North America in the seven years war as the Anglo settlers loved the English / British state's military machine's earlier defeats of Spanish, Dutch and Swedish power in North America. The founders were the most exceptional hypocrites who wouldn't have known an ethical / moral principle if it had smashed them in the face.

Libertarians have certainly carried on the contemptible, morally corrupt hypocritical tradition of the American founders. They have supported extreme authoritarianism repeatedly and then claimed moral purity when they no longer gained from that support. Libertarians supported the North Atlantic Slave trade, the fugitive slave clause, the centralisation of the Confederate Constitution, Jim Crow corruption, Christian social authoritarianism, Alcohol, Cannabis and other drug prohibitions. They supported Franco, fascists and the Nazis. They supported conscription and state sanctioned marriage.

Every time they abandon the authoritarian policy when it no longer serves them and then whine on about their absolutely non existent moral principles.
#14955433
Fascism bad guy.

Me good guy.

Me left-wing? Then fascism be right-wing.

Me right-wing? Then fascism be left-wing.

It all boils down to that. Nothing more, nothing less.

Need to think it is more than that? Then clothe it in the ideological attire of your choice, and tell yourself it's more intellectually sophisticated than it really is.

If you are still calling yourself "left-wing" or "right-wing", and your opinion on every political phenomenon is determined by which side of this opposition you happen to fall on, you are being manipulated by people that think you are very stupid.
#14955437
Vyth wrote:Fascism bad guy.

Me good guy.

Me left-wing? Then fascism be right-wing.

Me right-wing? Then fascism be left-wing.

It all boils down to that. Nothing more, nothing less.

No it doesn't. It boils down to pathetic narcissistic conservatives who need a fantasy reality. It wasn't just in Germany that the Nazis were with the right. Throughout the western democracies there was an overwhelming trend at the time for the right to be sympathetic if not out right supporters of the Nazis and for the Left to be sympathetic if not outright supporters of Stalin. Von Mises even worked for a fascist government.

Note many leftists have a similar pathetic narcissistic fantasy reality where only a few approved people are accepted as genuine leftists. The political spectrum is an objectively observable phenomena that we see constantly recreated across time and space, across the western and even non western world, over the last two hundred and twenty years, but even beyond. We can even to a significant extent discern the right left spectrum in the Roman Republic.

Now I'm going to explain this slowly for the hard of thinking on the forum. The issues that define the left right spectrum are not fixed. Not only which issues is not fixed the political positions are not fixed. What is a right wing political position can become a left wing political position in a different time or place. So people may be tempted to make arguments but famous figure A who was left (or right) wing and they had this policy therefore this politician in a completely different time and or space must be right wing (or left wing). Please don't do it, it makes you look like a retard.

You get these whining little bitches on both the right and the left. So Hilary Clinton is left wing, moderate left wing, very soft left wing, but nonetheless left wing. This is fact, its not a feeling or an opinion, she's leftwing. But then you'll get some whining leftie say, but I don't I like Hilary Clinton, I'm left wing, therefore Hilary can't be left wing. No wrong, narcissist the political spectrum is not created to make you feel good. This is not your personal face book group. You don't get to choose who you share your side of the politcal spectrum. Its time to grow up whether you are left right or centre. Whether you are right, left or even centre you have to share your region of the political spectrum with some people you seriously dislike.
#14955511
Drlee wrote:As a paleo-conservative (for lack of a better descriptor) I would like it to be sorta true.

Paleo-conservatives are people like Patrick J. Buchannan--who is anti-abortion. Let's be clear. Elective abortion was not promoted by conservatives. It was promoted as "Eugenic Abortion" by progressives as part of the Eugenics movement--that ultimately led to some of the extremes of Nazi Germany.

Drlee wrote:Look a the so-called neocons. They do not support individual freedom. They would, for example, rescind a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. (They make a weak argument about defending the "child") but this is mostly the imposition of religious principles. They would prohibit a person's right to marry whomever he/she chooses. Just two examples. How can these be seen to be socially libertarian principles? They are not.

The neoconservatives are a group of former Trotskyists led nominally by Norman Podhoretz--that is, mostly Jews. They are not evangelical Christians by a long shot. However, thinkers like Leo Strauss believed that a crisis in the West was spawned in part by the idea that the West had lost its ideological moorings, which he identified as classical Greek republicanism and Judeo-Christian heritage. In effect, by adopting atheism and progressivism, the West lost its way and led to actors like Hitler and Stalin. Neoconservatives are opposed to the pacifism of the New Left as represented by people like George McGovern.

Drlee wrote:Our current so-called conservative government wants to enforce existing federal marijuana laws in the face of states legalizing the drug.

Use of the federal supremacy clause was abused to effect social change. For example, the Warren Court effectively banned segregation in the South using federal supremacy. Federal marijuana laws follow in the vein as well. States rights was largely pushed by the Democratic party to maintain Jim Crow. It is an anti-federalist position and championed by today's Democratic party in order to exploit Central American laborers illegally in the United States.

Drlee wrote:We have an aggressive foreign policy. Right out of Moussilini's{sic} play book.

So you see, there are real similarities between (at least) the neocon movement in the US and the actual goals and practices of fascist Italy.

Mussolini was not trying to overthrow tyrannical governments and replace them with liberal democracies. That is the goal of neoconservatives, who have their own splintered factions opposed to this idea, such as Jean Kirkpatrick who made a distinction between authoritarianism and totalitarianism--supporting the former when necessary to combat the latter.

The Immortal Goon wrote:The Von Mises institute today continues the interpretation:

Right. This is why people like Kirkpatrick were fine with deposing Allende for Pinochet, for example.

Blook wrote:The idea of the Right is more liberty and individual freedoms, each person having sovereignty with less government involvement and a freer market. However people seem to associate this with Fascism, which is an ideology which involves people renouncing/giving up their individuality and essentially giving their whole life to the state.

In the post-war era, Fascism became the bogey man of the far left. So anyone they don't like tends to be labelled as fascist, even if they bear little or no relation to fascism. Many self-styled intellectuals similarly assume anyone who disagrees with them is stupid--their ultimate evil. In the United States, the totalitarian tendency to censorship is happening on the political left today. It has some practical roots too, in that the mass surveillance state can capture the bulk of content, but it cannot detect subtleties or nuances like sarcasm, sardonic wit, parody, or satire. So the censors use a mass of "complainers" to stoke up "controversy" and then they react to that, because computers can't do it effectively.
Trump and Russiagate

Avenatti will probably represent himself. I can’t[…]

1st part, you are wrong. The US makes voluntary c[…]

As you say, it costs us a ton of money, because w[…]

My favorite type of MRA is the one who just waits […]