[RonPaulalways]

If I called libertarianism a fascist ideology you would object strongly. Why should we accept your plainly wrong characterisation of Nazis as socialists?

Hardly any one who claims themselves to be a libertarian considers libertarianism a fascist ideology, whilst the NAZI party considered theirs to be a socialist ideology.

Quote:
the commonly understood definition


That was the propaganda line of the US from 1917-92, yes. But that was for propaganda purposes. Also reflecting the USSR and Cuba's official propaganda line that the USSR and allies were 'true' socialist societies to suppress dissent internally.

whether a definition happens to be the same as what propaganda claimed it to be is irrelevant. A definition for a word is the most commonly used understanding of the word in a language. Socialism is commonly understood to be an ideology that believes in heavy state involvement in the economy and central planning. This definition is at the very least, one of the major definitions of the term, so it's not incorrect to use it.

[ingliz]

Hardly any one who claims themselves to be a libertarian considers libertarianism a fascist ideology...

A lot of us on the libertarian left do.

"Libertarianism is Fascism

1. The Cult of the Superior Man. Both libertarians and fascists think the world is divided into superior and inferior people, ubermenschen and untermenschen, and they both believe that most of the evil in the world comes from inferior people keeping the superior ones down. They both promise to release the best and the brightest from the shackles placed on them by the unworthy - whether the unworthy happen to be the "lazy poor" or "government bureaucrats" or "dirty Jews" or immigrants.

The only difference between libertarians and fascists is that libertarians don't believe (or they say they don't believe) that superior people should enforce their will on inferior people. But this is a thin line, easily crossed. Once you've convinced yourself that you're better than everyone else, it's easy to justify repressing the ignorant masses, for their own good. Which leads us neatly to the second point...

"It would be absurd to appraise a man's worth by the race to which he belongs and at the same time to make war against the Marxist principle, that all men are equal, without being determined to pursue our own principle to its ultimate consequences. If we admit the significance of blood, that is to say, if we recognize the race as the fundamental element on which all life is based, we shall have to apply to the individual the logical consequences of this principle. In general I must estimate the worth of nations differently, on the basis of the different races from which they spring, and I must also differentiate in estimating the worth of the individual within his own race. The principle, that one people is not the same as another, applies also to the individual members of a national community. No one brain, for instance, is equal to another; because the constituent elements belonging to the same blood vary in a thousand subtle details, though they are fundamentally of the same quality."
-- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", volume II, chapter 4.



"Fascism.. asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficent inequality of men."
-- The Doctrine of Fascism, authored by Giovanni Gentile, signed by Benito Mussolini

2. Opposition to democracy. Both libertarians and fascists hate democracy because they don't think inferior people should be able to tell superior people what to do. They both hate democracy because democracy gives power to the "unwashed masses" on the assumption that all people are equal. It's important to note, however, that libertarians and fascists are not necessarily hostile to the masses themselves - in fact they are often populist, from Mussolini to Ron Paul. They are only hostile to the idea of equality among the masses, and most of all to the idea of equality between the masses and the elite. Libertarians and fascists often genuinely believe that they are working to help the people, the masses, but they believe that salvation can only come from above, from the elite. Which leads us to the third point...

"Mankind is not a uniform and equal mass. There are differences between races. The Earth has received its culture from elite peoples; what we see today is ultimately the result of the activity and the achievements of the Aryans. Decisive within each race, however, are the personalities it is able to produce. Personalities have created the cultural shape of mankind and not democratic majorities."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "The rise of the Nazis", Conan Fischer. Manchester University Press: New York, 1995. Page 139.

3. Belief in Natural Hierarchy. Libertarians and fascists are elitists, and moreover they believe that elitism and hierarchy are part of the natural order of things. The phrase "rebellion against nature" has been used by libertarians and fascists to describe the political views of their enemies - particularly egalitarian views. Libertarians and fascists don't think their kind of society is the best among a number of competing kinds of viable societies, they believe their kind of society is the ONLY viable, "natural" kind of society. Libertarians and fascists tell the masses that they have to subject themselves to hierarchy for their own good, because hierarchy and inequality is the only way to have a civilized society.

"There are three ways of settling the social question: The privileged class rules the people. The insurgent proletariat exterminates the possessing class. Or else our third formula that gives each man the opportunity to develop himself according to his talents."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 267.

Those are the fundamental similarities between libertarian and fascist thinking, but there are also many other, less vital parallels:

4. Belief that the unfortunate get what they deserve. If hierarchy is natural, it follows that those at the bottom of the hierarchy are there through their own fault or their own flaws. Libertarians think the poor deserve to be poor. Fascists think oppressed races deserve to be oppressed. Both libertarians and fascists have voiced support for the "IQ and the Wealth of Nations" thesis - the idea that poor countries in Africa and Latin America are poor because their people are stupid.

"It is my firm conviction that property rights... must be unconditionally respected. Any tampering with them would eliminate one of the most vital incentives to human activity and would jeopardise future endeavour."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 368.

"The individual must be given more latitude and be taught to cultivate a sense of responsibility and a readiness to accept it."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "Hitler's Secret Conversations", translated by Norman Cameron and R.H. Stevens. Farrar, Straus and Young: United States, 1953. Page 536.

It is true that fascists think poor nations are poor primarily for ethnic reasons. But not only for ethnic reasons. Fascists also always made the argument that certain nations - particularly Russia - are poor because of communism:

"Russia could be a land of plenty, but the production of real values is forthwith utterly destroyed by Bolshevism [...] and such production cannot be brought into working order again even after twenty years."
-- Adolf Hitler, quoted in "The Speeches of Adolf Hitler", translated by Norman H. Baynes. Oxford University Press: London, 1942. Page 705.

5. Conspiracy theories. Unlike Marxists, who recognize that different social and economic institutions are appropriate at different stages of history, libertarians and fascists believe that their ideas are always valid, everywhere at all times. The question then arises, if their ideas are so right, and if they've always been right, how come they haven't conquered the world yet? There is only one possible explanation: conspiracy. Libertarians and fascists cannot explain their own failures, so they use all sorts of conspiracy theories to rationalize them. Someone - Jews or evil government bureaucrats - must be conspiring to smear and hide the eternal truth of libertarianism or fascism. New World Order, Federal Reserve controlled by Jews and Communists etc etc.

Right. A conspiracy of Jews is crushing the people in the Nazi case, and a conspiracy of bureaucrats is crushing the people in the libertarian case. The people cannot see their true interests, and it is up to the fascist/libertarian to bring about a glorious rebirth based on old, forgotten values and the practices of the people's heroic ancestors (that's 19th century free marketeers or the "Founding Fathers" for you libertarians, medieval heroes for the fascists). And this is to be done by undemocratic means - because democracy is evil - and against the will of the majority if necessary.

6. The Cult of Righteous Violence. Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies. They don't see such "righteous violence" as a necessary evil, the way others may view a just war or a revolution. No, they see this violence as a good thing, something to be embraced and celebrated."

[RonPaulalways]

You believe your ideology, left-libertarianism, to be a form of fascism? If not, then it's not a correct analogy for NAZIs considering their ideology a form of socialism.

Libertarians and fascists love their guns, and they firmly uphold the use of righteous violence (that's "retaliatory force" in libertarian-speak) against their enemies.

So typical of the inaccurate socialist hogwash you post. NAZI Germany prohibited private ownership of guns.

NAZI ideology is actually very similar to Marxism in its declaration that it was a right to use violence to overthrow the prevailing order:

Closing Statement from Communist Manifesto:

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Proletarians of all countries, unite!


Both are violent ideologies with no respect for the liberties of others.

[ingliz]

You said no libertarian believed Libertarianism to be fascist and you are wrong as usual. Libertarians and Libertarianism are two different things.

You seem to have great difficulty with words and their meanings.

[RonPaulalways]

You said no libertarian believed libertarianism to be fascist and you are wrong as usual. Libertarians and libertarianism are two different things.

If you want to get pharisaical, then I can point out that those left-libertarians don't consider libertarianism, which is a broad school that in their own mind includes their ideology, to be fascist, just right-libertarianism.

[redcarpet]

Socialism is commonly understood to be an ideology that believes in heavy state involvement in the economy and central planning

No, Stalinism is. Accompanied by political tyranny.

whether a definition happens to be the same as what propaganda claimed it to be is irrelevant

Intention never is irrelevant. Context is everything. Otherwise you're engaging in Lying by Omission;

One lies by omission by omitting an important fact, deliberately leaving another person with a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. A husband may tell his wife he was out at a store, which is true, but lie by omitting the fact that he also visited a bar.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie

This definition is at the very least, one of the major definitions of the term

So because in your view most people have adopted this view, it's legitimate even if it was due to government propaganda decade after decade even if it's false, it's accurate to use it? ROFL!

[RonPaulalways]

So because in your view most people have adopted this view, it's legitimate even if it was due to government propaganda decade after decade even if it's false, it's accurate to use it? ROFL!

Yes, it's accurate to use it, and it's no longer false, since meaning is determined by the general understanding. I don't see why this is shocking to you. Clear communication requires using the most commonly understood definition of a word, not what the originator of the word wanted it to mean.

[ingliz]

Ronald:

Then you agree that "Libertarianism", right libertarianism, is a fascist ideology?

[RonPaulalways]

Ingliz, I don't know why it's so difficult for you to carry on a discussion that relays information accurately.

[ingliz]

"Yes, it's accurate to use it, and it's no longer false, since meaning is determined by the general understanding. I don't see why this is shocking to you. Clear communication requires using the most commonly understood definition of a word, not what the originator of the word wanted it to mean."

Ingliz, I don't know why it's so difficult for you to carry on a discussion that relays information accurately.

Fascist - That is the general understanding when the word "Libertarianism" is used in polite company

[RonPaulalways]

No it isn't.

[Dave]

RPA, can't you see that ingliz is trolling you? Everyone knows that fascism and libertarianism are highly distinct. Leftists sometimes call libertarians "fascist" in the same way they smear everyone on the right as "fascist", much as some on the right will smear anyone on the left as "communist".

[RonPaulalways]

Yes I know he's trolling but I thought it'd be good to respond to show that I'm willing to engage in discussion.

[Huntster]

the Nazis were national SOCIALISTS, so yes he can claim he's being objective in criticizing all forms of socialism

No, you're conflating and misleading about what socialism is.

Socialism is;

1. Democratic control of the political system

2. Worker's councils running the economy

3. Total public ownership

That's a basic framework, even those basic policies are opposed by fascists.

Your coloring of socialism isn't necessarily so. More importantly, I and Marx believe it inevitably leads to something else:

Socialism:

–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

While your idealism that "worker's councils" and "democratic control" as a means of controlling socialism is really neat, it cannot last for long. That is why Marx correctly identified it as a stage between capitalism and communism. Fascism is a case in point:

Fascism:

–noun
1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
2. (sometimes initial capital letter) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism.
3. (initial capital letter) a fascist movement, esp. the one established by Mussolini in Italy 1922–43.

The communism of the Soviet Union crashed headlong into total state control and never truly exhibited a period of socialism. But there have been lots of socialist states in Europe, and many of them have been fascist.

It is exceedingly difficult to have a fascist form of government under a true free market economic system. In order for the dictator to have control of the economy, it must be socialized at least to an extent where it can be assumed by the dictator.

[ingliz]

Ronald,

Nazi socialism/ Democratic Kampuchea:

As Mr Wolfman said "It's like saying the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia was a Democratic one, just because they said they were."

[sad59yearold]

If you look back at the second world war, you will see that the 'communists' and 'nazi's',really just the leaders of the USSR and Germany, (as idealologies only concern those in, or in pursuit of power), were in fact idealologically opposed. They did team up for a while, until Schicklegrubers paranoia and hatred got the better of him and he became convinced that Germany and Britain would join forces and wipe the USSR off the face of the earth.