Fascism: The Father of American Liberalism.

[NYcarbineer]

And you pick Jonah Goldberg... the idiot...stupid is as stupid does...



The 14 Characteristics of Fascism

The 14 characteristics are:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause

4. Supremacy of the Military

5. Rampant Sexism

6. Controlled Mass Media

7. Obsession with National Security

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined

9. Corporate Power is Protected

10. Labor Power is Suppressed

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption

14. Fraudulent Elections

No passion so effectually robs the mind of all its powers of acting and reasoning as fear.
Edmund Burke

Sounds more like the Repug poltical system.

Of course. This thread is more classic conservative projection.

 

[Polk]

Fascism dismantles the free market system, which leads to tyranny. But the problem is that unfettered markets lead to the same result.

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

You're making the same argument without realizing it. At the point at which rules are put into place, it's no longer a free market, strictly speaking.

 

[Bfgrn]

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

Pretty close. But, what must be understood is that America does not have a free market system. It is subsidized capitalism. The 'socialists' Hayek despises are the corporations. The current crisis we face is regulation reform. Do we put in place regulations that are fair and protect our economy and our people from the unfettered greed of a handful of Wall Street gamblers? The Republicans have their marching orders from Frank Luntz...KILL IT...no to regulation reform and use words to deceive the people...call it a bail out.

Unfortunately with today's politicians version of regulatory "reform" is just another way of saying exchanging one form of corruption for another form of corruption, the current regulatory "reforms" on the table are coming no where close to following the simple "rules" that Hayek set forth, they are simply "reform" efforts aimed at scoring political advantage and granting favors to special interests which is just as bad a regulation for regulations sake or de-regulation for de-regulations sake.

Same shit, different day.

Bullshit mumbo jumbo cop out.

Hayek even warns us about the Frank Luntz's ...

"The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language."
Hayek

Do you understand the difference between a free market and the subsidized capitalism we currently have?

 

[Polk]

That said, regulated markets are not centrally planned markets.

Of course they aren't, but that never stops you from claiming any proposed regulation is a facet of centralized control.

 

[Ragnar]

One thing we do know for a fact is that the Republicans perfect model for national government is in Iran. The only problem is the main religion is "Islam" and not "Christianity". Other than that, it would be "perfect".

I don't know that for a fact nor do I know anyone who thinks that is so. Nor can you point to a single elected Republican who advocates for that.

Now that said, and my athiesm aside, I wonder if that would be better than what we have now. Would that mean a flat tax of 10% for everyone? I'm down with that.

 

[Oddball]

That said, regulated markets are not centrally planned markets.

Of course they aren't, but that never stops you from claiming any proposed regulation is a facet of centralized control.

Wrong, yet again. Unlike you, I can make those subtle distinctions between a well and judiciously regulated market and authoritarian central planning.

Rudimentary rules for uniform weights & measures and against force & fraud impinge upon nobody's liberty,

 

[MIPS]

Hayek says that too, in The Road to Serfdom...

I don't recall Hayek making that specific arguement in The Road to Serfdom (although it's been a while since I read the book so my recollection of everything in it is imperfect), however he does make the case the "unfettered markets" (that is markets sans the existence of a regulatory framework) are essentially unworkable and then goes on to point out a set of "rules" that must be followed to construct and efficient and effective regulatory framework. In a nutshell he says (if memory serves) that such a regulatory framework must be fair (apply evenly to all participants), that regulation incurs costs and those costs must be quantified prior to implementation and that regulation requires continuous review and "updating" to remove unintended consequences.

You're making the same argument without realizing it.

What? I'm not making any argument, I was clarifying what I believe Hayek wrote in response to a poster that implied that Hayek wrote "unfettered markets lead to tyranny" which is a distortion of Hayeks position.

At the point at which rules are put into place, it's no longer a free market, strictly speaking.

The existence of a regulatory framework does not automatically nullify the existence of a free market (where participants are free to exchange based on mutually agreed upon terms) just as the existence of the gravity doesn't nullify the existence of freedom of movement.

 

[Polk]

The existence of regulations means the market isn't entirely free, just as the existence of gravity restrictions motion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, let's ask a real fascist:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini

Now, get from that to the foundations and core philosophies of American Liberalism.

Ready, set...go!!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

That said, regulated markets are not centrally planned markets.

Of course they aren't, but that never stops you from claiming any proposed regulation is a facet of centralized control.

Wrong, yet again. Unlike you, I can make those subtle distinctions between a well and judiciously regulated market and authoritarian central planning.

Rudimentary rules for uniform weights & measures and against force & fraud impinge upon nobody's liberty,

That's it? Weights and measures?

What about, say, federal regulations against industrial pollution?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not seeing how liberals can be simultaneously corporatist and, as they are labeled ad nauseum, anti-business...

 

[MIPS]

Pretty close. But, what must be understood is that America does not have a free market system. It is subsidized capitalism. The 'socialists' Hayek despises are the corporations. The current crisis we face is regulation reform. Do we put in place regulations that are fair and protect our economy and our people from the unfettered greed of a handful of Wall Street gamblers? The Republicans have their marching orders from Frank Luntz...KILL IT...no to regulation reform and use words to deceive the people...call it a bail out.

Unfortunately with today's politicians version of regulatory "reform" is just another way of saying exchanging one form of corruption for another form of corruption, the current regulatory "reforms" on the table are coming no where close to following the simple "rules" that Hayek set forth, they are simply "reform" efforts aimed at scoring political advantage and granting favors to special interests which is just as bad a regulation for regulations sake or de-regulation for de-regulations sake.

Same shit, different day.

Bullshit mumbo jumbo cop out.

Why because it doesn't agree with your partisan view of the world? I can't take anybody seriously that apparently thinks the motives of Washington politicians are pure because they happen to be members of their favorite corporate owned political party ,,,,, sorry.

Hayek even warns us about the Frank Luntz's ...

"The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language."
Hayek

It's unclear why you consider Frank Luntz to be such an important player in our economic policy, I certainly do not consider him as such, nor I suspect would Hayek since Luntz is just a glorified poll taker and political pundit with an inflated sense of his own self importance, I find the Hayek quote that you pointed out much more applicable to the progressives currently occupying the White House and Congress.

Do you understand the difference between a free market and the subsidized capitalism we currently have?

Apparently you're preparing to dazzle us with your inestimable wisdom, so pray continue and share your brilliance with the rest of the class, 'xplain it, I for one await with breathless anticipation.

 

[midcan5]

Can one imagine going into a classroom and hearing fascism is now liberal! You'd know right off the bat your teacher was batty and unless it were an easy grade and you considered gross stupidity irrelevant in a college class, you would leave immediately.

I've never understood the inability of conservatives to face the fact fascism is on the right. No historian until contemporary times has ever argued differently. Today, as with so much of the conservative echo chamber rhetoric, fascism turns out to be something all brand new.

In a nutshell liberalism is about individual freedom, conservatism is about hierarchy. That is written clearly in the ideological frameworks of each. To deny that is to say white is black. But take living examples if you need proof. Who wants to control a woman right to choose, a gay person's right to marry, or even UHC that allows all people more personal freedom: conservatives of course.

Another example, not one conservative complained as we illegally invaded a sovereign nation killing thousands of men women and children, and yet now they protest helping children through welfare or UHC. Nor do they complain as the draft dodger Cheney's corporate cousin makes millions and kills innocent people. And most conservatives worship at the doors of the wal-mart corporatism, and hate unions which help workers earn a fair wage.

Note too how conservatives are pro corporate healthcare and opposed to any change to corporate power. Conservatives today are more fascist than any time since FDR.


"The Corporation is established to develop the wealth, political power and welfare of the Italian people. Corporatism means a disciplined, and therefore a controlled, economy, since there can be no discipline which is not controlled. Corporatism overcomes Socialism as well as it does Liberalism: it creates a new synthesis." Mussolini

Fourteen points of fascism and the last administration. George W Bush and the 14 points of fascism - Project for the OLD American Century



Re: Hayek

Hayek was neither conservative nor liberal in his own words and thinking. Why the peabrains on the right mention him so often is because they have never read him nor understand the time he wrote in. Milieu is significant in understanding any thinker and so often neglected by propagandist wingnuts.

Hayek and Conservatism

"The belief is becoming more and more widespread that, if things are to get done, the responsible authorities must be freed from the fetters of democratic procedure." Chapter 5, p. 67 Friedrich Hayek

 

[Oddball]

Of course they aren't, but that never stops you from claiming any proposed regulation is a facet of centralized control.

Wrong, yet again. Unlike you, I can make those subtle distinctions between a well and judiciously regulated market and authoritarian central planning.

Rudimentary rules for uniform weights & measures and against force & fraud impinge upon nobody's liberty,

That's it? Weights and measures?

What about, say, federal regulations against industrial pollution?

More often than not, such pollution ends up violating someone's rights to property. Moreover, things like particulate standards that may make sense in the L.A. basin are completely irrelevant in a place like Rapid City, so one-size-fits-all federal rules and laws end up causing as many problems as the supposedly solve.

 

[MIPS]

The existence of regulations means the market isn't entirely free, just as the existence of gravity restrictions motion.

Completely irrelevant, since you're essentially saying that free markets require anarchy to exist which is generally accepted as an extremist position and not in my opinion worthy of any serious discussion.

 

[Oddball]

The old reducto-ad-anarchist is one of Polkie's favorite strawmen.

 

[Luissa]

There are times when a well known meme is, upon further inspection, clearly the reverse.

Fascism is regularly identified with Conservativism.

But try to define 'fascism,' and a straight line can be drawn between the definition and modern liberalism.

Some of the definitions are as follows:

1. Palingenetic ultranationalism is a theory concerning generic fascism formulated by British political theorist Roger Griffin. The key elements are that fascism can be defined by its core myth, namely that of "national rebirth" — palingenesis. (Palingenesis is the concept of mythic rebirth from the ashes, embodied by the Phoenix.

2. Stanley Payne's work, which offers a "typological definition" of fascism:

a. Creation of a new nationalist authoritarian state based not merely on traditional principles or models

b. Organization of some new kind of regulated, multiclass, integrated national economic structure, whether called national corporatist, national socialist, or national syndicalist

c. Specific espousal of an idealist, voluntarist creed, normally involving the attempt to realize a new form of modern, self-determined, secular culture

d. Attempted mass mobilization with militarization of political relationships and style and with the goal of a mass party militia

e. Positive evaluation and use of, or willingness to use, violence

f. Exaltation of youth above other phases of life, emphasizing the conflict of generations, at least in effecting the initial political transformation

g. Specific tendency toward an authoritarian, charismatic, personal style of command, whether or not the command is to some degree initially elective7
Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 7.


3. Emilio Gentile: "A mass movement, that combines different classes, but is predominantly of the middle classes, which sees itself as having a mission of national regeneration, is in a state of war with its adversaries and seeks a monopoly of power by using terror, parliamentary tactics, and compromise to create a new regime, destroying democracy." Stanley Payne, Fascism: Comparison and Definition (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1980), p. 5 n.6


And, the most precise and telling definition that I have come across:

4. "Fascism is a religion of the state. It is totalitarian in that it assumes everything is political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is defined as the enemy. American liberalism embodies all of these aspects of fascism." Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 23

YOu really like to throw those words around, don't you?
Calling liberals fascists just shows what a parisan hack you are, and that you really don't know what fascism means. When liberals start putting in place programs like postive eugenics, you can then post crap like this.

 

[Oddball]

When liberals start putting in place programs like postive eugenics, you can then post crap like this.

They like virtually all the social engineering programs that eugenicists do.....In fact their economic demi-god, J.M. Keynes, was a big proponent of eugenics.

So, just because they don't come right out and promote eugenics above board (very much in line with their Fabian proclivities), their policies ultimately lead down that road.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Wrong, yet again. Unlike you, I can make those subtle distinctions between a well and judiciously regulated market and authoritarian central planning.

Rudimentary rules for uniform weights & measures and against force & fraud impinge upon nobody's liberty,

That's it? Weights and measures?

What about, say, federal regulations against industrial pollution?

More often than not, such pollution ends up violating someone's rights to property. Moreover, things like particulate standards that may make sense in the L.A. basin are completely irrelevant in a place like Rapid City, so one-size-fits-all federal rules and laws end up causing as many problems as the supposedly solve.

Is that a yes or a no? Is environmental regulation of business an appropriate function of the federal government?

 

[NYcarbineer]

When liberals start putting in place programs like postive eugenics, you can then post crap like this.

They like virtually all the social engineering programs that eugenicists do.....In fact their economic demi-god, J.M. Keynes, was a big proponent of eugenics.

So, just because they don't come right out and promote eugenics above board (very much in line with their Fabian proclivities), their policies ultimately lead down that road.

What's an example of liberal eugenics that actually appears in real life?