The Campaign Against Diversity Of Thought
The term fascism has its origins in the ancient Roman Empire where the fasces was created as a symbol to represent the elitist ruling class and its many divers subordinates. The concept of this system was based on principles of collectivism. By using specific criteria to define members, a fascist movement determines to incorporate conforming members into one body under the control of an authoritarian ruling class with the objective of assimilating, eliminating, or bringing under subjugation all others.
Traditionally the identifying criteria to define members of a fascist entity has been based upon nationalism, imperialism, or race; nevertheless, physical attributes can be ignored and the operational principles of fascism may be put in application using a common ideology or religious belief to qualify members.
The accusation here is that the latter is being done presently by secularists and liberal elitists on a global scale. The result is a politically aggressive movement embracing a cosmopolitan ideology with aspirations for a collective authoritarian society. However, this movement is unique only in its outward manifestations.
Although not all of the views embraced by the Fascist Party of the 20th century are espoused by progressives today, their concepts of government structure are built upon the same architectural designs and they share a number of philosophies if only applied somewhat differently. Of all forms of government historically speaking, the form presently proposed and propagated by modern liberal progressives is fascism.
Ideofascism
While the actions of progressive liberals today are not a direct comparison to atrocities committed by twentieth century fascists, both ideologies were built upon a shared foundation of common philosophies. While it is true that the structures built upon that foundation differ, many differences are cosmetic, for when both philosophies are deconstructed, there are many more similarities than actual differences between the two.
The principle thing all fascists have in common is that they are based upon a theoretical praxis of socialism, which regardless of its form or intentions will tend only to oppression and destruction. The Nazis destroyed deliberately as a means to achieve their goals, but for liberal elitists, destructive results are often merely the consequences of their liberalism along the way—that is the nature of it. Neither be deceived; progressive elitists work on both sides of the political aisle.
All fascist movements, ancient or modern, are built around an arrogant nucleus of imagined superiority. This makes fascism a mass movement of narcissism which builds momentum by generating fanaticism for a “superior” cause. When a fascist movement achieves power, there is a tendency for the more extreme elements to seize control. As this happens, the movement becomes increasingly megalomaniacal and there is an intense determination to establish, expand, and protect their “omnipotence” by quashing all resistance.
This makes all fascist movements the same, with some exceptions as to outward appearances and the means they propose to use to carry out their ambitions. Regardless, however fascism frames itself or proposes to achieve its goals, the final outcome is destructive.
Although fascist movements consist of many members, they take on the identity of a single collective body. It is accepted that all actions are legitimate if they work for the greater common good of the body. Even atrocities are justified as a necessary evil if they strengthen or benefit the cause; for it is the end, not the means that carries weight in judgment.
There are millions of people who have and millions more who are destine to suffer and die under collective totalitarian rulers. It matters not if they are parading as fascist, socialist, communist, progressives, or religionist. Collectivists come to the masquerade in many costumes; but regardless of how they are dressed when they arrive, as they attain absolute authority, their collectivism will only tend to tyranny and at some point the mask will come off.
The term fascism has long been muddied and is often narrowly defined by liberals, who in order to obscure the glaring similarities to their own philosophies, will only associate fascism with right-wing extremism. The truth is, the definition is broad, and extremism to the right or left tends to fascism. Indeed, the more extreme they both become, the more they are alike. There too is a phony dichotomy between fascism and communism, for a careful analysis shows they are merely two species of the same beasts—both being forms of socialist collectivism. Moreover, whatever variations do exist between them in their manifestos and methodology, most of their goals, and in particular the end result they produce will hardly differ, if at all.
As stated earlier, fascism is not a recent phenomenon appearing in the 20th century; it existed in practice long before the term was given it at that time by Benito Mussolini. Although both Hitler and Mussolini were anti-communist, Mussolini was originally a devout Marxist before founding the Fascist Party and he incorporated many of Karl Marx’s ideas into his philosophies of fascism. Likewise, Adolf Hitler whose fascism was inspired by Mussolini’s stated, “National Socialism is Marxism made workable.“ Therefore the true rift between communism and fascism in the 20th century was a power struggle between two social collectivists rather than a clash of opposites.
It should also be noted that the principles of collectivism which Mussolini and Hitler embraced are much more in the vein of modern liberalism than conservatism. Absent doctrines of white supremacy, an outline of Hitler’s or Mussolini’s manifestos will by far resemble the tenets of big government liberals more than the principles embraced by libertarians or conservatives.
Mussolini, believing that Hitler would conquer Europe, pragmatically decided it in his best interest to align himself with him. But apart from the prospects of Hitler’s success in Europe, a common thread which helped to bring the two together was a shared dream of a global state through the resurrection of the Ancient Roman Empire. Mussolini envisioned his people in a place of power and dominion, assuming the place of their ancestors. Likewise, Hitler’s inspiration for the Third Reich was based upon a vision of the re-establishment and continuation of the First Reich, specifically, The Holy Roman Empire.
The Fasces
Although the term “fascist” has been distorted by nuances, once one understands the concept of the fasces the term becomes less murky and the false dichotomy separating it from other forms of collectivism is exposed. Long before Mussolini espoused fascism, the Roman Empire existed as a fascist state. The term “fascist” itself originated from the fasces which were the ancient Roman symbol representing the power of the state. The fasces were comprised of many rods which were bundled around an axe and bound by cords. The rods and axe together symbolized many diverse groups united and bound to a supreme authority as one. This symbol was revived to represent the Fascist Party during the twentieth century.
Unity by itself is not fascism but becomes so when control is placed under a centralized authoritarian which determines to purge out or suppress all nonconformity and resistance. Like the rods of the fasces, fascism today also consists of many social groups and organizations which unite as one in seeking the establishment of a universal authoritarian to empower their agendas and suppress their opponents. These global networks of various groups, many in the form of NGOs and PVOs represent almost innumerable causes such as environmental, humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights just to name a few. By disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy, and by consolidating forces, they infect the body politic to establish an authoritarian rule which will sympathize with and empower their cause. The fasces as a symbol may or may not have out lived its usefulness, but as a concept it is ever present.
Defining Criteria
When fascism emphasizes physical attributes such as genetics, race, or nationality, it creates boundaries and limitations which restricts its growth and creates natural adversaries. Modern liberal fascism removes these boundaries by replacing nationalism with internationalism, thus creating a multicultural nation with ideological boundaries. There should be no doubt that people should be judged by their ideology combined with their actions, however, when persecution is legislated based on ideology alone – merely because it is contrary – ideofascism presents itself.
To the practitioners of ideofascism, those in opposition to their ideology and global agenda become their devil. In terms of characterization they receive much of the same treatment as the Jewish people have by anti-Semites, or as blacks who lived during the Jim Crow era. Beliefs in opposition to modern liberalism are not given serious consideration, and those who hold them, rather than being treated as equals of a different persuasion, are mocked, belittled, and ridiculed. They are also cast as being intellectually inferior, stupid, out of date, out of touch, or just plain evil. However, what characterizations should be expected coming from a nihilistic religion of narcissism whose chief fruit of the spirit is arrogance?
Modern ideofascists, as did their predecessors also, place their faith in the intellect. Intellectual elitism is at the center of their religion which they have built upon the foundations of evolution, eugenics, secular humanism, psychology, and pseudo-science. One of their major prophets of the last century was H.G. Wells who in his own words described himself as being a “liberal fascist.” Wells published over 100 books designed to promote social evolution and liberal worldviews, even laying out blueprints for a social revolution on a global scale. Modern day liberals, wittingly or unwittingly, labor to fulfill Wells’ prophesies. Just as Wells did, their dark fellowship also craves for a body of elitists to rule over humanity. But why not? They feel the most intelligent surely would be the most capable–taking it as a given that liberal intellectuals by nature are more ethical and humane than others. Either that or they lightly esteem moral character as at best a secondary attribute.
H.G. Wells called his idea of how to overthrow present systems, values, and traditions, and supplant them with a one world government “The Open Conspiracy” . In 1928 he published a book by that name. This was followed by another book published in 1940 entitled “The New World Order”, a term which he popularized. Liberal elitists in the same vein of thought today have fulfilled much of what Wells envisioned, only making adaptations as needed to conform to the times. However, Wells would likely be disgusted by the crassness of nature that his envisioned culture war has taken on, as well, its reactionary emotionalism which has replaced critical thought.
The Synthesis
If indeed the world is to be made subject to universal laws and standards, appearances of discrimination based upon race or nationality must be removed. This however, will not end discrimination or persecution, for discrimination against dissidents is necessary to achieve unity. Furthermore, dissidents in a global society cannot be exiled or migrate away from international law. Therefore, universal agreement is achieved by suppression of contrary ideas and beliefs. We are told to celebrate diversity, but as the word itself suggest, diversity divides. We are one only when we are one in name, thought, and heart, and this can be a good thing when freewill is involved. However, when thoughts are monitored by speech, and conformity of thought becomes mandatory, this is ideofascism.
In any fascist society freedom of speech will be subject to regulations and controls. Due to laws prohibiting the infringement of free speech, this is more difficult to impose upon free societies. In such cases, it is necessary that major media and communication outlets are owned or controlled by those who are like-minded and able to suppress or manipulate the information that society has access to. Society is then saturated with a specific worldview, while any opposition is marginalized, demonized, censored, or ignored. Hence, you may have the right to speak; you do not have the right to be heard. The marriage of a monolithic media to a specific ideology and agenda is a threat to all.
In order to control society, the control of media alone is not enough. It is imperative to have those who share the same vision in every place of power possible. To achieve this, there is a great effort to consolidate and control major corporations, banking, labor unions, and non-governmental organizations, but above all, education. The objective is to establish one mind among those who do, or will have, any significant amount of power or influence in the future. The aim is not to seek competing ideas for debate to see which ones hold up, but to eliminate conflicting veins of thought altogether for the sake of harmony. This is done to the end that society can be managed and controlled with as little resistance possible. When all institutions and organizations are under sufficient control, they will all submit to strict governmental authority.
The Cosmopolitan Übermensch
In the mind of the liberal ideofascist the neo-master race is not one of genetics or ethnicity; it is comprised of cosmopolitans who along with their elitist leaders share the same DNA of a universal mindset. You are considered an Übermensch and declared to be a part of this enlightened master-race by acceptance of the prevailing ideas as established by recognized elitists and liberal intellectuals.
Of course they will not use such terminology as the afore mentioned to refer to themselves; they will instead use terms such as educated or enlightened, and it is to this end that modern education is directed.
Surrogate Negroes and Jews
Those deemed sub-humans by fascists in the past were often deemed inferior due to their genetics or race. While fascists of the past considered Negroes to be intellectually inferior and lacking in mental capacity, the Jewish people were depicted as intelligent but having intrinsic defects in their nature that made them inherently evil.
Today the opponents of liberal elitism are categorized the same way. They are both belittled and ridiculed as being stupid and ignorant, or if they excell, they are accused of being evil. No longer need you be black or Jewish to be viewed or treated as they were by fascists. This can now be achieved by merely opposing the ideology of modern liberalism.
Eric Hoffer commenting on the nature of mass movements stated that they could exist without a God to drive them but not without a devil. It is therefore imperative that all fascist movements, past and present, have a designated devil to drive their cause.
Whatever the adversary, be it a nation, race, religion, or ideology, fascism uses marketing techniques to sell a disparaging image in order to demonize those whom they seek to dispossess or subjugate. The presentation of a false characterization must be constant if it is to sell as it did during the previous rise of fascism during the 1930‘s. (Enter main stream media)
Egocentric Elitism
The narcissistic nucleus of intellectual elitism which spawned Nazism still exists, but it can no longer thrive in that past form made naked by its atrocities. It still strives to establish a supreme culture controlled by an authoritarian state, but remains ever mutating as a virus must in order to survive and spread.
Although modern elitism morphs fascism to adapt to the present, its course still must in many ways run parallel with actions and occurrences which took place during the reign of former fascists. Dogma is subject to change but the religious belief and worship of the intellectual as the supreme being is invariable.
Today the intellectual establishment is hailed by liberals as the savior of the world and its elite thinkers and leaders are revered as its prophets and messiahs. They come bearing a message of condemnation for traditional beliefs, moral values, and establishments. They also prophesy of impending doom and destruction upon the environment and all of civilization unless the earth’s inhabitants awaken, repent, believe, and convert to the gospel according to progressivism. The liberal agenda is the only hope of salvation.
In order to create the God-State, it is a prerequisite that present establishments and traditional ideas be removed. In their place they offer a Utopian vision of an advanced global society where peace and equality prevail. It is noteworthy that both, their prophesies and promises of a coming kingdom, in many ways mirror those put forth by fascists of the older order. Their modus operandi also resembles that used in the past, albeit in modern times operations are carried out using a soft approach, subtly invoking sympathies and exploiting emotions. (Enter the effeminate activists)
The effemination of fascism
There is much to be written about the attack on the male role model in society, especially that of the white male, however, here the primary focus will be on the effeminate character of the progressive movement itself; for the main way in which fascism has changed is by adopting an effeminate approach to politics and propagating itself.
Fascism in the twentieth century appeared as masculine entity seeking to bring about change through brute force and coercion. The impregnation of civilization by rape it would give birth to their vision, and undesirables would be aborted. These intentions and end goals envisioned by fascists of the old order were in their view good. However, their atrocious and unconscionable deeds would become the standard by which all future acts of evil would be measured. Only by the most barbaric cultures today are the atrocities of Nazism and fascism condoned and celebrated.
By contrast, today in western societies many of those now holding totalitarian philosophies similar to past fascists, strongly disavow and condemn their predecessors. They prefer not to rape society as there forebears, but rather, seduce the populous into consent and induce pregnancy by artificial insemination. They cannot recognize the many similarities in thought which they share with yesterday’s masters of infamy. Indeed, instead they are likely to project the despicable image of yesterday’s fascists onto their opponents, often accusing and condemning them for the very things they themselves are presently guilty of.
One difference that would seem to exist between old world fascism and modern fascism is that the latter seems to hold great disdain for the military. This would seem somewhat of a departure in policy. It may not be. Before Mussolini achieved power he spoke of his disdain for the military and spent several years of exile in Switzerland because, as a confirmed pacifist, he refused to undergo military training. On the other hand, after Mussolini came to power, he praised changed by use of military force. Another example is H.G. Wells who despised the military as well. He wrote often of his abhorrence for it; however, he also spoke of the need for force to impose and maintain a global system of government. One might then ask if fascists are only pacifists when they are out of power.
It is not that the essence of fascism has changed; it may be that had Hitler believed he could achieve his goals by peace, he would have pursued it. The policies and the face of fascism changed due to their failure of success. Fascists of the past used force to achieve their ambitions. After having been defeated by force, fascism has now lost its power to impose itself by force. If fascism today were to attempt to use violence, it might be easily identified as fascism and lose effectiveness at the political level. Therefore, force is used very carefully. But finesse can only take one so far.
One should not think that because liberal fascists fear force they will not resort to force in the future if they find themselves firmly in power. Until such a time as they feel secure however, they will seek other avenues. They will not venture such great a defeat again. Modern liberal fascists, being insecure will therefore seek to gain power through craft, appeasement, and condemning the use of force until they feel certain they are in full control. (Enter the anti-war movement)
Not only do radical liberals use the soft approach of appeasement when confronting external threats, they also engage in soft revolution internally. Unlike the bloody uprisings of the past, their approach to overthrow is through a gradual undermining of traditions, morals, and foundational beliefs. By use of social engineering in place of violent revolt the progressive movement works in incremental steps through education, entertainment, and media communications to indoctrinate society. Likewise, in the judicial system activist judges legislate from the bench to give public perceptions of authority to their usurpation of powers. Along with corrupt politicians and other change-agents within the government, they labor together to undermine constitutional laws with the backing of financial giants and internationalist who lobby for liberal social policies and promote leftist agendas which weaken the nation.
Modern liberalism is merely transgendered fascism. By forsaking a masculine approach to embody an effeminate nature, liberalism creates the appearance of a compassionate movement in the pursuit of world peace for the benefit of all mankind. In actuality it is an attempt to seduce and manipulate the world’s populations for their own benefit and pleasure.
For the time being, modern liberals have chosen the seduction of the world through emotion and appeasement rather than conquest by brute force – finding political prostitution more practical than the brutal rape of society. However, in all likelihood, the more power liberal fascism obtains, the crueler it will become and the more vehemently it will exert itself. Once in power, if it continues to prosper, it will in its own way eventually become like the old fascism we thought had virtually passed away.
Multicultural fascism
One attraction to modern fascism is its narcissistic Utopian allurement which extends not just to a particular race or nation but is universally adaptable to all people who will adhere to it. It has a broader appeal than ethnic, religious, or national fascism and therefore is more dangerous in that it has a greater potential of dissemination than any fascism before it, for it finds fewer opponents and is already accepted by millions world wide.
By wrapping itself in a cloak of goodwill and proclaiming a universal hope for all of humanity, multicultural fascism with its narcissistic appeal is more marketable to the modern world.
It still cannot go without saying that anytime a great empire comes to power, dissent will grow. When dissent reaches the level where the state feels threatened it will eventually impose a “final solution.” At that point the state will attempt to legislate and enforce a universal conscience upon society. Nonconformist will be cast as intolerant, hateful bigots and will not be tolerated.
H.G. Wells contended it was inevitable that there would be a socialist global system of government, which in order to establish a benevolent society would find it necessary to forcibly suppress nonconformists and dissenters. He implied this in his book entitled “The New World Order” (1939):
“… when the struggle seems to be drifting definitely towards a world social democracy, there may still be very great delays and disappointments before it becomes an efficient and beneficent world system. Countless people … will hate the new world order … and will die protesting against it. When we attempt to evaluate its promise, we have to bear in mind the distress of a generation or so of malcontents, many of them quite gallant and graceful-looking people.”
At the present time modern fascism advances using a soft touch while stressing compassion and celebrating the virtues of a multicultural effeminate global society, should it gain absolute power, will it keep that same soft touch, or will it become a tyrannical oppressor as cruel and brutal as any of those fascists before? In case you are wondering, history has already answered that question more than once.
R. A. Sprinkle
________________________________________________________________________
* Fascism: A Centralized autocratic government or belief system, or the ideology of proponents for such characterized by:
1. A centralized authority with absolute power to mandate severe economic and social regimentation along with enforceable suppression of all opposition.
2. Aspirations to conquer and consolidate all into a single collective body under a single ideology, law, and controlling authority, be it national, cosmopolitan, ethnic, political, secular, or religious.
In two words: I disagree. I think your argument, although brilliantly written, betraying a fascinating depth of historical knowledge and well written, has several flaws which I should point out.
My first doubt was your assumption, outlined primarily in the third and fourth paragraphs, that liberal progressives are fascist. Nothing could be further from the truth; social liberalism implies freedom -freedom from authoritarianism (or fascism).
You go on to make the point that Communists and Nazis are from the same ‘beast’, and many millions have died at the hand of both. However, you fail to notice that social liberalism is NOT the same as Communism; Communism emphasises economic change for the benefit of the working classes, liberalism has no such desire.
A few parapgraphs on and you make the vital link between Communism and Nazism/fascism, explaining how Mussolini was originally a socialist, and how Hitler stated that ‘National Socialism is Marxism made workable’. In fact, National Socialism is nothing like Marxism. It never cared for the workers, pushing wages down and dismantling the unions. Mussolini, on the other hand, gave up on socialism because of his national pride.
I was, however, appalled to read that ‘humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights’ groups are ‘disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy’. Civil Rights activists are protesting against authoritarianism which impedes human rights, while the idea that homosexuals are about to rise up and take control is, in fact, about as plausible as Hitler’s theory that the Jews were trying to take control of the world.
You then describe liberals as being ‘intellectual elitists’ and, rather too bitterly to my mind, a ‘nihilistic religion of narcissism whose chief fruit of the spirit is arrogance’. Is it not right, then, to cherish knowledge and wisdom? You also describe how liberals belittle anyone who does not think likewise; social liberals, socialists and Communists believe that education is extremely important. In fact, I have seen much belittling and hysterical propaganda directed at and against at the Democrat Party in America by the conservative end of the political spectrum.
The ideology of Communism, as stated before, is to make the workers more aware of their position in society, and are not thus trying to rule over the ignorant lower-classes.
I would also like to point out that H.G. Wells is not the founding father of socialism.
This rather upsets your view that all social liberals, socialists and Communists want a world government -I am a socialist, and I do not. George Orwell was a socialist, and neither did he. I know many like minded-people who wish for no such thing.
Following this is the point that Communism can’t embrace diversity because diversity divides, yet since there is no desire for a homogenuous society in any case, this has never really been an issue. At the point where a socialist impresses his or her own views on other people, and becomes intolerant of other cultures, he or she stops being a socialist. This is certainly true of Soviet Russia, which is now no longer seen as socialist, or even Communist (it is generally classified as authoritarian and state-capitalist, just like Nazi Germany).
Your most valuable and valid point follows directly on from that: that the left-wing (you failed to specify a particular group) aims to control the means of production, media and education to institute an authoritarian state answerable to no one. However, social liberals and socialists do not want to control all of society. The latter, however, do want government regulation over most of these to ensure that capitalism does not corrupt them. Communism has more solidified intentions (to control the lot) and can use this power inappropriately (like Soviet Russia). However, at this point the government is no longer Communist; it is ‘National Bolshevist’, as one critic termed it.
You then come to the conclusion that ‘modern liberalism’, meaning social liberalism, is intolerant. This is not so: it preaches tolerance, multiculturalism and diversity. Capitalists are seen as misguided, and high-earners who are philanthropical are usually accepted as decent, moral people. Only those who KNOW hey are doing wrong, KNOW they are exploiting people for their own benefit are considered ‘evil’.
But by far the most offending argument is the idea that fascism has morphed into a more ‘effeminate’ and palpable movement, which rejects the military. The only evidence you give is the fact that Mussolini draft-dodged, and that H.G. Wells despised the military. Adolf Hitler was IN the Second World war, and Mussolini had no qualms about sending his military into Abyssinnia, Spain and Albania before taking part in the Second World War. The very desire to escape the military-authoritarian doctrines of the past is what spurred social liberalism in the first place; it is the direct opposite of fascism. Just two people doesn’t count as a trend, in any case. It is not evidence.
Your observation, also, that the multicultural cancer-like liberal ideal will impose a “final solution” is the most flimsy part of your article, which has never been attributed to any social liberal government or theory. It was popularised by the Nazis, who weren’t social liberals, and it was executed –quite literally- by the state capitalist Russian government for the best part of the 20th Century, who weren’t social liberals, either.
Your H.G. Wells quote is the final piece of ‘evidence’ which is supposed to represent the last nail in the coffin lid, but look at the provenance: it was written in 1939. The rise of Nazism was generally soon to be a dangerous reactionary revolution, with a thumb in every pie: in Germany, Spain, Italy and certain conservative circles in Britain. Yet the Germans saw it, in the thirties, to be a forward-looking, well-meaning movement; it was the opposite. Wells was not alone in fearing Nazism.
All this, however, does not detract from what is, essentially, a well structured, worded and phrased article. I admire your ability to write so fluently. But the glaring inaccuracies, whims and strange notions of world politics are both offensive and erroneous.
I await your reply,
Archaix.
It would to too much for me to answer everything point by point in this forum, however, I have answered virtually everything in your comment in other wittings on my blog.
First we must agree on a definition of fascism and the way it is used. In this case the it is used in the context of the Roman fasces – a collective society strictly controlled by an powerful authoritarian. Both Rightist and Leftist become fascist to the degree that they force adherence of their ideology on others. Many of us to the left or right fall somewhere in between but there are extremes in either direction.
Communism and fascism are both forms of collectivism, they have their nuances which make them appear different but they are at the root driven by the same natural impulses. All extremism is driven by the same natural impulses even if they appear to be diametrically opposed to each other.
The Catholic Church in the Inquisition, militant Islam today, movements in communism and fascism that killed millions – What they all have in common is they were driven by the same natural impulses but manifested themselves in different forms due to their unique cultural and social influences. Our nature is very basic and it is in us. We make choices but when we chose certain impulses they are going to drive us all to do the same things in our own unique ways which may even appear to be opposites – At the core however, is the same innate force.
This is not a right or left thing, I primarily write about the left because it has overwhelmed western culture. I see some of the same impulses in radical Islam which I would consider extreme right – same impulses but a different manifestation.
It is like a disease which creates different reactions in different people so that it is not always recognizable from the symptoms.
To understand some of this better read Eric Hoffer’s book True Believer: Thoughts on The Nature of Mass Movements
Also here are a couple of other links that answer some of your other points:
Fascism And Socialism Explained
Fascism Reconsidered
The only point I agree with you on is that Communism is easily turned into state capitalism. This is what happened with the Russian Revolution, whether you agree this happened under Lenin’s control or Stalin’s control. To put it simply: the nation existed as one giant corporation.
It is exactly this susceptibility, and the near-impossibility of creating a single world government, which makes me socialist. Democratic socialist. This goes further than social libertarianism, which simply exists to STOP authoritarianism. It doesn’t go as far as Communism, which seeks to overhaul the current system altogether, and start anew.
What you fail to notice is that socialism and social libertarianism aren’t a threat. Social democratic parties across the globe exist to help their fellow man, not to implement another dictatorship. Although you have observed, quite correctly, that man is flawed, you failed to notice the amazing aptitude a human has for his fellow humans. Have you ever given to charity? I’m sure you have. Do you ever feel glad about doing so, knowing that you’ve given something -for nothing- to help someone less fortunate than yourself? Of course. This is what socialism -and Communism- is all about. When socialists and Communists fail to see this, they STOP being socialists and Communists.
When I give I do it by choice. In socialist and communist societies giving is forced. When redistribution is mandatory rather than voluntary the virtue of giving becomes lost over time. Collective controlled societies attempt to become the conscience of those societies and in their efforts “to help their fellow man” they take away rights and freedoms by deciding what is good and what is not.
This forced “charity” both corrupts and becomes corrupt. In the societies where individuals have basic inalienable rights above the “common good,” they can choose to be selfish and greedy, and many do, but the can also choose to do good and give freely, which many do – And to the causes THEY, not not the state, believe in!
The world is imperfect and people are imperfect, by trying to perfect society beyond a certain point you will destroy it for the “perfectors” are themselves imperfect and thus do not know what perfections is to impose it. This has happened every time it was tried. There must be basic laws against murder, stealing, etc. to protect life and property but by trying to force “goodness” and “charity” on society you will destroy it. That is what socialism and communism dream to do. Even if it is well intended the gravitation of collective societies over time will tend to totalitarianism, for the consolidation of power to do “good” will become corrupt and turn into a destructive force.
Yet your article makes the socialists and Communists sound insidious, when in fact they aren’t.
Furthermore, you again emphasize the human imperfection. This means (to a certain extent) humans have to be controlled. You cannot argue with this: take away the police force, there will be rioting, take away the borders, people will move in/out.
Businesses have to be regulated to make sure they don’t exploit their workers, as well as consumers. They are prone to, because bosses are greedy. Unions have to exist to protect the workers, because without them they would be at the mercy of their employer. Employers have often been merciless in the past.
Furthermore, you cannot entrust the social security of the worse-off to charitable whims. There are plenty of people who would rather not pay taxes, but have to nonetheless. Without revenue the government would be able to set up homeless shelters, or rehabilitation programmes for alcoholics. In the UK there is a National Health Service (NHS) to which 2/3 of the total revenue goes towards. Yet not everyone goes to hospital each year; they are thus paying taxes to help the people who DO go to hospital that year.
And with those 60 million people giving their money to a good cause involuntarily, the UK would be as good as a third world state.
“Furthermore, you again emphasize the human imperfection. This means (to a certain extent) humans have to be controlled. You cannot argue with this….”
I have already stated as much, you cannot allow murder and anarchy – But my argument is to the degree of control and who it is that has it. I say establish the minimum amount of control necessary and give it to the people.
Collective societies such as communism/fascism /socialism (they all produce the same results in the end) impose to much control, take power away from the people and give it to an elite ruling class. Given time, and it may take years, but it will become absolutely corrupt by slowly taking any real power away from the people.
Why do you believe the ruling class will have more integrity than the people? The more power people possess the more ability they have to correct things when they go wrong – and things will always go wrong no matter what system you have. The people will correct things because they are more directly effected than elitists.
I people were perfect socialism/communism would happen on its own without force.
When collective societies gain power greedy men who lust for power are drawn to the positions of it and the state becomes an oppressor.
As far as the UK without socialism being as good as a third world state – give it time, the UK is sinking and all of Europe will eventually go down with it. The same for the USA, for it has also crossed over the line into corporate-capitalism/socialism/fascism, it will go down also. Fasten your seat-belt, it’s going to be a bumpy ride sometime in the not too distant future.
I never said the ruling classes have more integrity. In fact, I stated the opposite:
“Unions have to exist to protect the workers, because without them they would be at the mercy of their employer. Employers have often been merciless in the past.”
As for the UK sinking, this has little or no connection with the NHS, if it is sinking at all.
The USA has fallen into corporate capitalism; that much is clear. But there are no signs whatsoever -apart from the minimum wage being tabled- that the USA is any more socialist than it was ten years ago. Whether it is fascist or not is open to debate, although personally I think that is a little strong.
…..But, the Unions have become quasi-corporate themselves and are corrupt and run by mobsters – So as I said, when power is consolidated corrupt men who lust for it and its profits eventually take control, even if the institution was a benevolent one in the beginning.
There are benefits of collective power but there are also great dangers. There must be checks and balances or the people lose control of their destiny. This means that we must allow to a certain extent for injustices to take place and then correct them when we see them. Seeking to create too perfect of a system without injustices requires so much control that those in power are corrupted and the people can hardly change it without chaos, bloodshed, and revolution.
However, often when governments have that much power they manipulate the population with propaganda so that the people blame other nations and don’t know how corrupt they themselves or their leaders are – this results in wars.
ps: when I referred to US fascism it was not meant in the context of nationalism but of economics – the consolidation and mergers of corporations, financial institutions, etc… into a monopoly. Actually, Russia & China presently are practicing economic fascism internationally. This is not to be confused with the social-fascism of the Nazis.
This article explains it in part: From Communism to Fascism?
Beautifully written and very true.
[...] Unity by itself is not fascism but becomes so when control is placed under a centralized authoritarian which determines to purge out or suppress all nonconformity and resistance. Like the rods of the fasces, fascism today also consists of many social groups and organizations which unite as one in seeking the establishment of a universal authoritarian to empower their agendas and suppress their opponents. These global networks of various groups, many in the form of NGOs and PVOs, represent almost innumerable causes such as environmental, humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights just to name a few. By disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy, and by consolidating forces, they infect the body politic to establish an authoritarian rule which will sympathize with and empower their cause. The fasces as a symbol may or may not have out lived its usefulness, but as a concept it is ever present.(source) [...]
[...] Skarbutts’ central insight, which must be understood in order to comprehend the rest, descends from the First Reich (The Holy Roman Empire). Although the term fascist has been distorted, once one understands the concept of the fasces the term becomes less murky and the false dichotomy between other forms of collectivism is exposed. Long before Mussolini espoused fascism the Roman Empire existed as a fascist state and the term fascist itself originated from the fasces which were the ancient Roman symbol representing the power of the state. The fasces were comprised of many rods which were bundled around an axe and bound by cords. The rods and axe together symbolized many diverse groups united and bound to a supreme authority as one. This symbol was revived to represent the Fascist Party during the twentieth century.Unity by itself is not fascism but becomes so when control is placed under a centralized authoritarian which determines to purge out or suppress all nonconformity and resistance. Like the rods of the fasces, fascism today also consists of many social groups and organizations which unite as one in seeking the establishment of a universal authoritarian to empower their agendas and suppress their opponents. These global networks of various groups, many in the form of NGOs and PVOs, represent almost innumerable causes such as environmental, humanitarian, animal rights, civil rights, and gay rights just to name a few. By disguising themselves in a cause that evokes sympathy, and by consolidating forces, they infect the body politic to establish an authoritarian rule which will sympathize with and empower their cause. The fasces as a symbol may or may not have out lived its usefulness, but as a concept it is ever present. (Ideo-fascism) [...]
[...] a choice between annihilation and a controlled ideo-fascist global society as set forth by Wells, of the two it is hard to imagine which could turn out for the [...]
[...] a choice between annihilation and a controlled ideofascist global tyranny as set forth by Wells, of the two it is hard to imagine which is the more evil. On [...]
[...] a choice between annihilation or perpetual bondage in a controlled ideo-fascist global tyranny as set forth by Wells, of the two it is hard to imagine which is more evil. On the [...]