Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I disagree.
I think Fascism is depicted as "on the right" or, rather, "way off to the right" because it generally includes as a matter of core philosophy strong elements of jingoistic nationalism and xenophobia. Its economic policies, etc. were also infused with a corporatist/statist mix of the state supporting large industry.
S_A_M
|
But, as it pertains to modern American politics, who is more jingoistically nationalistic and xenophobic (aside from the criminal right KKK/skinheads) than the unions. It was the perceived "Right" that supported NAFTA over the objections of numerous Democratic (or "Left") constituencies.
Also, though I didn't make it clear before, I don't see any real distinction between the state being the big industry and the state "supporting" large industry (presumably to the detriment of someone, sometimes the someone being the large industries). Lord knows, the state support of large industries is only a caricature of the Right in the eyes of unions and the Democratic party. The Right would never blindly support an industry in a way that is partial to or against the industry (except when the G has a very legitimate reason like during war).
Don't get me wrong, the caricature is embodied in numerous modern "Republicans" and self-described "conservatives", but its exactly why I think the labels are meaningless unless we hold people to their principles. Otherwise, people seem to appropriate whatever labels they can as cover for their own skewed views. And the appropriation is only magnified when others let them and adopt the appropriated cover to include the self-describing misappropriator's skewed views.
Quote:
Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Fascism has nothing of the class-based "universal brotherhood of man" model essential to socialist and communist theory. It also generally doesn't centralize and redistribute property.
S_A_M
|
The theory was beautiful, but no actual "Leftist" system every really took too much of that universal brotherhood stuff to heart either. Further, all command-and-control economic models are centralized, including the National Socialists (I'm going to have to go and reread a few chapters of my German history book though). Finally, the redistribution of property was there. I'm not sure how it got there, but it was there. The Soviets just targeted selected wealthy people, while the Germans just targeted selected distinguishable sub-groups of society on other bases.
In any case, there is no way that the German model was truly hands-off (i.e., "Right). It couldn't have been if it wanted to what-with the massive armanents programs they began almost immediately in the early '30s.
All I'm saying is that these characterizations (Nazi=Right versus Soviets=Left) are meaningless. Pat Buchanan is just as wrong as the unions for fearing Mexicans.
Hello
