reply to post by NWRHINO
So, Hitler moustache or not, Obama has done nothing to prevent the US from becoming a national socialist state.
Has he not? I wonder... have you listened to the other side of the issue? I don't necessarily mean Obama supporters.
**(To the More General Readership)**
At any rate, for the moment, lets examine the common labels Socialist and Fascist. Rather than use standard or objective sources, where possible, I
will try to use/link the writings of those organizations who THEMSELVES advocate the advancement of these movements. I will try to limit my scope as
it applies to organizational sentiments regarding Obama & Policies for the sake of my own personal convenience. Feel free to explore and read further
into their opinions. Just as not all Conspiracy Theorists hold the same views, many socialists, nationalists, and fascists have their own communities
and forums where they discuss issues. After all, shouldn't THEIR voice count in a free and open society?
First up, the charge of Socialism.
: An international coalition of socialist parties across the globe
dedicated to the advancement of Democratic Socialism. Upon a cursory search, the only relevant piece as a
statement of congratulations
to President Obama and a
hope for better relations in light of the previous administration.
The Socialist International welcomes the victory of Barack Obama in the U.S. elections and sees in it the hope for a world community based more on
cooperation, mutual understanding and respect rather than antagonism and discord.
I did not find a congratulatory statement regarding either Bush election, but I did find a statement of condolences on the 1 year anniversary of 9/11.
Although, to me, it seemed a bit shamelessly self-promotional.
As an American representative member of the Socialist International Movement, the Democratic Socialists of
recommended this recently posted video in which a Ithaca, NY member explains in his view why Obama is not a socialist. There is an
abridged version on YouTube, but I will link to the Full 30 min Version.
Socialist Party USA
seems to have a
less optimistic view
of the hopes for Obama Administration
Sadly, the Obama presidency will offer little of the “change” and “hope” it promised throughout the campaign. Early indications are that his
administration will be directed by a free-market capitalist agenda and his policies will seek to enhance the profitability of corporations at the
expense of working-class America. People can expect little in the way of fundamental change in healthcare, militarism or wealth redistribution.
Winning these much needed changes will be the duty of broad social movements.
According to The Socialist (Jan/Feb 2009 issue)
We know, of course, that Obama is not a socialist, and that he is not a radical. That should not keep us from rejoicing in the defeat of John McCain.
I've never been able to subscribe to the notion that if the worst side wins the working class will be one step closer to victory. I think, on the
contrary, we will find it easier to work in a political climate where there is hope that change is possible. Yes, we need to press Obama on a dozen
fronts. I could list many, but I'll list just a few.
The author then lists several initiative points, some of which have occurred, some in which the address was partial or counter to the author's
intent, and some which definitely have not and likely WILL not change. The article then follows...
These are not socialist steps - just reasonable parts of a program for a renewal of our nation. And they are hardly a full list! But what I think very
important about this election is something I've not heard others comment on - the return of a sense of a "civil society" in which citizens felt
they had a right to speak to, and be heard by their government
Most here, I'm sure, would find fault with that above statement. Whether one feels their voice is being heard, whether one feels the outreach in
dialog is met by "less than civil" discourse, or both.
In either case, the general sentiment of the sites seems to imply strong
criticism of both the bail out initiative as well as form of Health
Care reform being proposed. So to call Obama a socialist on this point seems to run very counter to what actual socialists are pushing for.
In regards to label of being Fascist.
In the short time I've spent looking for representative organizations or publications, it's difficult to track down even semi-reliable Fascist
websites with focus more on America as a nation - rather than dividing into race. Perhaps other members can find more worthwhile sources. Certainly,
the stigma of WWII Nazi Germany as a cultural "boogieman" (whether deserved or not being irrelevant to the point) has likely forced a stigma against
I did find a rather crude half constructed site claiming to be the American Fascist
which claims the movement is:
-- Pro-: Meritocracy (Length of citizenship & service determines social worth), Sacrifice (actions motivated without economic incentive), Nationalism
(America first, America only), State Corporatism (Free Markets w/ regulation to ensure national prosperity), Virtue (Defense of the State above public
opinion or corporate interests).
--Against: Racism/Nazism (Race is irrelevant to the benefit of the state), Materialism (See Site), Globalism (sovereignty & protection of world
cultures), Capitalism/Communism (materialistic oppression), Superficiality (Two wings, same bird - popularity contest).
Seeking a more generalized an accepted definition of Fascism by which to then narrow my search of similarities with current political movements &
ideologies, I was faced with a problem. Which definition is the right one?
This is a
sentiment expressed by George Orwell (author of Animal Farm & 1984):
George Orwell: What is Fascism.
Even the people who recklessly fling the word ‘Fascist’ in every direction attach at any rate an emotional significance to it. By
‘Fascism’ they mean, roughly speaking, something cruel, unscrupulous, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-liberal and anti-working-class. Except for the
relatively small number of Fascist sympathizers, almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’. That is about as
near to a definition as this much-abused word has come.
This seems to be exactly the case in America. Left-Wingers calling Bush a fascist, and Right-Wingers calling Obama a fascist. Independents calling
them both fascists. And wouldn't then, sentiments such as "If your not part of the solution you are part of the problem", or "You're either with
us, or against us" constitute as fascist sentiments?
How then do we establish who has a point and who is just "calling bully"?
But Fascism is also a political and economic system. Why, then, cannot we have a clear and generally accepted definition of it? Alas! we shall not get
one — not yet, anyway. To say why would take too long, but basically it is because it is impossible to define Fascism satisfactorily without making
admissions which neither the Fascists themselves, nor the Conservatives, nor Socialists of any colour, are willing to make. All one can do for the
moment is to use the word with a certain amount of circumspection and not, as is usually done, degrade it to the level of a swearword.
Personally, I am dubious as to the amount of circumspection put into such claims as lobbied against either the previous or present administration.
Of course, parallels to Hitler imply sympathy for Hitler's flavor of fascism. The National Socialist "Nazi" party. Who are today's self-promoted
The American Nazi Party
National Socialist Party (of America)
This is the face of fascism unabashedly sympathetic to Hitler's views. While I detest the thought of spreading hate material, I would feel they are
necessary to the context of the point. They are there if you so dare to seriously challenge whether or not Obama fits the profile of a "Nazi", and
what they think of Obama's Administration.
An interesting final example, the Libertarian National Socialist Movement
apparently denounce hate, and seek a cleaner - greener environment through segregation of race to ancestral lands and racial purity/cultural
preservation. ... I thought it was a troll, but apparently not.
A word on Nationalism following in the next post.