It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Facist Threat

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 02:33 PM
The Origins of Fascism

To be sure, the last time people worried about fascism was during the Second World War. We were said to be fighting this evil system abroad. The US defeated fascist governments but the philosophy of governance that it represents was not defeated. Very quickly following that war, another one began. This was the Cold War that pitted capitalism against communism. Socialism in this case was considered to be a soft form of communism, tolerable and even praiseworthy insofar as it was linked with democracy, which is the system that legalizes and legitimizes an ongoing pillaging of the population.

In the meantime, almost everyone has forgotten that there are many other colors of socialism, not all of them obviously left wing. Fascism is one of these colors.

There can be no question of its origins. It is tied up with the history of post-World War I Italian politics. In 1922, Benito Mussolini won a democratic election and established fascism as his philosophy. Mussolini had been a member of the socialist party.

All the biggest and most important players within the fascist movement came from the socialists. It was a threat to the socialists because it was the most appealing political vehicle for the real-world application of the socialist impulse. Socialists crossed over to join the fascists en masse.

This is also why Mussolini himself enjoyed such good press for more than ten years after his rule began. He was celebrated by the New York Times in article after article. He was heralded in scholarly collections as an exemplar of the type of leader we need in an age of the planned society. Puff pieces on this blowhard were very common in US journalism all through the late 1920s and the mid-1930s.

Remember that in this same period, the American left went through a huge shift. In the teens and 1920s, the American left had a very praiseworthy anti-corporatist impulse. The left generally opposed war, the state-run penal system, alcohol prohibition, and all violations of civil liberties. It was no friend of capitalism but neither was it a friend of the corporate State of the sort that FDR forged during the New Deal.

In 1933 and 1934, the American left had to make a choice. Would they embrace the corporatism and regimentation of the New Deal or take a principled stand on their old liberal values? In other words, would they accept fascism as a halfway house to their socialist utopia? A gigantic battle ensued in this period, and there was a clear winner. The New Deal made an offer the left could not refuse. And it was a small step to go from the embrace of the fascistic planned economy to the celebration of the warfare State that concluded the New Deal period.

This was merely a repeat of the same course of events in Italy a decade earlier. In Italy too, the left realized that their anti-capitalistic agenda could best be achieved within the framework of the authoritarian, planning State. Of course our friend John Maynard Keynes played a critical role in providing a pseudo-scientific rationale for joining opposition to old-world laissez faire to a new appreciation of the planned society. Recall that Keynes was not a socialist of the old school. As he himself said in his introduction to the Nazi edition of his General Theory, national socialism was far more hospitable to his ideas than a market economy.

See the 8 points of fascism at the link below.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:01 PM
"the left generally opposed all violations of civil liberties" ????
thats a good one.

dem ocrats have always been the party of racism.
click the link^
read a book!!!!
edit on 25-1-2013 by bjax9er because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:07 PM
I think Marxism and Fascism were often the same.

Fascism includes strong focuses on nationalism and racism.

Socialism claimed it wanted a non-racial, world-wide revolution.
It also wanted less of a gendered world, and worker equality.
Fascism wanted a revolution for its people in their countries, and perhaps exchange with countries who felt similarly.

Ultimately complete communism never happened.
Under communism the state should disappear, and all the people will govern.
Clearly, under socialism the state machinery increased and became more intrusive and stronger, and the very opposite happened.

Fascism also didn't happen for long.
The "Thousand Year Reich" lasted less than two decades.

At the beginning, when they clashed in the streets, few people could actually tell radical communists and fascists apart.
They were just worker party factions.

I think historically fascism allowed the local religions.
The socialists first attacked them and wiped them out.
That was their first mistake.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:07 PM
^^Yep modern republicans and civil war era democrats are the same.
Thanks for clearing that up.

Op; Is this what you think? Or Mr. Rockwell?
I think Lew is a little crazy personally.
It's circular rhetoric.

I've never seen the case made for the right wing
"corporations are god" fascists actually being left wing.
This is an "they're all the same" deal.
Perhaps I'm not understanding.

With this logic, could the case can be made that being a libertarian
is one of the many colors of fascism?

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:09 PM
reply to post by HappyLIBERTARIAN

Sorry, but i stopped reading your post when you said fascism is one of the colours of socialism. Good luck with your thread however, im sure you will have lots of explaining to do.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:15 PM

Originally posted by sealing
^^Yep modern republicans and civil war era democrats are the same.
Thanks for clearing that up.

how so?

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:15 PM
reply to post by sealing

That was from the article. I thought it was a good article, and wanted to share it.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 03:56 PM
Good thread. I read both your thread and the link provided. I feel like you should have put some of those points laid out in your link in the OP. I feel like the majority of the people who will read this thread will not read that link and come to the wrong conclusions. S&F for you sir.

posted on Jan, 25 2013 @ 05:42 PM
Holy crap more of this nonsense?

Fascism is not Socialism. It isn't Left Wing. Mussolini WAS a Socialist in his youth but came to despise it blaming the pacifism of Socialists for Italy's loss during WWI. Here is his own definition of Fascism. If you can read this and still claim that he was a Socialist, there's just no hope for you.

No individuals or groups (political parties, cultural associations, economic unions, social classes) outside the State (15). Fascism is therefore opposed to Socialism to which unity within the State (which amalgamates classes into a single economic and ethical reality) is unknown, and which sees in history nothing but the class struggle. Fascism is likewise opposed to trade unionism as a class weapon. But when brought within the orbit of the State, Fascism recognizes the real needs which gave rise to socialism and trade unionism, giving them due weight in the guild or corporative system in which divergent interests are coordinated and harmonized in the unity of the State (16).


I would suggest reading the whole entry which Mussolini himself, co-wrote.

You are told that every evil dictator in history and present is Socialist by those who hold power or support those that hold power. At some point in time it may be prudent for each and everyone of you that is anti-socialist, to ask yourself why it is that every person that clings to power, demonizes Socialism and goes so far as to obfuscate what Socialism is.

Socialism is a very simple concept, worker ownership of the means of production. It is never anything more than this.

top topics


log in