• Tag Archives fascism
  • The Demands of Antifa and the Original Fascists Have a Lot in Common

    A ghastly phantom has descended upon America: the specter of anti-capitalism. Young people march behind the socialist bandwagon and some activists block free speech as members of a group called “Antifa”.

    This “anti-fascist” movement engages in militant protests and does not shrink from using violence. As a part of the extreme left, the members of the “antifa-movement” are self-proclaimed “anti-capitalists” and declared “enemies of the right”. They call themselves “anti-fascist”, when, in fact, more than any other ideology, fascism characterizes their own movement.

    Yet what is fascism and what is the content of this ideology?

    The “Fascist Manifesto”

    The Fascist Manifesto was proclaimed in 1919 by Alceste De Ambris and Filippo Tommaso Marienetti. In their pamphlet, the authors called for an eight-hour workday and a minimum wage; it demanded worker representation in industrial management and equal standing of trade unions, industrial executives, and public servants.

    The authors of the Fascist Manifesto demanded progressive taxation, invalidity insurance, and other types of social benefits, along with reducing the retirement age. The Manifesto demanded the confiscation of the property of all religious institutions and to nationalize the armament industry.

    The authors of the Fascist Manifesto called for establishing a corporatist system of ‘National Councils’ formed by experts to be elected by their professional organizations who should hold legislative power in their respective areas.

    De Ambris and Marienetti demanded a strong progressive tax on capital to expropriate a portion of all wealth and the seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations together with the nationalization of the arms industry.

    In 1922, the socialist Benito Mussolini came to power in Italy under the banner of fascism and put most of the fascist program into practice as it was proclaimed in the Manifesto some years earlier.

    Compared with the Communist Manifesto

    A comparison with the Manifesto of the Communist Party, written by Marx and Engels and published in 1848, reveals the kinship of fascism and Communism.

    The Communist Manifesto of 170 years ago demanded:

    • Strongly progressive taxes
    • Centralization of credit in the hands of the state by a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly
    • Centralization of the transport system in the hands of the state
    • Unification of the farmlands of agriculture and industry with the aim of gradually eliminating the contrast between town and country
    • Public free education of all children, elimination of factory work of children in its present form, union of education with material production.

    According to the Communist Decalogue, the items left to achieve full-blown socialism were:

    • Requirement 1 – Expropriation of the landed property and use of the basic rent for state expenditure
    • Requirement 4 – Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels
    • Requirement 8 – Equal obligation to work for all; establishment of an industrial army including in agriculture.

    Both the Communist and the Fascist Manifestos are echoed in the official Party Program of the Nazis, which was launched in 1920.

    Nazi Party Demands

    Adolf Hitler himself was present when the 25 points of the program of the Nazi Party were announced on February 24, 1920. The name Nazism itself says it all: it is the abbreviation of NSDAP which stands for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party).

    In 1925, The General Assembly of the NSDAP declared the program of 1920 as “immutable”, and in 1941 Adolf Hitler determined that all future leaders of the Reich must be sworn in on the 25 points.

    The Program of the Nazi Party includes demands such as:

    • Socialization of monopoly companies
    • Municipalization of large department stores
    • Expropriation of land for charitable purposes
    • Prevention of real estate speculation
    • Expansion of the entire education system
    • A comprehensive system of free public schools and generous study stipends and grants
    • A clean environment along with promoting the health and the fitness of the people.

    In particular, the Nazi party program demanded

    • the abolition of easy income without work (item 11)
    • confiscation of war profits (item 12)
    • the nationalization of all trust enterprises (item 13)
    • profit sharing in large companies (item 14)
    • generous expansion of retirement provision (item 15)
    • the creation of a healthy middle class (item 16)
    • a land reform adapted to national needs, creating a law for the free expropriation of land for charitable purposes. Abolition of land consumption and prevention of any land speculation (item 17).

    In plank 20 the party program required that ‘the state must ensure that our entire national education system gets thoroughly expanded’ with an ample system of subsidies for education.

    In plank 21, the program demanded that ‘the state has the duty to help raise the standard of national health by providing maternity welfare centers, by prohibiting juvenile labor, by increasing physical fitness through the introduction of compulsory games and gymnastics, and by the greatest possible encouragement of associations concerned with the physical education of the young.”

     

    The Nazis called for the creation of a “People’s Army”—not different from what later the Communists in Eastern Europe and Asia promoted.

    This selection of demands from the Communist, fascist, and Nazi catalogs shows the high degree of similarity between the lines of thought of these three ideologies. What the communists express in the slogan ‘from each according to his abilities, to each according to his need’ is equal to the Nazi dictum that the ‘common good comes before the private good’ (‘Gemeinnutz vor Eigennutz’) and the fascist motto of ‘all within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. It comes as no surprise that the communist, fascist, and national-socialist governments have acted as repressive regimes that brought neither prosperity nor equality or peace but misery, suppression, and war.

    After the left has pocketed the concept of liberalism and turned the word into the opposite of its original meaning, the Antifa-movement uses a false terminology to hide its true agenda. While calling themselves “antifascist” and declaring fascism as the enemy, the Antifa itself is a foremost fascist movement.

    The members of Antifa are not opponents to fascism but themselves its genuine representatives. Communism, Socialism, Fascism are united by the common band of anti-capitalism and anti-liberalism.

    The Antifa movement is a fascist movement. The enemy of this movement is not fascism but liberty, peace, and prosperity.


    Antony Mueller

    Antony Mueller is a German professor of economics who currently teaches in Brazil. He is the author of “Beyond the State and Politics. Capitalism for the New Millennium” (2018).

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.



  • James Damore and the Fascist Slur

     

    On February 17, 2018, the Freethinkers of Portland State University (PSU) held a panel discussion featuring such speakers as former Evergreen State biologist Heather E. Heying, PSU philosophy professor Peter Boghossian, writer Helen Pluckrose, and the infamous author of the Google memo, James Damore. This panel was entitled “We Need to Talk About Diversity.”

    In defense of the memo, Heather Heying told the crowd, “James argues accurately that there are differences between men and women. This is a strange position to be in to be arguing for something so universally and widely accepted in biology.”

    The Heckler’s Veto

    A video clip of the event shows a planned student disruption. It includes a walkout and an attempt to shut down the panel’s PA system.

    The clip begins with Heather E. Heying explaining how women and men are biologically different and ends with the protest. A female protester screams, in reference to Damore, “He is a piece of s***. That is not ok. Even the women in there have been brainwashed.”

    A male protester adds, “Should not listen to fascism. It should not be tolerated in civil society. Nazis are not welcome in civil society.”

    The female protester returns with, “F*** the police and power to the people.”

    The firing of Damore and the dismissal of his lawsuit by the National Labor Board should have been enough to quiet his critics. Instead, Damore has since become a cultural sensation. In addition to being labeled a misogynist, he is accused, among other things, of being an alt-right hero and a fascist Nazi.

    It is fully ironic for any group to lecture anyone about civil society when they are chanting violent epithets and shutting down a public discussion. But the larger concern of this protest is their likening of James Damore and the other panelists to fascists and Nazis.

    According to Wikipedia,

    “Fascism is a form of authoritarian nationalism, characterized by doctoral power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce, which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.”

    It should be safe to say that a free event at a public university put on by a student group is the opposite of an authoritarian state whose aim is to control the means of production through force. Yet, these facts do not seem readily transparent to college kids.

    “You’re All a Bunch of Nazis”

    The ultimate problem with these critics is that they are not challenging Damore based on good arguments. Calling someone a Nazi is easy and cheap. If you liken Damore to an ideological movement that led to the death of over thirty million people, then you never have to confront his ideas intellectually.

    The tragedy, of course, is for the rest of us. By calling James Damore a fascist, an important societal label is misappropriated into a political culture war. Suddenly, what should be a descriptor for violent political ideology becomes a cheapened slur for anyone who disagrees with left-leaning thought.

    What is even more disturbing about this label is what happens if James Damore’s points are proven to have some validity. If James Damore is a fascist, does that make valid arguments fascist, too?

    There are many social psychologists who either disagree with Damore or believe the presentation of his points was exaggerated. Among these names are Janet Hyde, Michael Wiederman, Cordelia Fine, and even Catherine Hakim who is referenced in his memo. It would be more fruitful for Damore’s opponents to reference these thinkers and their elevated ideas to refute his position. But doing so takes critical thinking, initiative, and effort.

    We must learn as a society to rescue the conversation surrounding complex issues. Ideas need to be debated and not shut down. Not everyone who disagrees with us is a [fill-in-hated-group-here]. They may be wrong, of course, but shutting down an idea through a slur is never a healthy way to move a disagreement forward.


    Jaye Sarah Davidson

    Jaye Sarah Davidson is a graduate from Florida State University’s Film School. She has made short films that have played all over the United States. She has worked as a producer and editor for commercials, music videos, and nonprofits. She is very excited to be a part of the Liberty movement.

    This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.



  • Waking Up to the Reality of Fascism

    Donald Trump is on a roll, breaking new ground in uses for state power.

    Closing the internet? Sure. “We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people… We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways.”

    Registering Muslims? Lots of people thought he misspoke. But he later clarified: “There should be a lot of systems, beyond databases. We should have a lot of systems.”

    Why not just bar all Muslims at the border? Indeed, and to the massive cheers of his supporters, Trump has called for the “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.”

    Internment camps? Trump cites the FDR precedent: Italians, Germans, and Japanese “couldn’t go five miles from their homes. They weren’t allowed to use radios, flashlights. I mean, you know, take a look at what FDR did many years ago and he’s one of the most highly respected presidents.”

    Rounding up millions of people? He’ll create a “deportation force” to hunt down and remove 11 million illegal immigrants.

    Killing wives and children? That too. “When you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families.”

    Political Vocabulary

    This litany of ideas has finally prompted mainstream recognition of the incredibly obvious: If Donald Trump has an ideology, it is best described as fascism.

    Even Republican commentators, worried that he might be unstoppable, are saying it now. Military historian and Marco Rubio adviser Max Boot tweeted that “Trump is a fascist. And that’s not a term I use loosely or often. But he’s earned it.” Bush adviser John Noonan said the same.

    The mainstream press is more overt. CNN’s Chris Cuomo asked Trump point blank if he is a fascist. The Atlantic writes: “It’s hard to remember a time when a supposedly mainstream candidate had no interest in differentiating ideas he’s endorsed from those of the Nazis.”

    There is a feeling of shock in the air, but anyone paying attention should have seen this last summer. Why did it take so long for the consciousness to dawn?

    The word fascism has been used too often in political discourse, and almost always imprecisely. It’s a bit like the boy who cried wolf. You warn about wolves so much that no one takes you seriously when a real one actually shows up.

    Lefties since the late 1930s have tended to call non-leftists fascists — which has led to a discrediting of the word itself. As time went on, the word became nothing but a vacuous political insult. It’s what people say about someone with whom they disagree. It doesn’t mean much more than that.

    Then in the 1990s came Godwin’s Law: “As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 100 percent.” This law provided a convenient way to dismiss all talk of fascism as Internet babblings deployed in the midst of flame wars.

    Godwin’s Law made worse the perception that followed the end of World War II: that fascism was a temporary weird thing that afflicted a few countries but had been vanquished from the earth thanks to the Allied war victory. It would no longer be a real problem but rather a swear word with no real substance.

    Fascism Is Real

    Without the term fascism as an authentic descriptor, we have a problem. We have no accurate way to identify what is in fact the most politically successful movement of the 20th century. It is a movement that still exists today, because the conditions that gave rise to it are unchanged.

    The whole burden of one of the most famous pro-freedom books of the century — Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom — was to warn that fascism was a more immediate and pressing danger to the developed world than Russian-style socialism. And this is for a reason: Hayek said that “brown” fascism did not represent a polar opposite of “red” socialism. In the interwar period, it was common to see both intellectuals and politicians move fluidly from one to the other.

    “The rise of Fascism and Nazism was not a reaction against the socialist trends of the preceding period,” wrote Hayek, “but a necessary outcome of those tendencies.”

    In Hayek’s reading, the dynamic works like this. The socialists build the state machinery, but their plans fail. A crisis arrives. The population seeks answers. Politicians claiming to be anti-socialist step up with new authoritarian plans that purport to reverse the problem. Their populist appeal taps into the lowest political instincts (nativism, racism, religious bigotry, and so on) and promises a new order of things under better, more efficient rule.

    Last July, I heard Trump speak, and his talk displayed all the features of fascist rhetoric. He began with trade protectionism and held up autarky as an ideal. He moved to immigration, leading the crowd to believe that all their economic and security troubles were due to dangerous foreign elements among us. Then came the racial dog whistles: Trump demanded of a Hispanic questioner whether he was a plant sent by the government of Mexico.

    There was more. He railed against the establishment that is incompetent and lacking in energy. He bragged about his lack of interest-group ties — which is another way of saying that only he can become the purest sort of dictator, with no quid pro quos to tie him down.

    Source: Waking Up to the Reality of Fascism