<p>If you can rent or buy this book I really recommend it. Its great and is filled with great info, stuff nobody was ever taught in school for good reason. Its a bit of a hard read.</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>haha.</p>
<p>how is liberal fascism even possible? the ideaology emphasizes a ‘collective state’ that ‘transcends the individual’</p>
<p>fascism=anti-liberal</p>
<p>note: if you think the liberalism i’m referring to has to do with ‘crazy democrats’ and left-wing politics, i suggest you get up from your chair and yell at yourself</p>
<p>Nobody needs to read a book to notice that one of the greatest periods of erosion of civil liberties happened in the last 8 years under one of the most purportedly conservative administrations.</p>
<p>Actually, the Bush administration really isn’t that conservative because of the outrageous spending they did. They took the worst parts of conservatism and liberalism and managed to fail with great aplomb.</p>
<p>Moderate is the only way to go.</p>
<p>I wonder if Obama is really becoming more moderate or whether he’s just trying to get votes.</p>
<p>Conservatives always spend like crazy. They just promise they won’t.</p>
<p>well see, all of your reactions shows that you really have no idea what fascism is. Which is why I recommend the book.</p>
<p>fascism=anti-liberal is not true at all. well it is true for fascism=anti-classical-liberal but fascism does equal social liberal.</p>
<p>and Bush like I have said before is a neo-conservative which is not a conservative. Neo-cons fall in the realm of Liberal authoritarian socialists. A conservative is Ron Paul or Barry Goldwater, i don’t think Bush lines up with them, though he did in 2000.</p>
<p>I really recommend this book. He documents and sites everything.</p>
<p>Wow.</p>
<p>Looks like someone completely fails to understand that correlation does not imply causation.</p>
<p>Because some fascists were “liberals”, all “liberals” are fascists? Quit wasting people’s time.</p>
<p>Semantics, semantics, semantics…</p>
<p>well actually yes if Liberalism is spawned from progressivism which is well fascist, then liberalism then is fascist also.</p>
<p>All im trying to do is recommend a good book, if you choose to remain ignorant, well that’s ok.</p>
<p>@Dr. Horse
classical liberalism is a close derivative of regular liberalism…it’s very similar to libertarianism</p>
<p>liberalism is not derived from fascism…progressivism is an independent philosophy that has traits of populism and centralization (sorta like socialism in a way)</p>
<p>progressivism is ideologically close to fascism, but what it has done for society is way different than what benito mussolini did to italy</p>
<p>anyways i don’t think you have a good grasp of politics…expose yourself to something you disagree with for once…hell you don’t even to do that…read a book on political philosophy or history…then you won’t look like an idiot when arguing for your side</p>
<p>there is no such thing as regular liberalism, its classic or social. maybe you mean regular is classic.</p>
<p>I have a better grasp on politics than any person ive ever talked to before so what you think really doesn’t matter much. And btw i have read way more books on anti-capitalism than I have read on capitalism probably 15x more. want to debate me, pick a topic and lets go.</p>
<p>Let’s debate the relative merits of Courage The Cowardly Dog and Ed, Edd n’ Eddy. I’ll start. Courage pwns.</p>
<p>Horse -
regular liberalism=really old liberalism from ‘back in the day’ when classical and social liberalism were one</p>
<p>however you fail to explain effectively why any type of liberalism is fascist</p>
<p>the core of liberalism rests on individual people and those who dissent; the core of fascism relies on leaders who can effectively control the population</p>
<p>
Dr. Horse: who have you talked with about politics? The friendly neighborhood sex offender who lives in an alley outside of the local middle school?</p>
<p>
Sorry. You have no idea what either fascism or liberalism is because dictatorial control and autonomy of the individual are a teensy bit incompatible. Actually, it could be that you have no idea what either are. :)</p>
<p>Classical means just that classic, as in before it was revamped. Its hard to explain such a top effectively and is thus the reason i recommend the book. The book is 500 pages long and I cant sum that up on a internet forum, which again is the reason I recommend reading it.</p>
<p>First of all you need to know that fascism has never properly been defined. So you using it as saying that “fascism relies on leaders who can effectively control the population” is all in all wrong.</p>
<p>You mention that the core of liberalism rests on the individual or individualism. Which is true, but only when we refer to classical liberalism or 20th century liberalism. The same is true that classical liberalism opposes totalitarianism and collectivism, but modern social liberalism embraces it. </p>
<p>Now if we look at a basic definition of fascism from dictionary.com</p>
<p>“(sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.”</p>
<p>or</p>
<p>“A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.”</p>
<p>We can see that social liberalism actually can fall within these two definitions quite nicely, as can neo-conservatism but conservatism, republicanism or libertarianism cannot. If we look at definition #2. It states “A system of government marked by centralization of authority” which falls directly inline with totalitarianism and collectivism. Severity of fascism depends on how much you take from its definition. I never said Fascism would be as if it were under Mussolini, I believe it will is more subtle and happy type of fascism that people have accepted slowly. fascism also depending on definition does not need a dictator, most would agree that fascism is underway under Bush, but he is not a dictator. </p>
<p>Now lets look at the second part of the defiition “stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” Social Liberalism supports all of these. Nobody loves to control the economy and society than a social liberal. Liberals and progressives alike are also in favor of “suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship” Both Clinton’s, Gore, Obama and the democratic congress currently all love these tactics, its blatantly clear. All candidates mentioned above also are all in favor of “a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.” All candidates support a strong sense of nationalism for their own means and all support the continuation of racism due to social programs. and if you dont belive that I dare you to read</p>
<p>Steele, Shelby (2006-05-02). White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-060-57862-9.</p>
<p>My edit limit expired… I thought it was 2 hours, not 20 minutes. Anyway:</p>
<p>
Ron Paul is a libertarian, not a conservative.</p>
<p>
- The progressive movement spawned from liberalism, not vice versa. Further, I’m going to refer back to The Dictionary:
As is clear, progressivism CAN be fascist but is not inherently so. To say that it is is deceitful.</p>
<p>Again, all of those definitions you quoted are mutually exclusive with liberalism. They all talk about centralization of authority, not the autonomy of the individual.</p>
<p>Jarn</p>
<p>Only when you are using the wrong definitions. Liberalism has changed since the 20th century, sorry about that.</p>
<p>again you are wrong, read Ron Pauls Books which I have read all, and you will know that he is a Conservative. All conservatives are in fact Libertarians. There is a reason he ran as a Republican rather than a Libertarian. He did run as a Libertarian in 1988 though.</p>
<p>Progressive is by nature a sister of fascism. Please read more than a dictionary.</p>
<p>
No, social liberalism doesn’t support ANY of those. It supports free movement through socioeconomic strata, a lack of censorship, and a lack of liberalism and racism…</p>
<p>Actually it supports all of them. Liberal govt’s think they can control economies and thus the social structure of such. So Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Al gore and well Obama to all don’t support terror, of the American people Im sure. Censorship, the whole democratic congress allows Bush a fellow social liberal to do as he pleases. We under a democratic congress have become more censored than anything. Does Obama and others I mentioned not believe in nationalism. They all do greatly. Again racism is supported by social programs via white guilt. you even said that social liberals support a “lack of liberalism”, well that is oppression and suppression then. </p>
<p>[YouTube</a> - President Clinton orders attack on Iraq](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc&feature=related]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENAV_UoIfgc&feature=related)
[YouTube</a> - Iraq: Democrats’ intellegence](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1q9Q0OtJ4g]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1q9Q0OtJ4g)
[YouTube</a> - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq’s ties to terrorism](<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64]YouTube”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JE48XHKG64)</p>
<p>They sure do love to instill fear. </p>
<p>Do you think I make this stuff up, Wake up.</p>
<p>The Clintons, Gore, and even Obama aren’t really liberal in the purely politically philosophical sense. They’re only considered liberal in America.</p>