[ About | Archive | Network | Latest | RSS/XML Feed]

Red-Diaper Fascist

January 1, 2010 12:25 PM

"Progressives" have gone on record as hating fascists going all the way back to the Spanish Civil War (and beyond), when they used the war as an organizing tool on behalf of Marxism-Leninism, under the banner of anti-fascism. The very fact that the word "fascist" has become a kind of curse-word is a testament to the success of "Progressive" agitation and propaganda. Therefore, it might seem preposterous to many people to point out that what "Progressives" do corresponds more to the definition of fascism than to the strict definition of socialism. The behavior of Barack Hussein Obama, who pretty clearly self-identifies as a socialist (though he denies it so as not to scare off centrists and hipster entrepreneurs) is no exception to the socialist-theory, fascist-practice rule.

What then, is the difference between socialism and fascism? In my opinion, and you can google all the various definitions to find out if I am right, is that socialism has the goal of the elimination of private property, and fascism does not, favoring instead strict government control of privately owned enterprises.

Of course, there is lots of room for quibbling, so let me address the quibbling: some socialists may claim that they don't want to eliminate all private property, but establish public ownership of the means of production. Public, however, does not mean private. Perhaps, then a socialist may favor letting you keep a privately owned toothbrush, but you may certainly not own, let us say, a bank, under any form of socialism, except perhaps, a small piggy bank for your nickels and dimes.

Aha! you might exclaim, but wait a minute… what about the People's Republic of China? They are known to be (that is they call themselves) a socialist republic, but they do allow private ownership of large businesses. Does that not make them more of a fascist state than a socialist one?

My point exactly! The problem that all socialists have is that it is very difficult, perhaps impossible, to make a nation work without allowing some private ownership of the means of production. Lenin discovered that back early on in the Russian Revolution, when he established his New Economic Policy allowing private enterprise. Harry Reid rediscovered that in December, 2009, when he negotiated a "Health Care" bill which was basically a sweetheart deal between Big Insurance and the government. There was no state ownership of "Health Care" (code-name: the Public Option) in the Senate bill that passed the morning before Christmas Eve.

Let us return to the quibbling, however, this time about the meaning of fascism. Does a nation not have to have a dictator in order to qualify as fascist? I say no. It just has to behave as if it has a dictator, which means flouting the Constitution and the will of the people. Does that sound like any politicians you know?

Some definers of fascism insist that there be a strong nationalist component, as there was in Mussolini's Italy. Barack Hussein Obama certainly does not behave like an American nationalist when he makes speeches world-wide apologizing for the USA. However, consider asking a tribal Afghan villager if the USA under Obama is behaving nationalistically when it fights the Taliban and kills Taliban fighters with missiles from drones. Even such international personalities as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez view Obama as an America-firster, even if us America-firsters think the idea is laughable.

There are even those definers of fascism who, for the sake of historical purity, insist that fascism is a strictly Italian movement, led by a man named Mussolini, that is historically extinct. They are entitled to their opinion, but I don't share it.

My personal view is that Obama is a "Progressive" idealist, raised in a leftist family, at the very least a strong sympathizer with the historical socialist movement from Marx to the present. If he had his druthers, he would eliminate as much private ownership of the means of production as possible (though, of course, he dares not say that except to his close friends such as Bill Ayers.)

However, if fascism is as far as Obama and his backers can go without resistance, I believe that they are ready and willing to accept that development as "close enough for government work." The Reid Senate "Health Care" bill is a great example. And Obama would be following in the giant footsteps of Lenin's NEP and the present-day People's Republic of China if his legacy were a Fascist America instead of a Socialist America.

If you happen to be, ideologically, a true socialist, and you found yourself reading this, unlikely as that might be, consider the kind of man you have endorsed for the Presidency.

[Keywords: impeach-them-all.org fascism fascist means obama ownership private socialist ]