Pages

Sunday, August 16, 2009

A Nazi Behind Every Tree

Are terms like Fascist and Nazi overused? Before we begin, as Socrates would say, let's define our terms:

Fascism (From The Free Dictionary)
a.
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.

b.
A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2.
Oppressive, dictatorial control.

Adolf and Benito
German national socialism and Italian fascism were kissing cousins, both growing out of Socialism and violently opposing classical liberalism and traditional aristocratic conservatism. Nazism just happened to have the additional component of virulent racism.

Mussolini was a prolific writer and thinker for the socialist cause before he came to power. Both movements hated communism because of its international flavor and Russian roots. To appeal to the masses, Mussolini and Hitler adopted much of the Communist agenda, threw the international stuff overboard, and added in conservative nationalistic elements.

Fascism includes:

* Grab the corporations by the throat and challenge them: You're either with the state or you're against us!
* No more collective bargaining--The state is looking after the worker now. Unions only march on companies the state has declared evil
* Central control by the state of everything, from schools, to commerce to public health.
* Manipulation of societal institutions such as church, family and community

An excellent short history on the intersection of fascism, communism and conservatism can be found here: Mises - Liberalism vs Fascism

Is Obama a Fascist?
While I wholeheartedly agree that the term Nazi has been completely overused, I agree with libertarian professor Tibor Machan, who draws parallels between that hated German regime and our current Obama administration. The connection is not Jew hatred, death camps or the other odious aspects of Hitler's reign.

The connection Machan makes is the belief in Keynesianism: That government can stimulate the economy by "priming the pump," and generally run the economy best by centralizing control (aggregated production).

“It is interesting that so many Obama supporters are invoking the name of John Maynard Keynes as they promote the current official approach to dealing with the economy because of a little known fact about Keynes. He wrote an introduction to the German translation of his famous book, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, in which he said that his ideas were especially applicable to the way a dictatorship is supposed to be governed!

As Keynes wrote there, ‘the theory of aggregated production, which is the point of the following book, nevertheless can be much easier adapted to the conditions of a totalitarian state [einestotalen Staates] than the theory of production and distribution of a given production put forth under conditions of free competition and a large degree of laissez-faire.’
Yes, Fascist and Nazi are Overused Words (but so are Love, Hero, and Ironic)
I do think terms like fascist and Nazi are overused, but what are we to conclude upon looking at where our government is headed: Ownership or dragooning of private companies, picking winners and losers, worming its way into the family, mobilizing private citizens in the cause of supporting the leader (acorn, americorps). And now, a health care industry takeover.

This didn’t start with Obama, but I think we’ve finally hit the point where too many issues have converged. For the first time, we can see it all at once, and we don’t like it.

Fascism is here, it is real, and both parties indulge in it. Congress could pass a few simple laws to protect the chronically uninsured and pay for it with tort reform. Instead, they chose to tack on more hideous mechanical claws to the clanking government monstrosity.

17 comments:

Canadian Pragmatist said...

So whose word are we to take, Lew Rockwell or Tibor Machan?

You fail to actually analyze anything in this post. You rely far to heavily on exerpts from other peoples writing.

You fail to give one argument for Machan being right and Rockwell being wrong. In my mind they're both wrong.

The US doesn't have a dictator, the socioeconomic controls are not even as stringent as Canada, the opposition compares the leaders to the people on the picture you display...

Not one of these things are true of either Obama's administration of Bush's.

Good thing that you defined your terms, but too bad despite defining them you misused them throughout your post.

Silverfiddle said...

You have no idea what you are talking about.

My point is this is not an ideological thing. Republicans are in thrall to this almost as much as democrats.

I cite experts because I am not one, and neither are you based upon the fatuous comments you litter this site with.

Canadian Pragmatist said...

"This isn't an ideological thing". And my comments are fatuous.

Silverfiddle said...

OK. I misspoke. It is about ideology. Better stated: It is not a Republican-Democrat thing.

State control is still state control regardless of who manipulates the levers.

Canadian Pragmatist said...

Yes but there are political ideaologies and perspective which beleive in more and less state control (not all fascism/totalitarianism or libertarianism/anarchism).

Surely you believe that if the state controls less the private sector controlling more is a good thing. Why do you think this?

Especially with health care when millions are uninsured and things of this sort where the private sector is nothing short of cruel, cold and tyrannical/totalitarian.

Is there not such thing as private tyranny?

Silverfiddle said...

Congress created the perverse incentives that got us here. Don't you think a company would sell a $5 policy if they could?

The 47 million number is a myth. Actual mensurable Americans is less than 5 million. We could cover that now with savings from tort reform, which will never happen because trial lawyers richly fund the Democratic party.

Silverfiddle said...

A ripoff is still a ripoff, whether it comes from the private sector or the government.

At least with the private sector I can choose to stop paying them when they stick me in the ass.

Canadian Pragmatist said...

Well, according to the census bureau its 47 million uninsured Americans: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/567737

I don't know where you got the 5 million number from. Perhaps if you're right it would be much easier to get them insured.

Canadian Pragmatist said...

Maybe those 5 million really don't want it. I just think it's much more than that and of those people the vast majority want coverage but simply cannot afford private insurance rates.

Hence the private insurance industry is tyrannizing Americans. There are people who should be serving people in poor parts of Africa and other places with sub-standard health care with doctors-without-border working in America on Americans! Evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K21_teAW0Zg

VGBootCamp said...

Forget, please, "conservatism." It has been, operationally, de facto, Godless and therefore irrelevant. Secular conservatism will not defeat secular liberalism because to God both are two atheistic peas-in-a-pod and thus predestined to failure. As Stonewall Jackson's Chief of Staff R.L. Dabney said of such a humanistic belief more than 100 years ago:

"[Secular conservatism] is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it demurs to each aggression of the progressive party, and aims to save its credit by a respectable amount of growling, but always acquiesces at last in the innovation. What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today .one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, but never retards it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt bath utterly lost its savor: wherewith shall it be salted? Its impotency is not hard, indeed, to explain. It is worthless because it is the conservatism of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth."

Our country is collapsing because we have turned our back on God (Psalm 9:17) and refused to kiss His Son (Psalm 2).

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

PS – And “Mr. Worldly Wiseman” Rush Limbaugh never made a bigger ass of himself than at CPAC where he told that blasphemous “joke” about himself and God.

Silverfiddle said...

Calvin: Interesting take. While our religious perspectives are probably quite similar, we disagree on the role of religion and government.

Our founders founded a secular state, so here we are.

Politics is a dirty business. I guess I'm more of a "Render unto Caesar..., Render unto God..." kinda guy.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

Our founders (from early 1600s) were Christians, Puritans, who believed the Bible and came here to set up a Christian commonwealth -- and they did. Read those colonials charters and the Declaration of Independence. Our founders were NOT secular.

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
Recovering Republican
JLof@aol.com

Silverfiddle said...

John,
Of course our founders were not secular, but they did found a secular federal government.

Granted, Pennsylvania was indeed a Quaker state and Maryland a Catholic one, and the constitution did nothing to forbid states from having official religions.

The fact still remains that they founded a secular state and left religious conscious to the people.

I've read their writing and many make it clear that that this experiment would fail in the hands of an immoral people. Still, they did not write Christianity into the constitution.

John Lofton, Recovering Republican said...

Our Founderrs did NOT give us a secular government. Read the Declaration of Independence which reveals their political philosopy. They gave us a government the express purpose of which was to protect -GOD-GIVEN RIGHTS -- life, liberty, etc. This is NOT a "secular" view.

John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
JLof@aol.com

Silverfiddle said...

The Declaration of Independence is not the governing document of our country; The US Constitution is. And the constitution does not mandate religion. Where it does, it protects both the believer and non-believer:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Yes, they wrote the constitution to protect our God-given rights, but they founded a secular government.

Finntann said...

Amen Silverfiddle, While our founding fathers for the most part believed in God, they also, having suffered the persecution of being members of the "non-state" religion in both England and the Low Countries understood the importance of religious freedom. Which is why, while believing in God in many different ways, Quaker, Protestant, Catholic, Presbyterian, and so on, did everything they could to provide for separation of Church and State and prevent the establishment of a national religion. A orinciple which should be respected and upheld by both secular and religious folks. State religion is alright, provided your a member of it... I wonder if our recovering Republican friend would be content with this nation having a christian state religion other than his.

~Finntann~

Canadian Pragmatist said...

That is a secular view John. The wording is theistic (note that it is only theistic, and doesn't favour Christianity over any other religion) but I would word it something like this:

"We all reasonably agree that treating people as if they have rights is mutually beneficial for all people, so lets agree to do that. The rights are as follows..."

To appeal to the masses if I was writing the Declaration of Independence I might just say that God gave them, but that doesn't make me religious. That would make me a politician.

Also, what about Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, etc... These people were not religious.

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.