Ron Paul, GOP voice of reason (?!), points out obvious fact that Obama is not a socialist. (Says he’s a corporatist.) http://bit.ly/9cUf5j
Ron Paul, GOP voice of reason (?!), points out obvious fact that Obama is not a socialist. (Says he’s a corporatist.) http://bit.ly/9cUf5j
Corporatist Socialists have a name reserved for them…Fascists.
Since political definitions operate on a sliding scale and are not black and white, the question should be, are Obama’s policies and actions to date more socialist, more capitalist, or more something else? He did not quite succeed in getting us to a single-payer system, but he’s on the record stating that it’s his goal to get us there but it must be done incrementally. Then there are the bailouts and government takeovers of companies like GM and the student loan industry. If that’s not moving towards socialist policies and behavior, I don’t know what is.
Sometimes this debate reminds me of the Clinton years and/or my struggles of conscience during puberty: “It’s not really sex if there wasn’t vaginal penetration; if I can’t have pre-marital sex, how far can I go with the girl before it counts as ‘sex’?” Similarly, Obama’s defenders are all too willing to shout, “The government doesn’t run and own the economy, therefore Obama’s not a socialist!” Maybe not, but he’s sure got his hands on the economy’s titties and he’s trying like hell to get his dong closer to the liberal promised land.
gahrie — touche.
Gahrie,
What is corporatist socialism, and if there is such a thing, what has it got to do with facism?
I understand ‘corporatism’ to have two meanings in the political context: (a) policies that protect or promote the interests of corporations, which is the sense in which Ron Paul is using the word; and (b) the formal incorporation of organized business and labor interests into the workings of the state.
Unless I’m missing something, definition (a) cannot be used to modify the term ‘socialism’ in any meaningful way. And even if definition (b) could, I don’t understand how that would get us any closer to facism.
Can you help?
Fascism is the form of socialism that involves co-opting or taking direct control of business in the interests of the state.
And as for your first point:
“the formal incorporation of organized business and labor interests into the workings of the state. ”
Isn’t that exactly what the Obama administration is doing?
Alec:
If you truly don’t understand the definition of fascism and it’s relationship to socialism and corporatism, I suggest you take a government or history course that deals with post WW I Italy and Germany.
Alec, there is this interesting website out there called, uh, Wikipedia, and in just the second sentence, the entry for Fascism reads, “Fascists seek to organize a nation on corporatist perspectives; values; and systems such as the political system and the economy.” Just a thought, but that might answer your question right there.
gahrie, correct me if I’m mistaken, but are you implying that fascism is primarily a leftist movement?
It seems like Obama is just doing all kinds of wrong by leading us simultaneously down the paths of both socialism and fascism. He is possibly the most diabolical force this country has ever faced. I fear for my country. I really do.
Fascism is a movement of the Left. I’m not implying it at all, I’m stating a simple fact. It’s ideology is based on Marxism and the reason why communists and fascists hate each other is because they both seek to occupy the same political real estate.
Mussolini was inspired by the works of Georges Sorel, a Marxist and vocal opponent of capitalism.
The Left has been very successful in portraying fascism as a rightwing ideology since the end of WW II because of its association with NAZI war crimes. However, if you go back before WW II, you will find the Left (including the Wilson administration) embracing fascism, and praising both Hitler and Mussolini.
Gahrie, I love how, in your defense of Jonah-Goldberg-ism with regard to the concept of “Liberal Fascism,” you seem to casually concede (at least implicitly) that the Right is closer to the Nazi war criminals’, uh, “political real estate,” than the Left is, and that’s why people mistakenly believe fascism is a more right-ish ideology. LOL. Not sure the point is even worth making once you’ve made that concession.
Brendan:
You need to read me more carefully. I said that the Left was successful in PORTRAYIING fascism as a rightwing ideology. I did not say that either fascism or NAZI war crimes were in anyway associated with the right in reality.
Since you seem to reject the fact that fascism is an ideology of the Left:
1) What evidence do you base this on?
2) How do you explain the embrace of the Left, and especially the progressives, of Fascism, Mussolini and Hitler prior to WW II?
Strange that Obama supporters are willing to trumpet the notion that he is a corporatist just to disprove that he is a socialist.
Imagine a fly-by-night political newcomer, who comes to understand that the road to popularity is de-emphasizing political and fiscal discipline and emphasizing giving free shit to people.
Imagine that this newcomer, in their first foray in politics, borrows an unprecedented amount of money to build an unnecessary (but fun!) sports arena, receives a promotion as a result, and then steals an even larger amount of money from the biggest industry to give back to the greedy and thrilled people, for which this newcomer is nearly promoted again.
If this newcomer, having mastered the art of spending and stealing for the delight of the masses, wished to further increase their profile, what would be the logical thing to seek?
Why, the endorsement of the group that is dedicated to rooting out and stopping politicians inclined toward borrowing excess money and abusing corporations for cheap political gain, of course.
All a long-winded way of getting to: is Obama a socialistish/fascistish politician? Of course he is. But the fact that people are screaming about Obama’s socialism (while the rest of the rotten machine gets a free pass, and in Palin’s case, an endorsement), in a weird way makes Obama’s socialism a little less threatening.
At least we’re watching him. Sort of…
Is there anyone who isn’t a socialist or fascist now?
We Are All Caricatures Of Extremist 20th Century Ideologies Now
Gahrie, I read your comment closely, and I stand by my response to it. You said: “The Left has been very successful in portraying fascism as a rightwing ideology since the end of WW II because of its association with NAZI war crimes.” The literal reading of that sentence is that the reason the Left has been able to succeed in “portraying” fascism as Right-ish is “because of its association” with Nazi war crimes. This analysis necessarily implies a pre-existing association, at least in the public mind — separate and apart from the referenced Lefty “portrayal” — between the rightwing and Nazi war crimes.
I’m not being cute about this; I’m really not sure how else to read the comment. If you were intending to say that “the Left has been very successful in portraying fascism as rightwing because the Left potrays the Nazi war crimes as rightwing,” that’s a fairly circular and meaningless statement. It doesn’t actually offer an explanation for the success of the Left’s “portrayal,” despite purporting to do so. Whereas your original comment clearly seemed to be offering some pre-existing “association” as an explanation for the success of the left-wing “portrayal” that you say is false.
As for the statement that I “seem to reject the fact that fascism is an ideology of the Left,” I’m not sure where I’ve said this, but FWIW, I reject the notion that fascism is an ideology of either the Right or Left, in any meaningful modern-day sense. This whole idea of screaming “FASCISM!” or “SOCIALISM!” about mainstream ideological differences is completely ridiculous and frankly rather offensive. Both sides are guilty of it, and they should both stop. Also, the substance of “Right” and “Left” have changed so much over the years and decades that I’m not sure how relevant the historical point you’re trying to make really is. But, as for the history, I’m not enough of an expert on 20th century ideological history to really have an opinion one way or the other.
1) So you are being pedantic yet again. Since I apparently have to clarify:
The Left has been very successful in portraying fascism as a rightwing ideology since the end of WW II because of its association with NAZI war crimes.
In this sentence, the word “its” refers to “fascism”, not “rightwing ideology”. In other words I am saying the Left dramatically shifted gears after WW II, and stopped embracing fascism, and attempted (successfully) to label fascism as rightwing, because fascism became associated with NAZI war crimes. (Note, I do not believe that all fascists should be linked to the NAZIs.)
2) Also, the substance of “Right” and “Left” have changed so much over the years and decades that I’m not sure how relevant the historical point you’re trying to make really is
I disagree. In fact, I think if anything the Left and right have returned to historical norms.
3) But, as for the history, I’m not enough of an expert on 20th century ideological history to really have an opinion one way or the other.
I am.
And why express your opinion:
I reject the notion that fascism is an ideology of either the Right or Left, in any meaningful modern-day sense.
if you feel you are not knowledgeable enough to do so?
I see. So the missing thought from your previous comment was: “The Left has been very successful in portraying fascism as a rightwing ideology since the end of WW II because the Left decided to disassociate itself from the fascism and embrace a concerted campaign to tar the Right with it due to fascism’s association with NAZI war crimes.
I understand now what you were intending to say. I submit, however, that that is NOT what you said — indeed, I submit that any neutral observer would agree that’s not what you said — and it’s not “pedantic” to be confused by a confusing sentence that seems quite clearly to be pointing to a different conclusion than the one you intended to express.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not trying to slam you here. Expressing yourself unclearly on a blog is no big deal — I do it all the time. But don’t lash out at me for failing to understand what you didn’t say.
As for your latter point, don’t be obtuse. I feel that I am knowledgeable enough to say that neither modern mainstream liberalism nor modern mainstream conservatism are anywhere close to fascism or socialism. (If you feel that your self-described “expertise” allows you to reach a different conclusion, I submit that you’re less of an expert than you think you are.) What I don’t feel I am knowledgeable enough to assess is the historical relationship between historical liberalism/conservatism and those historical extremist ideologies (or their precursors). That’s a separate question from whether it’s reasonable to tar today’s liberals or conservatives with extremist labels like “socialist” or “fascist.”
Everything bad that’s ever happened is ultimately traceable, in some way, to the Left. Check it out:
Climate change? Academia, elitists – The Left
Vietnam? LBJ, Democrats – The Left
Mike Brey? Notre Dame employee, Notre Dame academic elitists invited socialist ineligible-president Obama to speak – The Left
9/11? Osama Bin Laden got so pissed off at the Left that it drove him into the crazy depths of the right, Clinton didn’t kill him when he had the chance, Democrats – The Left
Hitler? Some vegetarian artist trying to tell people’s what’s best for them? – Um….guess.
kcatnd – I was really enjoying your post, until I got to
Osama Bin Laden got so pissed off at the Left
and then I was confused. I don’t know near as much about OBL as Gahrie about 20th century ideological history, but wasn’t Bin Laden initially irritated that US military bases were established on the holy land of Saudi Arabia, which occured following Gulf War I, Bush 41’s doing?
Then I remembered read my lips and the taxes that followed and how so many Republicans disavow Bush 41, so…carry on…
1) Not everything is the fault of the Left, just much.
2) Vietnam was Kennedy’s fault, not LBJ’s.
Brendan:
1) I am not saying that the modern Left is fascist. I am not even saying that Pres. Obama is fascist, Ron Paul is. In fact I think he is a socialist with a foundation in Marxism.
2) The modern Left is returning/has returned to the progressive movement. Indeed many formerly liberal icons insist on the progressive label now. (largely because they have so tarred the term liberal, which can now hopefully return to its original meaning)
3) There is strong historical evidence for the fact that the American left embraced Fascism, Mussolini and Hitler in the 1930’s.
4) As I stated above, I am not calling today’s Left or Pres. Obama fascist.
Then I remembered read my lips and the taxes that followed and how so many Republicans disavow Bush 41, so…carry on…
I think if you look, you will find that many Republicans do wish to disavow both Presidents Bush, and merely believe they were better than the alternatives.
I know I do.
“Not everything is the fault of the Left, just much.”
No, I think you’ve made it pretty clear in your postings here over the years. Name one thing the right has done wrong in the last 100 years. I honestly can’t think of a single thing.
“Then I remembered read my lips and the taxes that followed and how so many Republicans disavow Bush 41, so…carry on…”
Correct, Jazz. Bush 41 was part of the Left. He had the chance to pursue Saddam Hussein in an all-out assault on Baghdad and decided to let him slip away instead. Saddam Hussein’s politics are obviously Leftist in origin. Thus, Bush 41 aided the Left. Ironically, Bush 43, who didn’t let Hussein slip away, ended up being a Leftist for other reasons, as gahrie could probably explain to you.
Name one thing the right has done wrong in the last 100 years. I honestly can’t think of a single thing.
1) Washington Naval Conference 1921-1922
2) Teapot Dome Scandal
3) Creation of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare
4) Overthrow of the government of Iran in 1953
5) Appointments of Warren and Brennan to the US Supreme Court
6) Paris Peace Accords (abandoning South Vietnam)
7) Detaching the dollar from the gold standard
8) Creation of the E.P.A.
9) setting a maximum speed limit of 55 mph
10) Watergate
11) Appointing Justice Burger as Chief Justice
12) Appointing Justice Stevens to the Supreme Court
13) War on Drugs
14) Appointing Justice Kennedy to the Supreme Court
15) Breaking the no new taxes pledge
16) No Child Left Behind Act
Bush W era right wing beliefs are very similar to those pushed by Hitler and the Nazi party in their rise to power.
– Extreme patriotism
– Preemptive war
– Don’t question the leader
– If you don’t agree with us, you support the enemy
– Find someone else to blame rhetoric and fear mongering
Similarities don’t make them equal by any means, but that type of right wing thought is very much in line with what it was being compared to.
Of course I don’t think true Conservativism and Bush/Reagan Conservativism have much to do with each other.
Andrew [#7 – an age ago in the improbable life of this thread]
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia (always handy), but sadly it doesn’t answer my original question.
I readily acknowledge that facism has a corporatist (definition b) component, particularly as practiced in Italy between the Wars.
But Gahrie’s argument, on which I was commenting, was essentially that corporatist socialism equals facism. So establishing that some kind of corporatism is inherent in facism doesn’t prove Gahrie’s point, of which I remain unconvinced (although I’m still catching up on the other comments in this thread!).
By the way, I certainly wasn’t trying to make a political point in my earlier comment – just raising a question of largely historical interest.
But Gahrie’s argument, on which I was commenting, was essentially that corporatist socialism equals facism. So establishing that some kind of corporatism is inherent in facism doesn’t prove Gahrie’s point, of which I remain unconvinced (although I’m still catching up on the other comments in this thread!).
Fascism grew out of the socialist movement in both Germany and Italy. The NAZI party is the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Mussolini was a writer and activist for the Socialist party in Italy before forming the Fascists.
Gahrie
Even if true, the fact that some fascists might previously have been socialists doesn’t really establish that ‘corporatist socialism’ equals fascism (which is how I understood your argument at #1).
In any case, I disagree that fascism in Germany (or, more accurately, Nazism) “grew out of the socialist movement” in any meaningful way. Although they called themselves national socialists, many of the key tenets of Nazism (e.g. ultra-nationalism, racialism, militarism, anti trade unionism, anti-egalitarianism, anti class-consciousness, opposition to Parliamentary democracy) were diametrically opposed to the key things the German socialists were fighting for in post-WW1 Germany.
And I seem to remember that Mussolini – although a former socialist – declared war on socialism as part of his appeal for power in the early 1920s.
Just because they say they are “socialists” doesn’t mean they are. Do you really think the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (aka North Korea) is all that democratic?
Alec, the main difference between fascism and socialism is cultural, not economic. Fascism is socialism-plus.
You have to stop thinking of ideologies on a left-right continuum and instead rely more on the fundamental elements of the ideology and similarities with other ideologies. The German Nazi (nationalist socialist) model of fascism was far more socialist than the Italian version, and it was also far more radical in its drive for cultural homogeneity, but both were also strongly corporatist. Whether corporations are a direct arm of the state or operate more independently, both models of fascism put a lot of emphasis on the organization of society around corporatist principles. Softer forms of socialism tend to be corporatist (e.g., transitioning corporate entities from private to state control), but as socialism becomes more radically egalitarian, you get communism and the dismantling of corporatist forms and hierarchies.
This drive towards egalitarianism expressed in communism also imposes a rigid standard of homogeneity just like fascism, except fascism protects one cultural or ethnic identity at the expense of competing cultural or ethnic identities, while communism squashes out all forms of cultural and individual expression deemed threatening to communist state ideology. Thus, Jews are at risk in Nazi Germany because of their ethnic identity, while in the USSR, Jews are at risk insofar as they express their Jewishness (culturally or religiously).
Most importantly of all, whether we’re talking about fascism, corporatism, socialism, or communism, in each case we are describing an ideology that trends towards autocracy vice individual liberty (whether social or economic). Socialism and, to a lesser degree, communism, tend to be more at ease with social liberty than economic liberty, while fascism tends to place more emphasis on control of social liberty. Still, the extremes of both fascism and socialism (communism) are inherent threats to all forms of liberty due to their autocratic / totalitarian nature.
Back to corporatism for a moment, corporatism cannot truly coexist with classical liberalism. Classical liberalism requires a fairly regulated free market that neither favors nor disfavors corporations vice other means of economic organization. Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats truly uphold this ideal, so Ron Paul’s comment about Obama is on the mark. But again, there are flavors and shades here, and Obama’s flavor of corporatism shades more towards the economic program of the Nazis, which was corporatist socialism (or socialist corporatism if you prefer). Big Business Republicans, in contrast, tend to be more purely corporatist and tend to resist the socialist entreaties from the left (due to the drive to protect and expand profits), and the nationalist hues on the right (due to the drive to protect and expand markets). The more nationalistic forms of corporatism (which trend towards Mussolini-style fascism) tend not to be very popular in heterogeneous societies like those of the Anglo-sphere (Canada, US, UK, New Zealand, Australia), but they do well in places with a dominant culture like Japan and Latin America. Ron Paul, being libertarian, hates all of these flavors of corporatism, which is why he chose to lump Obama in more with the leaders of his own party than with the socialist progressive left.