GOP is "neo-fascist"

Marx brought us a different way to think about the generation of wealth and who owns the means for doing it. This helps us when thinking about the excesses of capitalism and the socialist needs of a, well, society.

Communism, on the other had, is a really radical concept that has never been tried on a nationwide scale. "Collectivism" would seem a better term for what "communist" countries tried.

The real kicker is Stalinism (and its predecessor, Leninism). That stuff is what most people are actually fearing when they hear "communism." It is practiced by only a few countries around the world anymore. North Korea, China (to a lesser extent), Cuba, and a few others. They also, to varying degrees, practice collectivism.

Fascism, however, is a right-wing concept, often supported by capitalists. It was the industrialists in Germany, for example, who thought they could control the Nazis and their leader.

Is the GOP fascist? I think it is a useless question. The answer simply applies a label and does nothing about the problems beneath.

 

I feel it hard to believe anyone seriously thinks this is the moment for both-side-ism. Moreover, I frankly do not know what to make of the fact that you apparently think belief that, perhaps, different intersecting aspects of one's identity can combine into complex modes of oppression make me, um, racist by definition, one rejecting modernism, obsessed with the plot, and all the other 11 things on Eco's list. And how instead of clarifying what is it you mean you chose to accuse me of, what, lying? It's all rather baffling.




For the record, CS faculty tend to be introverts, and seeing how most of us are not born here, hesitant to discuss US politics. I happen to know a political position of only one guy, an eminent professor at FSU (now dean elsewhere) and a true gentleman - and he happens to be a Republican (or was one). So no, I have no clue who you talk about; not 100% sure you do either.

 

Bill, Rich,
Most academics have willfully ignored modern liberalism's progressive-fascist roots, although scholars such as James Ceaser, John Marini, and others have in fact been calling attention to the progressive origins of modern liberalism.
A compelling case can be made that the very idea of fascism emanated from the ranks of liberalism. The underlying thesis concerning the progressive nature of fascism can be made by
starting with the primary sources of fascism, and continuing to political and intellectual history written by the major historians of the subject.
It is recorded in US history who amplified an almost-fascist concentration of power in Washington.
It was liberals who came to believe that authoritarian government is fine as long as representatives of 'the people'—themselves—are in charge.
Didn't FDR praised his 'wholesome and proper' buildup of power because he was leading 'a people's government.'?
Yet his achievements are recognized by both conservatives and Democrats.

I remember reading interesting article a year ago. Maybe not for this discussion but here it is.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/16/democrats-socialism-fdr-roosevelt-227622/

 

Lerner is following a storied tradition here. A claim that Social-Democratic parties are actually Fascist was actively spread by Komintern, under Stalin's leadership, in the early 30ies. A Big Lie, so to speak. Under this theory, that tine's KPD used their resources to fight Socialist Party of Germany, leaving Nazis pretty much alone.
Social fascism - Wikipedia

At the same time, Stalin actually entered into military alliance with the literal, original Nazis (famed Molotov-Ribbentropp pact). So funny that fascist fellow-travelers from the GOP use the exact. same. playbook Stalin used.

 

I'm fine standing by what I posted.

 

I'm pleased that Lerner's recent posts make sense to someone. However, Progressive politics is an extremely simple concept.

progressivism (usually uncountable, plural progressivisms)

1. A political ideology that favours progress towards better conditions in society.

It doesn't have roots. It is utter hogwash to claim all the nonsense that he is claiming about the "ROOTS" of American progressive politics. There are no such roots except in Lerner's mind. I also note that Lerner seems to be changing his tune on this. Previously stating that if I researched the roots I would find he is correct. Now claiming "Most academics have willfully ignored modern liberalism's progressive-fascist roots". It is just utter hogwash.

 

Bill,
As the tread title is blaming GOP to be neo-fascists and its absolutely false. But is the antitheses of conservative principles.
Stanislav,
The extreme version of conservatism isn’t fascism, as the left and you wants us to think. It’s libertarianism.
Fascism is best thought of as a nationalistic version of socialism.
So we obviously have different opinions on this, when I have some more time I will present you the roots of fascism of the liberal left.
Even do the progressives are ever-shifting coalition of organized groups and individuals who agreed on certain issues and disagreed on others.
Progressives are also divided on race and civil rights so as I stated in other posts. So not all fall under the same categories.

And it appears that the anti-fascist movement has a sophomoric misunderstanding of fascism and its location on the political spectrum.
More disturbing, this lack of understanding extends to its own social media and even physical tactics that mimic the mob psychology, street rage and bullying that are hallmarks of the fascism they denounce.

 

Here you assume GOP is Conservative. It is absolutely not; not after selling out to Trump. I personally think Libertarianism is hogwash; but it is not Fascist. Most libertarians are socially liberal, and are harmless nerds like our friend Steve here. They are even right on some isolated issues. But this is not what QAnon/GOP are, now are they?

Here is what happened: over time, GOP whittled down to redistribution of wealth upwards; "eat the poor". Sometimes using Randian rhetoric on how the poor are "takers", or Reaganian fibs like "the welfare queen (C)(TM)". The big element of this is gradual dismantling of the liberal welfare state (including hospitals and public schools you seem to care about) that used to be built by both parties, in differing speeds and ways - FDR, Ike, even Nixon contributed. Most GOP VOTERS, meanwhile, are not rich themselves; so they needed something more to be sold on this stuff. Fascism has proven record of attracting the unwashed masses. So GOP tried to use dog-whistle versions of this messaging. Racist dog-whistles, appeals to white frustration, isolationism, militarism, tradition, and yes, conspiracies. Over time, right-wing fringe found home firmly in the GOP; the party came to rely on these votes. Then came 45 and said quiet parts aloud; now increasingly GOP figures need to be explicitly Fascistic to keep their position. Tail wags the dog.

 

I have no clue why this is addressed to me unless you are trying to explain how your previous posts were just meant to be your unique brand of Whataboutism.

I will respond to one particular line though. "Fascism is best thought of as a nationalistic version of socialism." I already posted the definition of fascism and that statement doesn't make sense, at least not without some kind of explanation. Perhaps I should post a definition of socialism. I keep thinking that perhaps part of the reason that you aren't making much sense (which Stanislav's post directed at me seems to verify) is that these terms are wrapped up in your mind very tightly with the teaching and propaganda that you were indoctrinated with in the "old country". These have different meanings in the USA and Canada.

 

I disagree with your charactiresation of GOP, I agree with the following definition by Wikki.

Indeed during the time when the GOP deviated from Conservatism when Romney ran and McCain etc, they lost a lot of conservative votes.
GOP learned something from that.
Ideologically, the GOP typically supports a smaller federal government. Historically, this translated into keeping power in the hands of powerful state governments, as in the cases of civil rights, abortion laws, regulations on marriage, and mapping of voting districts.
The Republican Party is generally associated with social conservative policies, although it does have dissenting centrist and libertarian factions. The social conservatives want laws that uphold their traditional values,

 

I prefer to trust my eyes over "Wikki". If you knew at all how it works, you'd know Wiki has to take words in "reliable sources" at face value. Does not work well on dishonest doublespeak weaseling that is the style of modern GOP. Would you trust a Wiki article on USSR describing it as "people's democracy", sourced heavily from its Constitution?

My point exactly. A party that rejects a Mormon bishop Willard "Mittens" Romney as not Conservative enough is either over the deep end in its Conservatism, or not conservative at all. Fascist, or Drumpf cult of personality - take your pick.

I did notice how you avoid commenting on your extreme hypocrisy on immigration I exposed. Cowardly, but prudent.

 

Yeppers, they thought that, didn't they? Just like corporatist GOP elite thought they could control the beast Don the Con had awakened. It is uncanny how these things are relevant today.

 

The Wiki definition of the GOP is the GOP prior to Trumpism. The current GOP is a personality cult revolving around Trump. This is made crystal clear if you read the last party platform. Hint: there was no platform even attempted for the GOP in 2020 because the current GOP is now just a personality cult.

 

Non of the above

At the time Romney and MCane represented GOP and the message was compassionate conservatism.
They looked closer to Centrist Dem's.
I was a supporter of Romney.
GOP was evolving.

 

Yeah it's evolving. Into a fascist movement. Hopefully it'll disintegrate before it becomes a viable fascist movement.

Romney no longer represents a significant wing of the GOP. Him and conservative Dems are miles apart, yet closer to each other than each to QAnon/GOP mainstream. If you're a Romney supporter, you should vote for Biden.

 

That was then.
In 2016 and 2020 I supported Trump.

 

You're evolving too, then. Unfortunate.