Not All Fascisms Are Created Equal A Comparative: Fill & Download for Free

I just looked through the other answers and the “horseshoe theory” popped up again (sigh).No, the far-left and far-right are not similar to each other. You can definitely find similarities between certain groups and ideologies that seem to be diametrically opposed but you’ll actually find that these ideologies aren’t that far apart from each other and even so there’s still lots of philosophical and theoretical differences between movements.The “horseshoe theory” sounds good, and if you use the right examples it works but it’s not an academic theory and is very simplistic. It breaks down as soon as you compare to ideologies such as Fascism and Anarchism, Western Conservatism and Socialism.If I hear someone use the horseshoe theory again the Stalin meme will be making a reappearance…Let us just examine the supposedly ‘diametrically opposed’ far left and right though.In the West, we commonly attribute the far-left with Communism (or Marxism-Leninism to be more precise) and the far-right with Fascism. The horseshoe theory is applied to these two ideologies quite erroneously. The reason why we see similarities between the two ideologies is because they’re actually not that far apart from each other.Fascism is not a far-right ideology. If we were to plot these ideologies crudely on a graph then Communism and Fascism would actually be neighbours. Though the “political compass” is not the most accurate way to chart political ideologies it’s a hell of a lot more accurate than the “horseshoe theory”.Fascism advocates a mixed economy which works for the interests of the nation’s people and not the interests of a few. The government has strong control over infrastructure, industries, and investments although they do not abolish private property or private ownership. They also identify as ‘anti-socialist, and anti-capitalist, instead focusing on policies that are beneficial for industry and citizens.Fascism is not economically far-right since that would imply they embrace capitalism and abhor national social cohesion any form of public service. This doesn’t necessarily mean they are incredibly similar since both philosophies have widely different philosophies and Fascism was vastly more socially conservative than Communism, however it does show that they are a lot close in regards to physical policy and visible characteristics.It is not dissimilar to Juche which is the political philosophy of North Korea, which is rooted halfway in communist philosophy and halfway in the cult-personality of the Kim family. Juche is communist only by association and it’s use of communist symbolism and imagery. Other than that the philosophy was largely created around the personality of Kim-Il-Sung and justifies the economic mismanagement, inflated military, and rule of the Kim dynasty.The horseshoe theory only works because it was designed to explain why Fascism and Communist regimes were similar and nothing else. It’s more of an off-hand observation rather than a reputable theory.We have also not hitherto examined the other far-left and right radical philosophies. The horseshoe theory uses the term left and right to denote two very specific ideologies within the broader spectrum of ideologies that actually exists. The theory completely forgets that being on the extremes of the spectrum does not necessarily entail totalitarianism, government control of all resources, repression, or rejection of democracy.When we observe communism (lower case ‘c’ when talking about the philosophy and not the 20th century regimes) there really is little comparisons to make between Fascism. Fascism rejected democracy, internationalism, and equality whilst it also prompted nationalism, power, hierarchy, and expansionism.Communism on the other hand focuses on increasing liberties, equal freedoms, social equality, abolishing private property, class, abolishing borders and the state, is anti-war, anti-imperialist, and loathes hierarchy.Not all communists believe in Stalinism, many were very critical including Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, George Orwell, and so on and so on.Speaking of Orwell, he was far-left and actively opposed Stalinism and authoritarianism whilst supporting Libertarian Socialism. Many are familiar with his book Animal Farm which is often mistaken for an anti-communist book because of how it’s taught in schools and paraphrased to fit a certain narrative. A book not all people know of though is Homage To Catalonia which was Orwell’s memoir about his time in revolutionary Catalonia where fought on the side of the Socialists, Anarchists and Communists against the Fascists."I have seen wonderful things and at last really believe in Socialism, which I never did before."Speaking of such, Anarchism is also radical ideology that doesn’t fit into the “horseshoe theory”. Anarchism is a radical anti-government and anti-hierarchy movement which is the complete opposite to Fascism in every way.Furthermore, there are different types of Anarchist groups across the entire spectrum. You have the Anarcho-Communists, Mutualists which are more centrical, and the far-right Anarcho-Capitalists.Anarcho-Capitalism (or AnCap for short) is actually more right-wing than Fascism because AnCap promotes extreme individualism, the accumulation of profit, emphasis on private-property. They are far more socially liberal though.

How is the comment Senator Warren made about "accountable capitalism" not nationalization […]Well, nationalization is a real word, and that word has a specific meaning in the context of this question. To “nationalize” a business is to convert it from a privately-held entity into one owned or operated by the government, and Warren’s plan does not do that.Warren’s plan would require large (with revenues in excess of $1B/yr) corporations to weigh the interests of employees as much as they do those of shareholders in terms of corporate governance, and have those constituencies represented in their corporate governance (e.g., with 40+% of the board elected by employees).It’s helpful at this point to appreciate that the founders of the USA put strict limits upon what corporations could do- limits that have since been eroded. In their time, the corporation was in effect imperium in imperio, a sort of state within a state, chartered with the authority of the crown (and the implied force thereof) to do its business. (it was also a much-resented means by which the crown exerted control over the colonies.) In this regard, the American concept of the corporation at the time of the founding was to limit it strictly to align with the public interest. For example, corporations then could not own other corporations, could not engage in politics or undertakings outside their chartered purpose, could lose their charters if they engaged in criminal behavior, and expired after a limited span. Since those days, these limits have been un-done, and Warren’s proposal seems designed to re-align the modern corporation to those earlier accountabilities, while incidentally saving capitalism from itself[1] :The sense that corporations are too powerful and their leadership not accountable enough to their stakeholders seems to be something the Accountable Capitalism Act seeks to address. The specified requirements (corporate speech being subject to employee votes, etc) seem looser than prior limitations, but they could prove effective in mooring corporations closer to the public interest than the status quo does. ~[How would Elizabeth Warren's Accountable Capitalism Act affect corporate governance?]That definitely amounts to a difference from today’s regulatory regime, but it does not mean nationalization.[…] and not viewed as fascism?Again, fascism [Definition of FASCISM] is a word that has actual meaning.Fascism is an ultra-nationalist, right-wing, authoritarian political ideology that emerged in the early 1900s in Europe. It promoted dictatorial powers and martial vigor (and purging of marginalized groups, as well as racial purity) as necessary to overcome the ineffectual failures of left-right politics of the day. Its re-emergence today revolves around the same set of grievances; that in order to restore greatness to the nation, it must dispense with the pussifying sentiments of existing norms and standards, burn the slate clean, and purge the nation of impurities.[2]Fascism is always defined by its insistence in hierarchy- the notion that some people are lesser, outsiders are enemies, that the only way to organize society is to use state power (and vigilante power) to enforce that order. This sort of thinking is not new to our shores; indeed, the Nazis borrowed quite a bit from America’s white supremacists and Jim Crow laws to formulate their own racial laws:As race law’s global leader, Whitman stresses, America provided the most obvious point of reference for the September 1933 Preußische Denkschrift, the Prussian Memorandum, written by a legal team that included Roland Freisler, soon to emerge as the remarkably cruel president of the Nazi People’s Court. American precedents also informed other crucial Nazi texts, including the National Socialist Handbook for Law and Legislation of 1934–35, edited by the future governor-general of Poland, Hans Frank, who was later hung at Nuremberg. A pivotal essay in that volume, Herbert Kier’s recommendations for race legislation, devoted a quarter of its pages to U.S. legislation—which went beyond segregation to include rules governing American Indians, citizenship criteria for Filipinos and Puerto Ricans as well as African Americans, immigration regulations, and prohibitions against miscegenation in some 30 states. No other country, not even South Africa, possessed a comparably developed set of relevant laws.Fascism isn’t this alien kind of politics that characterized Italian, Spanish, and German dictatorships almost a century ago- it is deeply ingrained in the United States, and has been so ever since its south was dominated by a slave-owning neo-aristocratic minority, whose ghosts(and apologists) still animate movements to resist their overthrow a century and a half ago. America had its own “America first” movement in the 1930s, one that didn’t want the US to get involved in WWII, particularly because our alliances with the rest of the Entente powers of WW1 would militate that we join on their side/against the Germans.So… the modern heirs to fascism today are, like their ideological forebears, white supremacists, purely nationalists, convinced that liberal democracy (and it’s insistence on wrecking old hierarchical systems with their “liberty and justice for all”, their “equality”) must be destroyed to restore a once-great mythic promised homeland.Warren’s proposal does none of these things.Warren wants to create an Office of United States Corporations inside the Department of Commerce and require any corporation with revenue over $1 billion — only a few thousand companies, but a large share of overall employment and economic activity — to obtain a federal charter of corporate citizenship.The charter tells company directors to consider the interests of all relevant stakeholders — shareholders, but also customers, employees, and the communities in which the company operates — when making decisions. That could concretely shift the outcome of some shareholder lawsuits but is aimed more broadly at shifting American business culture out of its current shareholders-first framework and back toward something more like the broad ethic of social responsibility that took hold during WWII and continued for several decades.~[Elizabeth Warren has a plan to save capitalism]Warren’s plan doesn’t nationalize anything, and it doesn’t resemble fascism. A real fascist would want the state to be governed by the corporate sector, for the benefit of the corporate sector- but Warren proposes making the corporate sector accountable to the public (and its stakeholders) instead. If anything, her plan looks to constrain corporate power in ways that the framers did. Meanwhile, the question looks very much to be an effort to Pin the Fascism on the other guy.Footnotes[1] The Dumbest Idea In The World: Maximizing Shareholder Value[2] America’s Collapsing Into Fascism Because Americans Still Don’t Understand Fascism

My first teaching position was as a sixth grade English teacher. I wanted to know if I would like education, so I stepped in when another teacher went on maternity leave to give it a shot before dedicating the next few years to this path.On my first day, I told the children this:“My name is Mr. Davis. I am your new English teacher. I’ve served four years with the United States Marine Corps and two tours to Iraq, and there isn’t anything any of you can do to scare me.”That was a lie. The truth was, I was terrified of them. I had no idea what kids en masse could be like. What if they didn’t listen? What if they refused to cooperate? What if there was a mass insurrection? I mean, worst case scenario, I am sure I could take out a few, but eventually, they’d swarm me like rabid little zombies going for the kill. But my principal gave me good advice: all teachers need to get their “bluff” in. Well, I had the best damned bluff in the history of Marietta schools.After that first day, the kids were afraid of me. I don’t pretend otherwise or apologize for it. But after that, they listened. Because they listened, they learned to respect me because I actually had things to say which could give value to their lives. From order, we gain learning. In the absence of order, there is only chaos.This order from respect is difficult for new teachers to gain. Respect is something I’ve watched many other teachers try to gain by being likable, by always acting as if they are listening, and pretending that they care. They are never stern, nor hold to the disciplines that the school recommends, or that even they say they will impose. When a kid lies, whines, or tries to get away with something like not doing homework, they always cut them a break. They want to be everyone’s “friend” — the cool teacher. They are easily manipulated, and the students know.While that type of mentality works great in movies for children from economically distressed areas or broken homes who just needed to be loved by an adult who understood them, in a real classroom, great drama isn’t a replacement for methods that understand reality. All it takes is one child who tests you and finds the limits of what you are willing to do to maintain discipline in your classroom. There will always be a student who tests you. It is in their nature, that one out of every twenty simply must. Once they find it —the thing that you said you would do, but you didn’t — then everyone else in the room knows that not only do you lack integrity, but that you’re spineless, and worst of all, weak. You’re an adult, granted authority and power, but are too incompetent to use it. Now they own you.Why should they respect someone like you, an adult ruled by children because of your delusional need to be loved by them?Mind you, of course it’s not all children. Most, about 70%, will do whatever any adult asks to the best of their ability. They don’t act up. They’re great. But that other 30% need to actually respect the people who are placed over them. You can’t buy their love and respect by allowing them to walk all over you. Some of those children — let’s not fool ourselves — are bullies. For whatever reason, they’re bullies. Maybe they had a bad home life and are mean. Maybe they are popular and just see mistreatment of others as a joke. Maybe they are just selfish and entitled children who were raised to think they are better than everyone else. Maybe, maybe, maybe, but the reality is that they are not nice kids. When you’re not around, they bully other kids. But now they have found that this adult, this adult who needed to be liked and loved by children, is weak. Now, those kids can bully him. At this point, congratulations. You’ve made your classroom a place of chaos. Not only is it impossible to learn or be productive because you can’t control the bullies, but something else vital isn’t happening. Now, the weakest children in the room have absolutely no one to protect them, either. You see, you were supposed to be strong enough to protect them. You were supposed to be the adult in the room, such that the children who act like children would at least act right in that space. Your classroom was supposed to be a place of learning and peace, but instead, it's horrible, not just for you, but everyone else.But, man, are you nice.My classroom was a place of order.It was also, however, a place where we had fun. The students were broken up into teams. Those teams were led by people who had succeeded in the past. They selected their teams just the same as if they were playing pick-up basketball, where kids who regularly acted up or didn’t try in the classroom were picked last. There, they competed for points, where good behavior and excellence brought them rewards, and where failure hurt the whole team. The system encouraged the best and brightest in a group to help the weakest, so that the team did better than the other teams overall. It also prevented people from breaking the rules, because no one wanted to be responsible for hurting the rest of their team.Children were well behaved.Children learned well.Children felt safe.And to the surprise of many, the children loved it.Now, why would I tell you all this in an answer about why you should or shouldn’t hate the military?It’s because people who may treat this as a sincere question, which for many it is, have no idea what the values of the military are, or how they actually impact society. Education is a great example. Looking at the way I led as a teacher is almost diametrically opposed to the modern education environment.I came in with a heavy hand, making it clear to everyone that I was not there to be their friend. I made some kids who excelled into leaders, and forced them to pick their teams based on who they thought would help them win. I made them compete based on their performance. Punishments were fast and harsh, but children who did well were equally acknowledged.These things are simply not done in education, but they are how the adult world still operates. The American education system promotes values such as openness, empathy, self-esteem, kindness, egalitarianism, and if there is time… scholastic achievement. While, in theory, this might be a good thing, we have a generation that, paradoxically, has low self-esteem, is angrier, more bitter and disillusioned, bullies more even if they are less openly violent about it, and doesn’t see the point in trying when the under-performers are rewarded more. Finally, America spends more pe capita on education than nearly all of the great international powers, but we see worse results. Do you think all of this is unrelated?Again, why am I saying all this in relation to the question of why you feel you hate the military?I think it’s probably because you’ve been over-educated.You know that hate is wrong. In literally any other context, you know that hate is wrong. But now there is a question asking if it is okay to hate a whole class of people because… reasons. It’s never okay. That’s obvious and you know it, and yet, here we are. Why? Because you think, for some reason, that you are better than these people. When you’re better, the rules don’t apply. They’re less human than you, so the rule — hate is always wrong — just doesn’t apply in this situation.How are they less human? Because you’re educated.Of course, this isn’t a criticism of educated people, as such, but there are many very educated people who think their education does make them a step above others, and lord that superiority as if the rules really shouldn’t apply to them, rules such as the equality and dignity we are all owed, which they promote so heavily in areas they deem important. These are people who grow up with no experience of how the world works outside of education, many of whom were very successful in academia, and have a revulsion of military values. As such, this manifests in a hatred of the military and veteran community, among others.They view the military as simply the murderous arm of fascist dictatorships, or in America, Republicans, which they often view as synonymous. They believe that “violence never solved anything,” while forgetting that the history of fascism came with the history of fascism’s defeat, by violent and virtuous men who came to kill their leaders and anyone who protected them. They love equity, but are angered by a world that chooses favorites based on values they don’t possess. They are bitter that so many of their very brilliant ideas on paper so often fail, when compared to systems that reward excellence and hard work more than brainpower. Mostly, there is a bitterness that people possessing the values found so often of the military — self-discipline, self-denial, appreciation of hierarchy, and aligning one’s self toward some higher purpose like family, God, or country, rather than ideology — are happier.So, simply put, I’m not surprised that many people hate the military. My comments section proves those people are out there. But if that is something you really want to alleviate, you should probably spend more time around successful veterans, and realize that they have values beyond simply an ability to kill and destroy. They have an ethic that creates prosperity, more so for others around them than for themselves, and which others should model, rather than try to squelch those values based on delusional views on the nature of violence.Liked this? Please consider supporting me through Patreon to help me make more content like this. Relaxed. Researched. Respectful. - War Elephant