Orwell's 1984 becoming real in the US?

[Anttech]

True. But look through recent history and see where totalitarianism has come from: virtually always from extreme leftist ideas. That (stated again below) is the irony of "1984". Orwell is arguing against the problem that his chosen ideology creates!

Ohh wait let me guess facism wasnt a form of totalitarianism, although mussalini actually coined the phrase?! 1940's not recent enough for you?

 

[russ_watters]

Ohh wait let me guess facism wasnt a form of totalitarianism,

?? The two are almost exact synonyms.

...although mussalini actually coined the phrase?! 1940's not recent enough for you?

Yes, Mussilini is a great example of my point:

Like his father, who was a member of the first Socialist International, Benito became a socialist.

The word "Fascio" had existed in Italian politics for some time. A section of revolutionary syndicalists broke with the Socialists over the issue of Italy's entry into the First World War. The ambitious Mussolini quickly sided with them in 1914, when the war broke out. These syndicalists formed a group called Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista in October 1914. Massimo Rocca and Tulio Masotti asked Mussolini to settle the contradiction of his support for interventionism and still being the editor of Avanti! and an official party functionary in the Socialist Party. Two weeks later, he joined the Milan fascio.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini

In short, fascism was a logical next step for Mussilini because he was already a socialist!

The reason fascism/totalitarianism so easily grows out of socialism should be straightforwardly obvious: socialism is about government control, and fascism is about more government control. It is very easy for the lines between them to become blurred and it is very easy for a populous already conditioned to accept strong government control of their lives to accept more. This is the reason I think France is going to be in big trouble for a long time: they've passed a tipping point with their employment situation where people are actually demanding more government control over the job market when it is government control that has caused the problem in the first place. That is how you fall down the slippery slope.

My history is a little thin, but I can't think of a major totalitarian government that rose out of right-wing ideas. Hitler and Stalin(/Lenin) are the other two of the big 3 and they were both left (socialism again and socialism/communism).

 

[MeJennifer]

Socialism and fascism have many similarities, both desire economic control over essential industries, both show an extreme form of moral intolerance. Only "the right way of thinking" is acceptable.

While socialists cannot even fathom why their believes of wonderful green pastures are not accepted by everyone as the obvious right thing, fascists are more direct in that they don't give a damn about other opinions.
Both socialism and fascism use "education" and propaganda to make people "think the right way" and if that doesn't help there are always camps.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim, all examples of what results from those "glorious and good for everybody" ideologies.

 

[Anttech]

Its make your mind up time then Russ, either:

Socialism and Communism are on the same side of the spectrum and very much related

Or Fascism and Socialism are on the same side?

Because Fascism and Communism are not...

Socialism, by definition means a larger Public sector with more control over industry. Fascism on the other hand typically means less public sector, and more power to "cut through all that red tape" if you like.

Fascism = Less government
(was born from a reaction to communism, anti-materialist government)
Socialism = More government.
(Property and wealth are subject to social control)

Mussolini, was NOT a socialist, he was a fascist!

Directly from your Link:

The word "Fascio" had existed in Italian politics for some time. A section of revolutionary syndicalists broke with the Socialists over the issue of Italy's entry into the First World War. The ambitious Mussolini quickly sided with them in 1914, when the war broke out. These syndicalists formed a group called Fasci d'azione rivoluzionaria internazionalista in October 1914. Massimo Rocca and Tulio Masotti asked Mussolini to settle the contradiction of his support for interventionism and still being the editor of Avanti! and an official party functionary in the Socialist Party. Two weeks later, he joined the Milan fascio.

Socialism and fascism have similarities when it comes to economic control of essential industries.
Furthermore the Hitler regime in Germany was called National Socialist

The Nazi party main opposition was the socialist party, they were not socialist at all. The name is irrelevant, The Nazi party and Nazism are made up of one mans believes: Adolf Hitler. It is generally accepted (perhaps not here tho )that the Nazi party were about as close to Fascism as you get.

 

[MeJennifer]

It is generally accepted (perhaps not here tho )that the Nazi party were about as close to Fascism as you get.

Generally accepted?
Well perhaps by people who know nothing about it

Hitler's national socialism clearly had fascist elements but it was not pure fascism as it was in Italy.

To mark the Hitler regime as the prime example of fascism indicates ignorance about fascism.

 

[Anttech]

My history is a little thin, but I can't think of a major totalitarian government that rose out of right-wing ideas. Hitler and Stalin(/Lenin) are the other two of the big 3 and they were both left (socialism again and socialism/communism).

According to Mein Kampf (My Struggle), Adolf Hitler first began to develop his views through observations he made while living in Austria. He concluded that there was a racial, religious, and cultural hierarchy, and he placed "Aryans" at the top as the superior race and Jews, "Gypsies" (the Roma) and Slavic people at the bottom. He closely examined and questioned the policies of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where as a citizen by birth, Hitler lived during the Empire's last throes of life. He believed that its ethnic and linguistic diversity had weakened the Empire and helped to create dissention. Further, he saw democracy as a destabilizing force because it placed power in the hands of ethnic minorities who, he claimed, "weakened and destabilized" the Empire by dividing it against itself.

Nazi thought, an extension of various philosophies, came together at a critical time for Germany; The nation had just lost World War I and was in the midst of a period of great economic depression and instability. The Dolchstosslegende, which held that the war effort was sabotaged internally, brought to question the extent of profiteering and the supposed "lack of patriotism" displayed during the war. In the realm of politics, these charges were directed towards the Social Democrats and the Weimar government, as the latter had been accused of "selling out" the country. Additionally, the Dolchstosslegende encouraged many to look at "non-German" Germans critically, especially those with potential "extra-national loyalties", such as the Jews. Such an appeal capitalized on anti-Semitic sentiments.
Nazi rationale also invested heavily in the militarist belief that great nations grow from military power and maintained order, which in turn grow "naturally" from "rational, civilized cultures". The Nazi Party appealed to German nationalists and national pride, capitalizing on irredentist and revanchist sentiments as well as aversions to various aspects of modernist thinking. Many ethnic Germans still had heartfelt ties to the goal of creating a greater Germany and some felt that the use of military force was necessary to achieve it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Yeap that fits right in with the socalist view point of industry being subject to social control!For reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism

Please highlight the similarities ?

 

[Anttech]

Generally accepted?
Well perhaps by people who know nothing about it

Hitler's national socialism clearly had fascist elements but it was not pure fascism as it was in Italy.

To mark the Hitler regime as the prime example of fascism indicates ignorance about fascism.

There is no need to get personal!

I would love you to explain to me how on Earth you can lump Nazism with Socialism. Please do

 

[MeJennifer]

There is no need to get personal!

Nothing personal intended!
By the way I am ignorant about many topics!

I simply respond to the statement that Hitler's ideology is the example for fascism, that is factually incorrect.
Furthermore you are asking for trouble (in a friendly way of course) if you then make a statement that that is "generally believed".
Anyway it is all in a good spirited debate!

By the way ignorance about fascism is not unusual, fascism is one of those "shiver" subjects.
When you read about it or study it some people might find that suspect. Many people simply would not feel comfortable to read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" in the local coffee shop.
Unfortunately some people cannot differentiate between studying something and agreeing with it.

I would love you to explain to me how on Earth you can lump Nazism with Socialism. Please do

Well as I wrote before:

Socialism and fascism have many similarities, both desire economic control over essential industries, both show an extreme form of moral intolerance. Only "the right way of thinking" is acceptable.

While socialists cannot even fathom why their believes of wonderful green pastures are not accepted by everyone as the obvious right thing, fascists are more direct in that they don't give a damn about other opinions.
Both socialism and fascism use "education" and propaganda to make people "think the right way" and if that doesn't help there are always camps.
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim, all examples of what results from those "glorious and good for everybody" ideologies.

 

[Andre]

Wasn't the gist of 1984 'mind control'? Demagoguery on it's best. Didn't Winston love Big Brother in the end? Is 1984 near? Depends. Is there any hot subject right now where it's impossible to have a different opinion about? And why can't you think differently about it?

 

[Anttech]

I am not looking for trouble, as you so eloquently put. I am stating my observations from reading about Fascism and Nazism. Those observations are that it is generally accepted that Fascism and Nazism are close cousins of one another.

Socialism and fascism have many similarities, both desire economic control over essential industries, both show an extreme form of moral intolerance. Only "the right way of thinking" is acceptable.

Fascism arose out of anti-communism, it is an authoritarian ideal. It is based on the ideal of extreme nationalism and anti-materialism of the government. Fascism glorified war and hatred of other races, and look upon the government as "the light," the under disputed leaders, who should not be questioned!

Socialism is contrary to this. They believe in the state as an institution to help its citizens, by enforcing industry to be subject to the peoples (social) will, by using the government to redistribute wealth better, and creating a net for the misfortunate, and needie.

I don't see any similarities

 

[russ_watters]

All of that pretty much misses the point or is wrong, but the main point is:

Mussolini, was NOT a socialist, he was a fascist!

As the link says, Mussolini was a socialist and then became a fascist. Because of that, the connection - and how wrong most of the rest of what you said was wrong - could not be more clear. Mussolini's fascism grew out of his socialism.

 

[MeJennifer]

Those observations are that it is generally accepted that Fascism and Nazism are close cousins of one another.

And that is correct! But that is not what you wrote before!
Before you wrote that "is generally accepted (perhaps not here tho )that the Nazi party were about as close to Fascism as you get.".
That statement is rather different, wouldn't you say?

Fascism arose out of anti-communism, it is an authoritarian ideal. It is based on the ideal of extreme nationalism and anti-materialism of the government. Fascism glorified war and hatred of other races, and look upon the government as "the light," the under disputed leaders, who should not be questioned!

See, you mix up a lot of things that have nothing per se to do with fascism. Fascism has it roots in the old Greek and Roman societies. Come on now "fascism arose out of anti-communism" , sounds like you got that from a left-wing textbook.

Socialism is contrary to this. They believe in the state as an institution to help its citizens, by enforcing industry to be subject to the peoples (social) will, by using the government to redistribute wealth better, and creating a net for the misfortunate, and needie.

Yes, all for the good of the tame herd animals I am sure. Big brother taking care of everybody.

I don't see any similarities

Frankly I am not surprised!

 

[Anttech]

All of that pretty much misses the point or is wrong, but the main point is: As the link says, Mussolini was a socialist and then became a fascist. Because of that, the connection - and how wrong most of the rest of what you said was wrong - could not be more clear. Mussolini's fascism grew out of his socialism.

Care to tell me where I was wrong? How can I defend myself if you are going to just make generalisations. Its all good and that, but perhaps instead of making your (generally wrong) statements, care to put some explanation behind them? Mussolini was brought up by socialist, but he certainly wasnt one!

 

[MeJennifer]

Here I agree fully with Anttech. Mussolini was not a socialist he was a fascist.

Now I take it Anttech that you have no issues with calling Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Kim socialists?

 

[Anttech]

And that is correct! But that is not what you wrote before!
Before you wrote that "is generally accepted (perhaps not here tho )that the Nazi party were about as close to Fascism as you get.".
That statement is rather different, wouldn't you say?

Yeah like chalk and cheese

MeJennifer, I leave the floor to you, go on then enlighten me on Fasicm ideal and its history. Please make sure to drop some sources so I can read up on it more. Perhaps some eyewitness from Franco's spain or Mussolini's Italy would be useful

 

[russ_watters]

Care to tell me where I was wrong? How can I defend myself if you are going to just make generalisations. Its all good and that, but perhaps instead of making your (generally wrong) statements, care to put some explanation behind them?

I already did, but you repeated your main error right here for me:

Mussolini was brought up by socialist, but he certainly wasnt one!

That is quite specifically wrong - as it says in the link, Mussolini was a socialist.

I don't know how to make it more clear without seeming condecending, but...

You: 'Mussolini was not a socialist.'
Link: 'Mussolini was a socialist.'

You do see how those two statements (paraphrased) are direct opposites, right?

 

[Anttech]

Here I agree fully with Anttech. Mussolini was not a socialist he was a fascist.

Now I take it Anttech that you have no issues with calling Lenin, Stalin, Mao and Kim socialists?

Lenin was a totaliterian dictator, So was Stalin, Mao and Kim presently.

I would say Prodi, Brown (UK), Bertie Ahern, Chaves, are Socialists to name a few.

 

[russ_watters]

Wasn't the gist of 1984 'mind control'? Demagoguery on it's best. Didn't Winston love Big Brother in the end?

Yes. '1984' included external means of control as well, but of course, the most effective/complete form is internal control.

Is 1984 near? Depends. Is there any hot subject right now where it's impossible to have a different opinion about? And why can't you think differently about it?

Well sure, but opinions not based on facts are pretty much worthless. It is probably the biggest problem in politics: people form opinions based on other opinions, or beliefs, or just supposition or ignorance, not based on facts.

 

[Anttech]

I already did, but you repeated your main error right here for me: That is quite specifically wrong - as it says in the link, Mussolini was a socialist.

I don't know how to make it more clear without seeming condecending, but...

You: 'Mussolini was not a socialist.'
Link: 'Mussolini was a socialist.'

You do see how those two statements (paraphrased) are direct opposites, right?

Maybe you need me to spell it out better for you then Russ:

From your link:

Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini (July 29, 1883 – April 28, 1945) was the fascist dictator of Italy from the year 1922 to his overthrow in 1943. Mussolini was a close ally of German dictator Adolf Hitler, whom he influenced. Mussolini entered the war in June, 1940 on the side of Nazi Germany. Three years later, the Allies invaded Italy; Mussolini attempted to escape, only to be assassinated by political partisans in April 1945.
...{SNIP}...
A section of revolutionary syndicalists broke with the Socialists over the issue of Italy's entry into the First World War. The ambitious Mussolini quickly sided with them in 1914, when the war broke out.

Just to recap, broke in this contex means he wasnt with them any more

LOL

 

[russ_watters]

Yes...

So you do agree then that at one time Mussolini was a socialist? Your previous posts seem to imply you believed he was never a socialist.

One step at a time...

 

[selfAdjoint]

You guys are arguing about different definitions of socialist. Russ is using the broadest of definitions, by his definition I am a socialist since a favor national health care. But I don't regard myself as a socialist because I don't advocate the government seizing the means of production.

Mussolini, and Hitler too, had many centrist ideas that Russ identifies as "socialist", recall for example that "Nazi" is a German slang version of Hitler's party name "Natzional Sotzialismus"; National Socialism.

So if you do a Venn diagram of "socialist ideas" and "fascist ideas" the circles intersect, but the socialist one isn't fully inside the fascist one, nor is the fascist one inside the socialist.

So "Was Mussolini a socialist" is sort of a glass half full, glass half empty kind of wiestion.

 

[MeJennifer]

So if you do a Venn diagram of "socialist ideas" and "fascist ideas" the circles intersect, but the socialist one isn't fully inside the fascist one, nor is the fascist one inside the socialist.

I agree with that!

 

[Anttech]

Yes...

So you do agree then that at one time Mussolini was a socialist? Your previous posts seem to imply you believed he was never a socialist.

One step at a time...

Hold on a little minute, you are implying that because He was brought up by a socalist -- "fascism grew out of his socialism"-- fascism is directly related to socialism?

Russ, you can hold out your hand, but I won't be lead up the garden path

Mussolini's legacy is not of a socialist, but of a facist dictator. Finnished.

So if you do a Venn diagram of "socialist ideas" and "fascist ideas" the circles intersect, but the socialist one isn't fully inside the fascist one, nor is the fascist one inside the socialist.

So "Was Mussolini a socialist" is sort of a glass half full, glass half empty kind of wiestion.

Same could be said of capitalism, communism, liberalism, etc etc IF you take a big enough generalisation

 

[russ_watters]

You guys are arguing about different definitions of socialist. Russ is using the broadest of definitions, by his definition I am a socialist since a favor national health care. But I don't regard myself as a socialist because I don't advocate the government seizing the means of production.

I wouldn't say that. Earlier on, Anntech pointed to Denmark and I said "Denmark is not very socialist". What I meant is that Denmark (like you - and heck, like me) may favor some socialist policies, but they are not a strong/pure/hard line (pick whatever you prefer) socialist.

As noted by someone else before, Socialism is a bit of a hybrid system, and as a result, countries (people) are more or less socialistic based on where they would fall on the scale. It is true that everything left of center could be labeled "socialist", but I am against doing that* because it confuses the issue here. The issue here is the pitfalls of more pure/radical socalism.

So "Was Mussolini a socialist" is sort of a glass half full, glass half empty kind of wiestion.

But that is kinda the point here: It seems to me that Anttech is arguing that Mussolini was not left of center, and the fact of the matter is that he was. That's where this one-step-at-a-time train of logic I'm going after takes us.

edit: *I prefer the term "socialistic": As in, 'sA supports some socialistic policies.'

 

[russ_watters]

Hold on a little minute, you are implying that because He was brought up by a socalist -- "fascism grew out of his socialism"-- fascism is directly related to socialism?

Yes, but one step at a time, Anttech. You changed the wording there. "was brought up by a socialist" and "was a socialist" are different.

Yes or no: do you agree that at one time, Mussolini was a socialist?

Russ, you can hold out your hand, but I won't be lead up the garden path

Who is leading who here, Anttech? You aren't making any arguments, just stating incorrect facts.

 

[Anttech]

But that is kinda the point here: It seems to me that Anttech is arguing that Mussolini was not left of center, and the fact of the matter is that he was.

I'd have to aggree with that statement, Anttech (Thats me) is arguing that Fascism is not left of center.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok, so now we have:

Logic premise 1: Mussolini was a socialist at one time.

Next, we have.
Logic premise 2: Mussolini became (essentially invented) fascism.

Do you agree with that as well? And I must say I use the term "agree" loosely: these are premises, but from historical facts. There isn't much room to agree/disagree about facts.

Edit: And actually, I'm going to make a logical connection (Anttech already caught it), but it really isn't necessary. The historical facts are there and are clear on this.

 

[kyleb]

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini

 

[Anttech]

Yes --Mussolini, was involved in a socialist party in Italy
Yes --Mussolini was the fascist dictator of Italy
No --Mussolini did not 'invent' Fascism, he coined the phrase. Franko was at it before Mussolini in Spain.

Who is leading who here, Anttech? You aren't making any arguments, just stating incorrect facts.

Russ I have made my argument already, I have outlined what Socialism entails and what Fascims entails... You are the one making the statements, which I have yet to see any backing for.

 

[Anttech]

Adding to this:

In The dictators own words:

Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing collectivistic ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism. He said in The Political and Social Doctrine of Fascism:

* "Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual (liberalism implies individualism) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State." [1]

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

 

[SOS2008]

Yes, which is why I said communism and socialism are related: a good one liner way to say it is that socialism nationalizes some things, communism everything.

I don't see how that follows, because... ExxonMobil is a monopoly? You can't think of any other oil companies that exist and are similar in size?? Sorry, but it would be fair and good if it were based on reality but it isn't. The reality is that oil/gas prices are high ( <-for our foreign readers who pay many times what we pay) because of those free/fair market forces, not because oil is a monopoly - because oil is not a monopoly.

But look through recent history and see where totalitarianism has come from: virtually always from extreme leftist ideas. That (stated again below) is the irony of "1984". Orwell is arguing against the problem that his chosen ideology creates! [COUGH!]

Et tu?

Again, you are missing my point. I'm not saying that that was Orwel's point, but that it is ironic that he missed the reality that leftist ideas more easily lead to totalitarianim.

So if socialism and communism have differences, we agree these terms are not synonymous and should not be lumped together--thank you. Also, socialism is not exclusive of democracy (thus democratic socialism). Please stop perpetuating the "evil liberal" rhetoric.

The U.S. is a hybrid with regulations, and has had nationalized services such as postal service. In regard to natural resources in particular, these resources belong to everyone. Basic needs of our citizenry should be ensured. In regard to oil, I said nothing about how high the price is, BTW. Like everyone else, I use Exxon/Mobil as the example because of their size, but nonetheless where is the competition in price? Has supply and demand changed so drastically in such a short time that the price would jump to over $70/barrel? For example, we know U.S. oil companies have not invested in refineries and operate on a "just-in-time" basis thereby controlling supply according to demand. This is not purely free market phenomenon.

I believe in nationalizing natural resources, and if we had, we would have had a NASA-style program for alternative energy, and we would not be at the whims of foreign countries at this time. This is a national security issue. I would think the Neo Con hawks would jump right on it, but their greed prevents them from such enlightenment. But this is digressing from the OP...

What am I? A realist that is capable of thinking outside the box for solutions that will be win-win for all. If you review your history you might remember that our founding fathers were revolutionaries who created new systems the world had not yet seen. We should continue to evolve and not be set in stone by what some believe is the only way things can work.

As for your opinion of 1984 and that Orwell "missed the reality that leftist ideas more easily lead to totalitarianism," I would prefer a credible source for this. I stated that totalitarianism can evolve from any form of government or ideology such as radical right-wing populist movements, and while liberal ideology may be used initially to gain support, the ultimate result of totalitarianism (often a dictatorship-style police state) is considered to be the extreme right. Would you describe Nazism (which included racism), or fascism, etc. as left or right? It is extreme right.

 

[MeJennifer]

With regards to fascism being classified as right wing I disagree.

Right wing is conservatism.
Left wing are those ideologies that have "answers" for humanity. Plans that "will make the world a better place". "Modern solutions", "Education" programs the "teach" people the right way of thinking.
Fascism, Socialism and American style liberalism are all left-wing ideologies, they all have an ideal, a glorious society where everything will be a lot better than it is now. Their problem, the people who do not believe in their ideologies, their glory society.
Eventually they wil be either re-educated, be called mentally-ill, be executed or put in concentration camps. All for the greater good.

 

[Anttech]

With regards to fascism being classified as right wing I disagree.

Right wing is conservatism.
Left wing are those ideologies that have "answers" for humanity. Plans that "will make the world a better place". "Modern solutions", "Education" programs the "teach" people the right way of thinking.
Fascism, Socialism and American style liberalism are all left-wing ideologies, they all have an ideal, a glorious society where everything will be a lot better than it is now. Their problem, the people who do not believe in their ideologies, their glory society.
Eventually they wil be either re-educated, be called mentally-ill, be executed or die in concentration camps.

So you believe yourself as a better authority on fascism than Mussolini?

 

[Gokul43201]

So you believe yourself as a better authority on fascism than Mussolini?

Mossolini was a Socialist!

Fascism grew out of fascio, the Socialist movement in Italy, late in the 19th century.

Currently, Fascism looks (to me) at least as much like Socialism as it does Conservatism - but I believe the "consensus opinion" among scholars is that today, it more closely resembles right-wing philosophy.

 

[selfAdjoint]

There seems to be a presumption that socialism is right-wing with a negative sign in front of it. But there are non-socialist varieties of left wing belief. Populism for example. Anarchism for another. The world just is not well described by Boolean Algebra 101.