Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (124770)	7/12/2005 5:39:14 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793955

One of the problems with these definitions is that we have clear definitions of Socialism/Communism, but not of Fascism. Right. I think the reason is that leftist social scientists have captured the bastions of the universities, and see everything through the eyes of Marxism-Leninism. And neither Marx nor Lenin had anything useful to say about fascism. Defining fascism within the framework of Marxism-Leninism loses the essence of fascism. As you know, I am fascinated by fascism. Probably due to growing up in Louisiana, home of Huey Long, our own homegrown fascist dictator -- and a very interesting person. He built highways, bridges, universities, he "made the trains run on time." So I understand the creepy appeal of fascism. Fascist dictators bring order out of chaos. Fascism isn't an economic concept, it's an organizational concept. The strong man rules. But, unlike places like Zimbabwe where the strong man rules badly, in a fascist state, the strong man rules well. Mussolini, Franco, Hitler, were all great administrators. As is Osama bin Laden. But they tolerate no dissent, no differences. And all failings are projected onto scapegoats. So, ultimately, fascism is too fragile, too brittle, too unresilient, for the modern world.