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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (15680)	3/21/2007 12:31:43 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217652

I think Slagle's preferred label for fascism is "Finally a strong leader who will tell me what to do!" or perhaps "Our glorious Fatherland really does love Dear Leader". Fascism, regardless of the name, serves a need for people who feel weak, powerless, and unable to live their own lives without direction from someone telling them what to do. Some have suggested that roughly 28% of the world's population are always genetically inclined to vote for anyone who portrays themselves as a dictatorial strong leader. In times of social instability additional percentages of the general population also develop this same moral weakness. This is a time of great risk. .

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (15680)	3/21/2007 8:56:47 PM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217652

Gib, Interesting question. I have here in my hands a book, "Fascism, Past, Present and Future" by a Walter Laqueur and in nearly 300 pages the writer dances all over the place, makes some interesting points, but comes no where near a definition and even manages to miss the bigger picture, I think. This is the third such similarly titled work I have come across over the years. If you consider the Nazis and their peers around the world, you can say that there existed a couple of primary characteristics. One is an extreme ultranationalism that was part of every facet of public life. The other is a complete rejection of and contempt for democratic processes of all sorts. In addition, and this is especially true for the best known but least understood fascists, the Nazis, if there had been no October Revolution in Russia the Nazis would have never arisen. OTOH they have been labeled "reactionary" and I think this is a complete mistake as they had little desire to restore the aristocracy, the church or the Kaiser and were in many ways ultramoderns. Another very important aspect of the Nazis was this overpowering sense of urgency, the idea that they must achieve almost miraculous success in a very limited time span. I think there are a couple of reasons for this; first are the very well know personal peculiarities and phobias of their leader, as Hitler thought he had a limited time to accomplish his aims. The OTHER aspect is not well know or understood and is really at the root of the whole Nazi phenomenon and is the real reason for their final rise to power. The Reichswehr, the Weimar German military, had been literally "joined at the hip" to the Red Army from the very beginning. First, Germany had defeated the Red Army and Trotsky had signed the treaty of Brest-Litovsk accepting the terms put forward by Lundendorf. Later, in an attempt to escape the limits placed on the Germany by Versailles German officers kept open lines of communication with their defeated fellow officers of the Red Army. Then, as the Reichswehr leaders intended to circumvent Versailles and preserve a maximum amount of the military prowess of Imperial German Army, especially after the initial conflicts with the disarmament treaty inspectors; coincidentally the Red Army, fighting for its life during the intervention and during the civil war, and desperately needing technology that the Germans were capable of supplying, the two former foes made common cause. Thus began a secret collaboration between the Reichswehr and the Red Army that lasted way into the 1930's. As the Red Army, at least until the purges had a great number of Czarist officers and reactionaries within its ranks, this is not as strange as it may sound. Anyway, this very extensive surreptitous linkage provided the Reichswehr with a unique insight into the Bolshevik inner circles and practically alone in the world, they were aware of the rise of the Stalin clique and what this represented and the danger it presented, especially to Germany, and indeed the whole world. So informed and greatly alarmed, especially after the Stalinists began to rapidly implement their program, which would soon produce the worlds most powerful military, the Reichswher leadership began to lend their support to the Nazis, primarily because they believed that the Nazis would form the most capable war government, for the war they were certain was coming with the USSR. Slagle

To: Gib Bogle who wrote (15680)	3/21/2007 10:08:22 PM
From: Slagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217652

Gib, I see I did exactly what Laqueur did, I danced all over the place and didn't answer your question. <grin> Mainstream Democrats will always try to avoid the use of the term, period. OTOH these "Progressives" throw the term around quiet a bit and are likely to use the label on anybody to the right of Al Gore, and this usually includes the Clintons. Also, they might sometimes apply the term to almost anything that smacks of traditional Americana, including the flag and religious icons. Any third world nation where a Marxist movement is being suppressed is of course, fascist, in the "progressive" world. Mainly, though, this is just abuse of the language. This rhetorical style first saw the light of day in this country back in the 1960's and mainly in the multitude of underground newspapers that proliferated in nearly every big city and most every college campus. There is a sort of "retro" feel to all this, like the folks attracted to 1960's "beach music" or old Corvette cars, some of these folks are just trying to relive their misspent youth, when they were playing at being hippies and college radicals. Republicans will almost never use the term and I suppose that is who you might consider to be "rightists" or "centrists". But some authentic conservatives HAVE FINALLY gotten up the nerve to openly use the term "nationalist" and this is great progress. For a long time American conservatives have been reluctant to utter the word, for fear they be associated with Hitler or worse. It is quite possible to favor "nationalism" and oppose going all the way to "fascism". Nationalism IS NOT incompatible with the democratic process, 200 years of American history proves this. I cannot think of any nation that would serve as a reasonable example, with regards to the USA and a possible fascist future. Nothing like that has ever happened to a place this large or powerful. BTW, I differ with you about the USSR. I do not believe you could accurately label the Bolsheviks and their Stalinist successors as fascists, despite the Stalinist heresy, they were internationalists to the core, and this would be an anathema to a self respecting fascist anywhere. China, OTOH might possibly be fascist, I am just not sure and I DO NOT mean this is a negative or insulting way. They, with their "One China" agenda, surely seem to be admirably nationalistic. And they are rather famously anti-democratic. Slagle