Sixstringslinger sent an email with this link (the one above) to an article on Frontpage Magazine's website. David Horowitz, the "reformed leftist" who publishes the magazine, is a right-wing extremist in his own right. His bashing of the World Can't Wait(WCW) organization lends no credibility to the debate whatsoever.
Yes, it is true that the Revolutionary Communist Party is one of the founding organizations in WCW. There are also other highly respected non-socialists who have signed the call for Bush to resign and take his entire regime with him. This is a non-partisan movement that is picking up steam.
Once again the right-wing tactic is to attack the messenger instead of responding to the points of the debate. If you think Bush is so great, why can't you effectively argue that he should remain in office?
Here is World Can't Wait's response to criticism from Horowitz and Faux News commentator Bill O'Reilly. http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=538&Itemid=184
2005-12-14
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Why is okay to be a left-wing extremist, and not a right-wing extremist? You thumb your nose at Frontpagemag.com, yet consider worldcantwait.com fair and legitimate? Please. And if you want to talk about having honest debate, why does it seem that every time a so-called "Right-wing" speaker tries to debate the "issues" on college and university campuses around the country, they are shouted down and attacked by so-called open-minded progressives?
Don't be hypocritical.
So far I've read the first few paragraphs. They define their premise upon two claims, that that the Bushies are "fascists" and "religious fanatics." Both of these claims are preposterously false.
The charactorization of the Bushies as "religious fanatics" has only a small bit of merit. The Bushies want public school teachers to have the right to lead students in voluntary prayer to any religion of their choosing, and all student to have the right to have religious meetings at school. They also want "in god we trust" on the money, and to ban women from having abortions. This is very tame compared to the Taliban and Muslim Brotherhood.
Dictionary.com defines "fascism" as: 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism. 2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
Therefore Bush is not a fascist.
Nadir: I don't think that the author is dismissing your movement merely because one of its leaders is a commie. He's dismissing it for the claims that this commie makes, such as: “The problem in this country,” says Kissinger, “[is] the oppressive system of capitalism that exploits people all over the world, that destroys our planet, that oppresses minority people, that sends people to the death chambers in droves.”
This is a silly claim, because it is false. Capitalism raises the living standards of all the peoples who utilize it. Consider the previously starving nation of India, which is becoming richer only after replacing socialism with capitalism, and China, which has lowered poverty only after permitting capitalism.
As for those poor, oppressed "minorities," none of them ever leave the US, and all over the world millions of them expend unimaginable efforts to cross into the US, where they join the other non-whites here in establishing perminent residency, with no thought of ever leaving.
The high and rising life expectancy of US residents, and the expansion of wealth and comfort, argues powerfully against the charactorization of this part of the earth being "destroyed".
According to Wikipedia "Fascism (in Italian, fascismo), capitalized, was the authoritarian political movement which ruled Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Similar political movements, including Nazism, spread across Europe between World War I and World War II.
Fascism generally attracted political support from big business, landowners, and patriotic, traditionalist, conservative, far-right, populist and reactionary individuals and groups."
"Fascism is associated with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, and, after attaining political control of a country, a powerful, dictatorial state that views the nation as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.
(The Patriot Act?) Fascism also typically calls for the regeneration of the nation and uses populist appeals to unity. Mussolini defined fascism as being a right-wing ideology in opposition to socialism, liberalism, democracy and individualism."
"The problem of defining fascism is complicated by the fact that the word fascist, used as an epithet, became an all-purpose insult after World War II, being widely applied to people on all sides of the political spectrum. In contemporary political discourse, adherents of some political ideologies tend to associate fascism with their enemies, or define it as the opposite of their own views."
From Economic Fascism by Thomas J. DiLorenzo (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo85.html)
"So-called corporatism was adopted in Italy and Germany during the 1930s and was held up as a “model” by quite a few intellectuals and policy makers in the United States and Europe. A version of economic fascism was in fact adopted in the United States in the 1930s and survives to this day. In the United States these policies were not called “fascism” but “planned capitalism.” The word fascism may no longer be politically acceptable, but its synonym “industrial policy” is as popular as ever."
"Mussolini thought it was unnatural for a government to protect individual rights: “The maxim that society exists only for the well-being and freedom of the individuals composing it does not seem to be in conformity with nature’s plans.”[7] “If classical liberalism spells individualism,” Mussolini continued, “Fascism spells government.”
The essence of fascism, therefore, is that government should be the master, not the servant, of the people. Think about this. Does anyone in America really believe that this is not what we have now? Are Internal Revenue Service agents really our “servants”? Is compulsory “national service” for young people, which now exists in numerous states and is part of a federally funded program, not a classic example of coercing individuals to serve the state? Isn’t the whole idea behind the massive regulation and regimentation of American industry and society the notion that individuals should be forced to behave in ways defined by a small governmental elite? When the nation’s premier health-care reformer recently declared that heart bypass surgery on a 92-year-old man was “a waste of resources,” wasn’t that the epitome of the fascist ideal – that the state, not individuals, should decide whose life is worthwhile, and whose is a “waste”?"
You have some good points there, Nadir. But the more you are able to charactorize Bush as a fascist, you are having to go with an ever-wider definition of the term, and in the process grab the democrats as well, losing the distinction of the discussion, which is the group that wants to impeach Bush II for being a fascist, but did not previously want to impeach Clinton for the same things. I agree that the Patriot Act and the torturing are examples of anti-democracy, and thus parts of the tighter definition of fascism that seems appropriate for this discussion.
Within that context, I would say that on a Fascism scale of 1-10, with Musilini being a 10, the Talibanist and Baathists are 10s, and the Bushies are 2. With the wider definition of fasism, which deals with private enterirpise run by a centralized government, I suppose that in that are the talibanists are perhaps a zero; I'm not really sure. The Bushies and Clintons are perhaps an 8, though at least the Bushies say they want to cut taxes, reduce regulation (like drilling on public land), and let citizens manage their own social security.
"You have some good points there, Nadir. But the more you are able to charactorize Bush as a fascist, you are having to go with an ever-wider definition of the term, and in the process grab the democrats as well..."
I would certainly characterize many of the Democrats as fascist. Most of the Democratic Leadership Council (including Bill and Hillary) would fall into that category.
"Within that context, I would say that on a Fascism scale of 1-10, with Musilini being a 10, the Talibanist and Baathists are 10s, and the Bushies are 2."
Not only is your scale out of whack, but you are confusing "Fascism" with "totalitarianism". They are not the same thing. Fascism is a distinct ideology that incorporates elements of totalitarianism. We have seen totalitarian governments (Stalin's USSR comes to mind) that were not Fascist at all.
The neoconservative ideology differs from classical Fascism on only a insignificant few points. The primary difference is the neocons promote "private" ownership which really means "corporate" ownership. And those same corporate interests own the U.S. government lock, stock and barrell. Therefore the government becomes an arm of the corporations, not the other way around.
In neither case is the government controlled by "the people" which would be the definition of socialism. Mussolini told you Fascism is the opposite of socialism.
And let's be real here:
Bush reduced taxes for the rich and for corporations. He wants to reduce regulation because it would give corporations more free reign. He wants to free social security from government control so corporations can get their hands on that money. It's all about corporate control of the country and its resources or "corporatism". And what did our good friend Benito say?
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
Hence the Bush regime is Fascist in nature.
Tell me I ain't right!
Post a Comment