Intellectuals of Fascism

[durb]

Fascism in its strict Italian historical context (or contemporary similar movements of other countries of 1920´s and 1930´s) and "fascism" in its broad use of word are two completely different things. The latter of use of word is free from any intellectual or rationalist sense, but based mostly on emotional feelings and to be used handily to mock everyone who disagrees with those political and social opinions which I consider as "only correct ones". To claim leftists generally being fascists is as stupid/emotional bs as to claim conservatives/modern right generally to be fascists.

Keeping it in intellectual and actual historical context, there are some problems caused by the way how Mussolini and other prominent Italian fascist key figures defined their political movement. These have been contradictory. Sometimes fascism was mentioned as a pragmatic solution of "a healthy, strong and stable society" suitable to all nations only needing some modification in cultural context - thus there could exist some kind of universal fascism with different national applications. However in other comments of Mussolini and his associates the fascism was defined as strictly Italian way to handle Italian problems and not being really an ideology for export. So how could we define fascism as it was seen by the fascist themselves - should we look it just as a Italian political movement or as a some kind of international movement of wider following?

Being strict in historical context, the fascism existed in its "pure form" only in Italy. But the undeniable fact is that fascism attracted many people of other nations these ranging from Mosley movement in Britain to "greenshirts" of Brazil. Corporativism and its "new organic state" existed more or less in Portugal, Brazil, Spain and Austria and perhaps also elsewhere. And others admired Italian fascism although were not necessarily willing to have some form of it in their own countries. For example Winston Churchill considered Mussolini as "one of the greatest legislators of our time" in a speech made in early 1930´s, but considered fascism as "the best solution for Italy but not necessarily for Britain".

[Alixanther]

That's why It is being said repeatedly that ' Isms are misleading as labels. In all applications of leftism till now, the State has been held supreme. The Marxist theory that the State will wither away...hasn't ever been even remotely applied by any Marxist - Socialist regime till now. On the contrary, the state has been made all pervasive and all powerful.
Under the Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, gay men / women were forced to enter into heterosexual marriages and,,,you may not believe...state / party functionaries eavesdropped on their bedrooms! This was to verify whether the couple was actually consummating the marriage ! Leftist ? Rightist ? Fascist ? Marxist?

Where family is concerned, Nazis interfered in mixed marriages all the time. The sanctity of the family counted for little at the altar of race. Here too there was opportunism displayed. In some interracial marriages / liaisons, the Nazis looked the other way conveniently. Bose could easily marry Emilie in wartime Germany.

The Feminist ideology is based on destroying the family fabric proactively. Yet the conservatives have often made common cause with them on issues which result in distancing the two genders.

Right ? Left? Conservative? Fascist? Maybe we should just sing ....alles ist verruckt...everything is crazy...those sad somber lines which the landser hummed in the meaninglessness of the winter war...circa 41 - 42 before Moscow

Ciao
Sandeep

Your analysis sums up that all these ideologies, no matter their declared ideals or goals, had only 1 purpose in mind: collectivism.
And that's always leftist. No doubt about it.
Your rhetorical questioning might look like blurring lines between sides, but sometimes the truth is in your face, easy to see: not "everything" is crazy". But leftism definitely is.

Feminism is not a political doctrine per se. It's more like an affirmative policy organisation. You cannot have a political doctrine only fitting for females The opposite political effect is due to radicalisation, which moves any organisation into niche territory, out of mainstream sense.

Fascism in its strict Italian historical context (or contemporary similar movements of other countries of 1920´s and 1930´s) and "fascism" in its broad use of word are two completely different things. The latter of use of word is free from any intellectual or rationalist sense, but based mostly on emotional feelings and to be used handily to mock everyone who disagrees with those political and social opinions which I consider as "only correct ones". To claim leftists generally being fascists is as stupid/emotional bs as to claim conservatives/modern right generally to be fascists.

Keeping it in intellectual and actual historical context, there are some problems caused by the way how Mussolini and other prominent Italian fascist key figures defined their political movement. These have been contradictory. Sometimes fascism was mentioned as a pragmatic solution of "a healthy, strong and stable society" suitable to all nations only needing some modification in cultural context - thus there could exist some kind of universal fascism with different national applications. However in other comments of Mussolini and his associates the fascism was defined as strictly Italian way to handle Italian problems and not being really an ideology for export. So how could we define fascism as it was seen by the fascist themselves - should we look it just as a Italian political movement or as a some kind of international movement of wider following?

Being strict in historical context, the fascism existed in its "pure form" only in Italy. But the undeniable fact is that fascism attracted many people of other nations these ranging from Mosley movement in Britain to "greenshirts" of Brazil. Corporativism and its "new organic state" existed more or less in Portugal, Brazil, Spain and Austria and perhaps also elsewhere. And others admired Italian fascism although were not necessarily willing to have some form of it in their own countries. For example Winston Churchill considered Mussolini as "one of the greatest legislators of our time" in a speech made in early 1930´s, but considered fascism as "the best solution for Italy but not necessarily for Britain".

It's prominently leftist the use of "fascist" term in its broader sense, outside Italy. Of course, every ideology had a meaning inside their originating country and there was some kind of "bastardisation" when such an ideology was taken and adopted into a different country. However, considering that there's no applicability of a doctrine outside the people who emitted it is some sort of a national-socialist (or racist) rationale. That way you'd agree to Hitler when he said that national socialism had no true meaning outside the German people.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

That's why It is being said repeatedly that ' Isms are misleading as labels. In all applications of leftism till now, the State has been held supreme. The Marxist theory that the State will wither away...hasn't ever been even remotely applied by any Marxist - Socialist regime till now. On the contrary, the state has been made all pervasive and all powerful.
Under the Pol Pot / Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia, gay men / women were forced to enter into heterosexual marriages and,,,you may not believe...state / party functionaries eavesdropped on their bedrooms! This was to verify whether the couple was actually consummating the marriage ! Leftist ? Rightist ? Fascist ? Marxist?

Where family is concerned, Nazis interfered in mixed marriages all the time. The sanctity of the family counted for little at the altar of race. Here too there was opportunism displayed. In some interracial marriages / liaisons, the Nazis looked the other way conveniently. Bose could easily marry Emilie in wartime Germany.

The Feminist ideology is based on destroying the family fabric proactively. Yet the conservatives have often made common cause with them on issues which result in distancing the two genders.

Right ? Left? Conservative? Fascist? Maybe we should just sing ....alles ist verruckt...everything is crazy...those sad somber lines which the landser hummed in the meaninglessness of the winter war...circa 41 - 42 before Moscow

Ciao
Sandeep

Your analysis sums up that all these ideologies, no matter their declared ideals or goals, had only 1 purpose in mind: collectivism.
And that's always leftist. No doubt about it.
Your rhetorical questioning might look like blurring lines between sides, but sometimes the truth is in your face, easy to see: not "everything" is crazy". But leftism definitely is.

Feminism is not a political doctrine per se. It's more like an affirmative policy organisation. You cannot have a political doctrine only fitting for females The opposite political effect is due to radicalisation, which moves any organisation into niche territory, out of mainstream sense.

The lines get blurred when you strip the labels and empirically examine the core issues. What has been the actual drive and motivation? What is the bottomline? Hitler and Mussolini wanted social and economic consolidation ...making their Nation-States militarily powerful and then tried to project that power on other states. To this end it was first necessary to get their absolute writs to run in their respective States.

The USSR did anything different? The semantics and nomenclature were different..but the bottomline? How about Taliban's Afghanistan? Communist China? Pol Pot's Cambodia? Idi Amin's Uganda? Mugabe's Zimbabwe?

The branded "Leftists" alone seek absolute primacy of the State or the Collective? The Papal State? Church ruled Nations? Franco's Spain?

Feminism WAS an affirmative action platform once upon a time..but now? While you and I have been dozing..laws have been enacted..judicial precedences have been created that are gradually disenfranchising men.. making it a crime to be masculine. Fascism and pink socialism have permeated into societies and then State power in the same way.. gradually..a little at a time. A man ( untermensch gender) can lose all his property and most of his money if the relevant member of the enfranchised gender ( Herrenvolk) wakes up on the wrong side of the bed. Just like that..The Nazis and the Bolsheviks did the same..right? Only the bases were different..class..race et al.

Just watch the voting qualitions in the US ..You will understand that a so called affirmative action lobby today determines who will be President / Governor

Ciao
Sandeep

[durb]

Collectivisim is not just a leftist idea - again just too simplistic. You can find collectivism in religion (church communities, parishes), in patriotism/nationalism and even in business life (team work. workshops). Individual freedoms and values have been embraced by many leftists as parts of their political agenda - the freedom of religion, the access to fair justice process to all, the liberty of choice in private life matters like choosing your wife/husband by free individual choice instead of convenience marriages arranged by the elders of the families etc.

I personally have worked with co-operative enterprises and I can assure that they have nothing to do with some hidden leftist ideology - in the base they are free associations/collectives with private enterprise nature (at least those with which I have worked with). Co-operative is a collective enterprise and presents an idea of collectivism, but is that some kind of "red" thing?

In the fascism collectivism was a some kind of biological, "organic" idea of the society/nation seen like a organ body in which every part had its function in its place. This "body" needed thus an arrangement and discipline to keep it healthy and strong both in the pragmatic way and by inspiring slogans. For the individual parts (citizens) of the "body" there were slogans like "credere, obbedire, combattere" - "to believe, to obey, to combat" making them to follow the rationale of the head (Duce) which supposedly worked as the decision making brain of the "body".

The idea of "organic society" is of older origin than fascism (or any leftist ideology), you can find it also in the conservative thinking going as far back as in history as to the myths of the ancient Romen republic (like Menenius Agrippa´s famous speech to plebeyeans), which was a rich source of inspiration for fascists and for many other political ideologies and thinkers (see for example some of the monuments and monumental buildings of modern USA).

When it comes to "organic society" according both to fascists and conservatives, it is something that you can not choose but in which you belong by nature (family, tribe, nation). But this is not of course to say that conservatives=fascists, but just an example that there is some similarity in fascist and conservative thinking.

Conservatives may well believe in the idea of "organic society" but at the same time defend individual civil liberties like the freedom of expression or parliamentary system of many parties and free elections. In Italy there was this kind of conservative catholic opposition against Mussolini in 1920´s and they even had contacts and cooperation with socialists, but they lost their importance as opposition force when Catholic church practically withdrew its support after the Lateran Treaty made with Mussolini´s governement in 1929.

[Alixanther]

You seem to mix up the ideas. The trailing idea of collectivism in religion has a different meaning than the societal one. Spiritual collectivism (volkgeist) is a romantic idea and has nothing in common with material(ist) collectivism which is a political ideology of the XX century (granted, conceived a bit earlier but still younger in comparison).
Patriotism and nationalism are a byproduct of romanticism too. I'm afraid that there's not so much "collectivism" in romantics' ideals. Just because Stalin used patriotism to stir up feelings into his unhappy proles to prop his state that does not make collectivism "patriotic" any time soon.
If you have found collectivism in your line of work maybe that's because your boss is a leftist. There's no contradiction, you know. You could be a banker and a leftist too. You just don't have to be the prole himself.
Individual freedoms and values have been grudgingly and falsely accepted by many leftists. They just wait for the convenient moment to jump back into their favourite line of work.
If you think that co-operation is the same with collectivism, you're wrong, my friend. Why do you think it was called "the dictatorship of the proletariat"? Because the boss was deciding "collectively" with the servant?
There's no link whatsoever between free associations - or "collectives" as you say - and the collectivist ideology. You're assuming too much. And it's obvious you have not lived under such a regime.
Private enterprise is PRIVATE and cannot be collectivist. You cannot have one and the other. Also, why do you say that collectivism is only a "red" thing? Mussolini and Hitler too had collectivist ideas and implements. Lebensborn - for instance - was a collectivist idea of the children raised by the state instead of the family. Don't try to whitewash leftists too much - othewise you'd feel compelled to do the same with Hitler and other convenient leftist scapegoats.

The collectivism of the opportunistic leftists was at the core and the "organic state" was only a disguise, a facade. There's no "organic state" into such leftist constructs.
In order to be organic, there are some requirements. First, the social classes should be dependant on one another. Second, it must be self-sustaining. Third, living according to the "rules" of the land (climate, geography issues).
None of these was true in a leftist state. It was all pretense.

Of course the wisdom of the Ancients was (and still is) a rich source of inspiration for anyone. But it takes a leftist and a demagogue to make it a lie, a complete travesty and a dead end for everyone.
Your comparison of conservatives and leftists through the means of the "organic society" model, it's like saying that because birds and airplanes have similar wings, they must be the same thing. Only a leftist mind could see "a similarity in fascist and conservative thinking". How convenient! Getting rid of bad press and associating an old enemy to it. Quite brilliant, I would say.
Leftists had nothing against aristocrats destroying their Old World Order. If that world should come through their undoing, it was only fitting. Quite a stark sense of humour. They would receive a new "title" under the new leadership and keep their ruling position only to implement the collectivist ideal.
You know, the leftists never quite understood what an aristocrat is. They thought they were a socially parasitical class, just like in their leaflets. The aristocrats, while they occasionally mistreated the peasants and harshly suppressed their rebellions, never thought about eliminating the whole peasantry. That would equate to them being kings on a mountain of rubble.
Thanks to the leftists, there's hardly any functional peasant left. There's a "glitch", however. Since the advent of the urban civilisation (which modern historians dub as being the "only" one, as if the hunter-gatherers would have been unable to create and maintain one), the CITY has never been self-sustaining. You need food - either by means of happy independent peasants or by wage slave proles, working on the state farm.
If I'm ever in doubt who is a leftist, I always ask their opinion about peasantry. There's nobody who hates peasantry more than a leftist.

The idea of "organic society" is of older origin than fascism (or any leftist ideology), you can find it also in the conservative thinking going as far back as in history as to the myths of the ancient Romen republic (like Menenius Agrippa´s famous speech to plebeyeans), which was a rich source of inspiration for fascists and for many other political ideologies and thinkers (see for example some of the monuments and monumental buildings of modern USA).

(...)

Conservatives may well believe in the idea of "organic society" but at the same time defend individual civil liberties like the freedom of expression or parliamentary system of many parties and free elections.

You start you post by saying that organic society cannot be an ideological trademark (since it's originating well beyond in the past) then you finish it by "asigning" this brand to the opportunistic leftists - and throwing a mantle of "guilt by association" - since "conservatives may well believe in the idea of organic society" - BUT - (= meaning in your view organic society is somewhat permanently "damaged" by its use by their brother leftists) AT THE SAME TIME (as if they would / should be contraries of some sort) defend individual civil liberties.
Your conclusion? Simple. "Organic society is against individual civil liberties." Brilliant demagogue conclusion, for a leftist. Pants, for everybody else.

[durb]

My conclusion is not that the idea of organic society is against individual civil liberties - as I have stated there have been conservative thinkers who at the same time have embraced both organic society and individual civil liberties. As well as there have been leftists who fully accept private enterprises and have not hidden agenda of totally nationalizing/collectivizing everything. For example in Spain, Sweden, Germany and some other countries there have socialist/social democratic governements which have not done such things or limited the civil liberties more than conservative/right-center governements.

In the fascism and in communism it was clear assumption that individual civil liberties had to be sacrificed for the bigger interest of state/collective. Both had also an idea of a capable/enlightened elite (or aristocracy) which runs the society and guides the masses toward the right direction and in practice created dictature producing similar power structures built around a dictator/imperator figures. In ancient Roman republic the dictator was just a temporary strongman solution to deal with crisis situation while in fascism/national socialism/communism it was practically a permanenent solution of governement from 1920´s to 1940`s (and in Soviet Union up to Stalin´s death 1953 - after that the communist party "aristocracy" did not let following leaders to have similar power anymore).

Interestingly the idea of "enlightened" aristocracy is something that has been embraced by many thinkers like Spanish Ortega y Gasset - he believed in elitist society which would be better than demagog democracy which would be "mass society" which would end up to "ceaserism" - a popular demagoc figure taking the power of a despot.

In the fascism there was clearly a power structure with fascist local chiefs and party elite - and in the end this party aristocracy abandoned Mussolini and some like Bottai thought that there could be a future for "organic fascism" without Mussolini. The dictator could be removed/changed but the fascist "organic society" in itself could continue its life as a vital organism. This proved to be illusion however.

[sandeepmukherjee196]

What supposedly starts as " temporary" ... then becomes quasi permanent ! Have you ever seen any draconian law ever rolled back in a hurry? The wide ranging snooping measures and the anti civil liberty laws that Bush brought into the US ...Do you see any signs of those going away anytime soon?
On the contrary the "leftist" Obama administration has perpetuated them and persecuted Assange and Snowden vigorously. See the blurred lines and convergence between left and right thrown at our faces !
In the case of Assange , Feminist-Fascism has come in mighty handy too Bottomline ?

[Alixanther]

My conclusion is not that the idea of organic society is against individual civil liberties - as I have stated there have been conservative thinkers who at the same time have embraced both organic society and individual civil liberties. As well as there have been leftists who fully accept private enterprises and have not hidden agenda of totally nationalizing/collectivizing everything. For example in Spain, Sweden, Germany and some other countries there have socialist/social democratic governements which have not done such things or limited the civil liberties more than conservative/right-center governements.

In the fascism and in communism it was clear assumption that individual civil liberties had to be sacrificed for the bigger interest of state/collective. Both had also an idea of a capable/enlightened elite (or aristocracy) which runs the society and guides the masses toward the right direction and in practice created dictature producing similar power structures built around a dictator/imperator figures. In ancient Roman republic the dictator was just a temporary strongman solution to deal with crisis situation while in fascism/national socialism/communism it was practically a permanenent solution of governement from 1920´s to 1940`s (and in Soviet Union up to Stalin´s death 1953 - after that the communist party "aristocracy" did not let following leaders to have similar power anymore).

Interestingly the idea of "enlightened" aristocracy is something that has been embraced by many thinkers like Spanish Ortega y Gasset - he believed in elitist society which would be better than demagog democracy which would be "mass society" which would end up to "ceaserism" - a popular demagoc figure taking the power of a despot.

In the fascism there was clearly a power structure with fascist local chiefs and party elite - and in the end this party aristocracy abandoned Mussolini and some like Bottai thought that there could be a future for "organic fascism" without Mussolini. The dictator could be removed/changed but the fascist "organic society" in itself could continue its life as a vital organism. This proved to be illusion however.

The way you phrased your response before is the total opposite, so be careful about how you put it. Organic society is not something outside civil liberties. Organic does not mean like the cells of the body. The meaning of organic = natural. Communism was a dogmatic ideology which was artificial at the core, it was practically backed up by nothing from the real world. Leftist = artificial.
All leftists preach they and only they bring the progress into the world, while "the reactionaries" want to stop it.
The truth is that advancement of historical reality comes at its own pace, nature and environment having a word on it, too. There are two forms of advancement, organic and artificial. From grassroots upwards is organic, while from the top down is artificial.
I also don't agree on the leftist view of the world as "always progressing". There are times when the world go backwards (and that's sometimes a bad thing) and there are times when going back would be a good idea (and keep walking on a ill-fated path to "progress" would be bad). Also there's no such thing as "times never comes back". The environment dictates what we do - more than we dictate the environment what to give to us. If the environment puts us in a historically past situation AGAIN, we'll do the same things AGAIN. (and no, I'm not a behaviorist)
There's no denying that SOME of the artificial forms of advancement proved useful, at times (and I myself gave an example of such rulers, be they kings or elected leaders). However, there's also no denying that the majority of cases when the political establishment wanted to "speed up" the pace most people want or wish to absorb notions and ideas, on whatever agenda (I'm not pointing to leftist dogma only), a worldwide bloodbath followed. Same was the case of the world wars, which were cooked up by a conspiratorial leftist clique "for the progress of mankind". Was it worth such progress the victims required? I doubt it - but to each his opinions.

A conservative view of the world says that you cannot speed up your epoch.

As regarding leftist "fully accepting", I've yet to met a leftist WHILE BEING IN POWER to do such things. They only accept the statu-quo as an intermediate step while they're in the opposition. There's a different song althogether when they get their paws on the biggest slice of the political cake.
Let me know about such a case, if you know one.
There's no such thing as "fascism" and "communism". I recommend either using "socialism" and "communism" or you use none at all - label them as "leftism". Social-democrats were considered "traitors of the left" by the full-swing socialists - same as socialists were considered "moderate scum" by bolsheviks. Only a leftist use the term "fascist". Why? Because "fascism is capitalism in decay" (Lenin)
I know that the interwar era the parliamentary representative republic was akin to Roman Republic Senate, so that's why the image of a powerful "dictator" eliminating political deadlocks became a selling point. However, that was not the case. The leftists were there to stay.
"We cannot tell which is our current ideology. Using one word or another brings us more unwelcomed enemies. For now what we want is power. And we don't want to share it with anybody". - Goebbels.
The reason that the Soviet Union was imitating (of some sort) the aristocrats was that there was no capitalism prior to the Soviets. Imperial Russia was a medieval country based on a land power owner' elite. Times advanced differently for different peoples. Only today we're told all must go in rhythm (gleichschaltung)... Now, where did I hear that before?
That doesn't mean there's any link whatsoever between boyars and the new rulers.

The idea of "enlightened aristocracy" comes at a time when aristocracy kinda lost its former meaning.
The structure of the medieval era was something like that:
Clergy ( = administration, banking system)
Aristocracy ( = military)
Craftsmanship ( = guilds, tradeskills)
Peasantry (landed owners)
Serfs (rural) / Servants (urban) (similar to today status of wage-income people, if it's hard to picture them)

Also, no general "civil liberties". Each class is entitled to certain customs and behaviour, usually governed by tradition but also ruled by brute force.

Is today world going forwards?

[durb]

"Same was the case of the world wars, which were cooked up by a conspiratorial leftist clique "for the progress of mankind"."

Interesting conspiracy theory - that it were the marxists and leftwing politicians who cooked up the WW I and II? Are you meaning some kind of hidden goal of different leftist elements working together toward world domination by creating "artificial societies" to be controlled by leftist oligarchy? And this could be achieved by destroying the bondages of natural social units (like destroying family values) and replacing them with political collectivism? And also for the same end to stirr up destructive wars to destroy nations and to replace them with "world state" controlled by leftists?

Maybe these conspiracy ideas have their root on the fact that "progressists" (which you clearly hate) used to be at the beginning radical liberals organized in secret societies like Freemasons, Illuminati etc. - this was due to fact that in late 18th Century and early 19th Century there was not a freedom of expression in big part of Europe at the same way as it is now in many countries. Anyway it did give the origin to the idea that leftism at its root is a secret society movement conspiring to dominate the world in totalitarian way and has always hidden agenda to do that. If you really believe in that, that is your right - the constitutional right of freedom of opinion and expression in many countries thanks to the efforts of "progressists" without whom we all would still have an strict religious inquisition telling us what is permitted and what is not permitted.

Conspiracy theories as are interesting - also fascists/national socialists and some very hardline conservatives used them in antisemitic propaganda like the idea of "Jewish Freemasons" plotting to dominate the world. However I´m not so sure how much importance this had in Italian fascism (which was not antisemitic at the beginning). In Franco´s Spain this same conspiracy theory was supported by some elements of governing system, but how seriously Franco himself really believed in it?

[sandeepmukherjee196]

On the other hand.. we have also been told that it was "International Finance" that plotted and orchestrated WW II .. as a continuation of WW I .....That and the other profound conspiracy theory that it was all a British conspiracy ..that the Tavistock Institute carefully put together over many decades and that Hitler was after all a British agent

[Alixanther]

"Same was the case of the world wars, which were cooked up by a conspiratorial leftist clique "for the progress of mankind"."

Interesting conspiracy theory - that it were the marxists and leftwing politicians who cooked up the WW I and II? Are you meaning some kind of hidden goal of different leftist elements working together toward world domination by creating "artificial societies" to be controlled by leftist oligarchy? And this could be achieved by destroying the bondages of natural social units (like destroying family values) and replacing them with political collectivism? And also for the same end to stirr up destructive wars to destroy nations and to replace them with "world state" controlled by leftists?

Maybe these conspiracy ideas have their root on the fact that "progressists" (which you clearly hate) used to be at the beginning radical liberals organized in secret societies like Freemasons, Illuminati etc. - this was due to fact that in late 18th Century and early 19th Century there was not a freedom of expression in big part of Europe at the same way as it is now in many countries. Anyway it did give the origin to the idea that leftism at its root is a secret society movement conspiring to dominate the world in totalitarian way and has always hidden agenda to do that. If you really believe in that, that is your right - the constitutional right of freedom of opinion and expression in many countries thanks to the efforts of "progressists" without whom we all would still have an strict religious inquisition telling us what is permitted and what is not permitted.

Conspiracy theories as are interesting - also fascists/national socialists and some very hardline conservatives used them in antisemitic propaganda like the idea of "Jewish Freemasons" plotting to dominate the world. However I´m not so sure how much importance this had in Italian fascism (which was not antisemitic at the beginning). In Franco´s Spain this same conspiracy theory was supported by some elements of governing system, but how seriously Franco himself really believed in it?

You gloat too soon. It's not me, it's the International Nuremberg Trials who acknowledged this conspiracy. Look it up, it was one of the main charges for the culprits.
"Different leftist elements" are not that different. And it's not my duty to unveil these participants. What I'm telling you is mainstream history, not fringe group hypothesis.
I'm not so sure if your heap of questions were rhetorical musings or you imply I should answer them too.
Also, you're in error: I do not hate progressivists, I hate their effort of razing the past (tabula rasa) and declaring that the world must be reforged.
Maybe you should have read my post more carefully - I said that I'm not against progress, I'm against progress at any cost.
What the opportunist leftists used were no "conspiracy theories". They used the old trusted method of scapegoating by most credible means. If they could have accused them of "breaking the egg on the round bottom" (like in Swift's satirical works), they would have.
It seems you're a leftist, after all: "some very hardline conservatives used them in antisemitic propaganda" ??? Care to bring up some examples of "very hardline conservatives" doing so? Or you simply do the routine job of the leftist trying every day to paint gloom and doom the past?

[durb]

As far as I know, in Nuremberg war trials there was no accusation of worldwide leftist conspiracy but it was about other questions like Holocaust.

Progressism/reformism or the so-called enlightment project since late 19th Century: in many cases it is pragmatic and acknowledges the realities of different societies. The main goal is to improve the chances of individual people to get better chances for education, health care and equality in trial processes. This kind of values are common Western heritage nowadays and also acknowledged as universal goals. For example now there is not a single country in world where slavery is legal (the last one to illegalize it was Mauritania in 2007), although in practice enslavement still exists. However everyone agrees now in the principle that slavery is wrong. This would not have been accomplished without the efforts of radical abolitionists who defied the time-honoured tradition of slavery. The idea of abolishing slavery came from the idea of basic human rights which is connected to the "progressive" philosophy of 19th Century which is called as "enlightment" - from that point starts what can be called as "progressism" or the origin of modern "leftism".

Conservatives came always later and reluctantly to accept the social reforms suggested by enlightment philosophers and other "progressists". Almost always they initially opposed social/political reforms or tried to delay reforms as much as possible. However, the modern or at least most Western conservatives agree fully with the ideas of universal human rights which were "invented" by enlightment philosophy. Many of today´s conservatives would have been liberal radicals or "leftists" in the Europe of early 19th Century compared to the conservatives of that time. The conservatives reluctantly became to accept ideas which they at first considered impossible or too radical - thus a conservativism of modern day has often some "leftist" character like moderate leftists can have "rightist" ideas of pragmatic economic policy. The moderate conservatives and moderate leftists agree today pretty much about the most basic questions of the principles of civil rights and of the administration of civil society.

The idea of "tabula rasa" - erasing the past to create "new people" is admittedly a dangerous "progressive" idea which has been connected to destructive totalitarian thinking more than once during the history but it is not typical only for leftists of western pedigree. The "first" emperor of China wanted the timecounting beginning from him and ordered all older manuscripts to be destroyed. In Soviet Union they did blew up churches with dynamite. Nowadays in some countries radical islamism has been connected to the destroying of monuments and archeological remains of preislamic era. In Cambodia the red khmers wanted to start all over again from the year zero and tried to eliminate all which was supposed to be reactionary obstacle to the rewriting of history - thus eliminating about 2 million people. However when it comes to Italian fascism, it was nothing as hardline like the previous examples although it created the new fascist timecounting - the so-called "era fascista" which was obligatory to use in official documents of administration at all levels. Compared to many other dictatorships the Italian fascism was quite moderate and pragmatic.

When it comes to the history of "jewish-freemasonic-communist conspiracy", you can study the history of rightwing parties of both France and Germany: http://www.academia.edu/206397/The_cons ... _1918-1940_. If interested of the influence of "conspiracy theory" in Spain: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiraci ... ernacional - and not to forget some rightwing thinkers in USA like some conspiracy theorists of Tea Party. The idea of "world governement" (United Nations!?) linked to the appearance of Antichrist is typical stuff of some religious right in USA. I have seen also some American TV series and movies with these ideas and they show premium examples of conspiracy theories of far right people of USA. However my constitutional right is to be "leftist" if I choose to be and using my constitutional freedom of expression, I openly consider these "right" ideas simply as paranoid.

When it becomes to "leftism", what is exactly meant with that definition? Is it being just a marxist in one way or another? Is a social democrat or social liberal a "hidden marxist" or just being a fool manipulated by some clever conspiracy starting from the setup of western "enlightment" project of late 19th Century?

[Alixanther]

As far as I know, in Nuremberg war trials there was no accusation of worldwide leftist conspiracy but it was about other questions like Holocaust.

Progressism/reformism or the so-called enlightment project since late 19th Century: in many cases it is pragmatic and acknowledges the realities of different societies. The main goal is to improve the chances of individual people to get better chances for education, health care and equality in trial processes. This kind of values are common Western heritage nowadays and also acknowledged as universal goals. For example now there is not a single country in world where slavery is legal (the last one to illegalize it was Mauritania in 2007), although in practice enslavement still exists. However everyone agrees now in the principle that slavery is wrong. This would not have been accomplished without the efforts of radical abolitionists who defied the time-honoured tradition of slavery. The idea of abolishing slavery came from the idea of basic human rights which is connected to the "progressive" philosophy of 19th Century which is called as "enlightment" - from that point starts what can be called as "progressism" or the origin of modern "leftism".

Conservatives came always later and reluctantly to accept the social reforms suggested by enlightment philosophers and other "progressists". Almost always they initially opposed social/political reforms or tried to delay reforms as much as possible. However, the modern or at least most Western conservatives agree fully with the ideas of universal human rights which were "invented" by enlightment philosophy. Many of today´s conservatives would have been liberal radicals or "leftists" in the Europe of early 19th Century compared to the conservatives of that time. The conservatives reluctantly became to accept ideas which they at first considered impossible or too radical - thus a conservativism of modern day has often some "leftist" character like moderate leftists can have "rightist" ideas of pragmatic economic policy. The moderate conservatives and moderate leftists agree today pretty much about the most basic questions of the principles of civil rights and of the administration of civil society.

The idea of "tabula rasa" - erasing the past to create "new people" is admittedly a dangerous "progressive" idea which has been connected to destructive totalitarian thinking more than once during the history but it is not typical only for leftists of western pedigree. The "first" emperor of China wanted the timecounting beginning from him and ordered all older manuscripts to be destroyed. In Soviet Union they did blew up churches with dynamite. Nowadays in some countries radical islamism has been connected to the destroying of monuments and archeological remains of preislamic era. In Cambodia the red khmers wanted to start all over again from the year zero and tried to eliminate all which was supposed to be reactionary obstacle to the rewriting of history - thus eliminating about 2 million people. However when it comes to Italian fascism, it was nothing as hardline like the previous examples although it created the new fascist timecounting - the so-called "era fascista" which was obligatory to use in official documents of administration at all levels. Compared to many other dictatorships the Italian fascism was quite moderate and pragmatic.

When it becomes to "leftism", what is exactly meant with that definition? Is it being just a marxist in one way or another? Is a social democrat or social liberal a "hidden marxist" or just being a fool manipulated by some clever conspiracy starting from the setup of western "enlightment" project of late 19th Century?

If you care to look it up, you'll see that almost each major culprit was charged with conspiracy, so yeah, pretty much the Trials put this into mainstream history. If you did not hear about it, that does not negate the verdict. And I suppose you're not denying the verdict in any way, don't you?

"Conservatives came always later"? How about, you know, Czar Alexander the Second? He was assassinated - mind you, by a leftist organisation, just a day before him enabling the plans for an elected Parliament. Who is really the reactionary here? The wolf is crying wolf, don't you think?
And why in today's world ruled by leftist propaganda far and wide, every progressivist is dubbed "enlightened" while a conservative gets the treatment of a rabid wolf? Of course today's "conservatives" would have been considered liberal. The other situation is also valid: Social-democratic party from interwar Germany would have been today considered too nation-centered and probably forbidden, or at least boycotted.
This is not only a wrong idea but also an untrue one: that only the progressivists come along history with new and daring ideas. Most of the times the conservatives contemplated far ahead than others but they were reluctant (that's not a bad thing, not going full speed ahead without knowing where you're heading on) on opening a social or political Pandora's Box.
They never opposed reforms by principle and you cannot prove that the delay was always with mean intentions. (there are people with mean intentions in all camps)
You're also wrong about Enlightenment which is a intellectual movement of (initially) Catholic faith during the 15-16 century. It has nothing to do with 19th century. The leftists stole the "brand" and they're wrongly and malintentfully using it to prop their actions. If it's leftist, it's "enlightened". If it's rightist, it's "reactionary" and "clouding the judgement". They pretend they're praising the godess of Reason, yet they ALWAYS appeal to the limbic brain emotional apparatus. They always use emotions and pavlovian knee-jerk reactions, yet they're always "enlightened". The conservatives always use explanations and logic to show why they're against a rushed decision yet they're sniveled at as "brutes". Don't you think you got your reality the wrong way up?
Magna Carta - which was the first document ever created for the emancipation of a social body - was created by nobles and aristocrats. They were joined by other people, too, but to deny their initiative is wrong on so many levels.
Nowadays so called "conservatives" are no more than leftists in disguise - that's why they get along so well with other leftists. Conservatism of "modern way" is cornered into submission by guilt and scare under the pack tactics of leftist media attacks. Another naive assumption is that progressivists were somewhat related and / or involved in the abolishment (or at least the reduction) or the slavery - which is one of the most BS from history. "Time-honoured tradition of slavery" is an imbecilic concept and has no place is European history. Slavery became widespread only because of colonialism, which is in no way a conservative value. Lincoln himself said he did not give a fig on slavery if that issue did not help him on the political stage. I also do not care to label Lincoln as a conservative or as a leftist. Lincoln was a pragmatist (opportunist, if you want, but not necessarily a leftist one) who prized political victory, no matter way.
Progressivists always use social contrasts and conflicts the way a surfer uses the wave to rise up. They use it, then their attention is focused on the next wave. They don't give a damn about the last wave. They never care about it, not at that moment, not at present moment, not at any moment.
If you want to say that there are "moderate leftists", that's an oxymoron. A leftist is the farthest thing from moderate. Moderation is only a ruse on political stage, not an inner belief. Of course there were (and still are) leftists who made compromises. Even Stalin did.
"Civil rights"? "Civil society"? Look up my previous post if you were to understand there were more emancipated people in the Middle Ages than in Modern Times. Peasantry were land owners and paid a 19% tax in labor duties. There certainly was a civil society in a Hanseatic city, granted, but do we still have it today? The fall and destruction of the guilds also destroyed the civil society. You cannot have a civil society without economic relevance. Wage income is no different from servitude. You're bound to serve the one who pays you.
The real solution against slavery and emancipation of serfs would have been to give them land - either in their adoptive country or back into their own. However, colonialist empires permeated by leftist eugenic ideas were hard to reason with - the destruction of the guild system made them dependant on predatory, new-type corporations. The conservative view was that all people were equal under sun and there's a reason for all social classes. Leftism, however, had no quarrel with capitalism - which was seen as a "natural enemy". They thought it was a much simpler enemy, in stark contrast of the complicated conservatives, who were hard to tackle only by the means of knee-jerk slogans. They want to hate and to be hated and what they despise most is when someone does not fall into their predicted behaviour. This "no shades of grey" view of the world is much cherished by the leftist, who hopes to make his inimical capitalist a fellowman by inducing unto him the same type of "you're with us or against us" behaviour.
Regarding Italian fascism, it is the only ideology who has the right to bear this name and even they cannot escape the fact they were pretty much leftists, although with a grain of salt. The only rightist measure of Mussollini was the restauration of Vatican City and even this one is more like "you stay there, the rest of Italy belongs to me". Italy at that time had a king - which you almost never hear on history news, although you always hear a lot about the Japanese emperor - and besides, Mussollini was deposed by the Grand Fascist Council, which shows some differences. However, almost all mimicking "nationalist movements" who appeared were leftists both in scope and form. Even the Legion of Archangel Michael from Romania - which was more a sect than a political group - had its leftist elements.
As regarding the definition for leftism, I already gave you some hints in a previous post. You can either call them "socialists and communists" or you can call them "leftists". When saying "socialists" I also denominate the national-socialist or other types of socialist movements across Europe.
Apart from them there's a plethora of guys without a clue so there's no surprise that leftist leaders saw such manipulated fools as "useful idiots". As a good measure to differentiate amongst them, I had a hard time myself - that's no small feat. I usually look up their opinion about peasantry - is the most common reductionist term I could find by now. They're ALWAYS against peasantry. If they're not, they might be "moderate" (meaning they're not quite leftists anyway) or "useful idiots".

[sandeepmukherjee196]

Leftist..Rightist..Progressiveness..Conservatism....

The SwingKinder cultural phenomenon in Germany, in the 30s and early 40s, was labelled Entartete Kunst ( degenerate art) by the Nazis. The long hairstyle..short skirts..sexual freedom...."cool"..non regimented ways..dabbling in jazz music..indifference to the war preparations and then the actual war...

Leftist or Rightist? The class composition of the majority of the swing kids... upper middle class / middle class..made them a no - no for the underground socialist / communist movement which embraced the street meuten types in the working class neighbourhoods. Their so called "counter culture" tendencies are exactly the kind of stuff which leftists ( in India for example) have vehemently protested against since the globalisation and satellite TV age came in at the beginning of the 90s.

The Nazis collectively (not just the so called ' left wing ' Nazis) damned the swing kids with increased doses of persecution..finally cracking down brutally in 1942. By the late 30s, if a Mischling was also a swing kid then he/she would be acted against on a priority. The Christian / Catholic lobby had common cause with the Nazis on this issue am sure !

The Nazis hated the swing kids for being "anglophiles" and sexually permissive... right? But typical of the "blurred lines" and double speak that I have been talking about in this thread, the Nazis / Waffen SS / HJ themselves didnt mind similar stuff when their time and opportunity came. Hitler looked on with benign indulgence at the serial conquests of Kempka right under his nose. Higher up the ladder, Bormann and Goebbels carried on their "free loving" ways with impunity. Its only when Goebbels fell in love seriously outside his marriage ( so did magda at about the same time) and his marriage was breaking up ..that Hitler step in. Heydrich and his orgies reminded people of the ancient Roman delights !

When Armageddon came calling in Berlin circa April - May 45, Waffen SS personnel de-stressed in the Reich Chancellery dancing to American music on phonograms and were on off duty orgies en masse ! When Himmler wrote to Heydrich after the Moscow debacle, recommending a brutal clamp down (including the concentration camp routine) on the swingkids, he fumed against the spread of "Anglophile" tendencies in Germany at that time of mortal combat . Isnt that funny? Seeing that the deeply entrenched Anglophile tendencies in Himmler's boss ultimately was responsible for the German defeat!?..Through a series of strategic blunders dictated by his going- soft- on- Britain mindset ?

If one focuses on the end outcome..the bottomline..then a lot many things become clear in the mind about Isms..

Ciao
Sandeep

[Niklas68]

That and the other profound conspiracy theory that it was all a British conspiracy ..that the Tavistock Institute carefully put together over many decades and that Hitler was after all a British agent

You can likely discard the possibility it was a British plot. Britain was near bankrupt in 1940 already and was fighting on living off US credit, as a result of the war she lost her empire, lost her global status as super power and the supremecy over the Seas she once held. Instead of one tyrant replaced (hitler) she had helped another tyrant lay his hands on half of the european continent. (Stalin). Doesn't look like a British plot .

Otherwise the thread is highly interesting, Alicanther's posts in particular are compelling.