waitwaitwait

I've heard the whole "Mussolini started as a Socialist" thing before but didn't he explicitly renounce socialism at one point pretty early on?

Actually my favorite bit in the book is when he argues the Nazi's were pro-gay rights, and therefore like liberals.

Sure they may have sent thousands of homosexuals to death camps branded with pink triangles, but Jonah Goldberg can name one or two Nazi's who probably fucked a guy. Therefore Nazi's were in favor of homosexuality. Therefore people who are who don't hate gays are like Nazi's.

Have they played this video in Italy yet? Because I highly encourage Jonah Goldberg to spend five minutes there and argue that shit from a podium and see what kind of reaction he gets. Just...jesus fuck. One more on the long list of reasons to go expat at this point.

Mussolini and Hitler were socialists - At least that's what I am hearing with greater regularity from right wing fucktards. Hitler called his party the National Socialist German Workers Party to appeal to the masses who liked socialism. It was less socialism and more Nationalism. His claim that Mussolini was a socialist is either fucking retarded or a flat out lie. Mussolini was a corporate militarist in every sense.

Watching the History channel at any time whatsoever and you can find this stuff out. Or a book if you're a nerd.

Well, yes and no on the "Hitler was a socialist" part, but I'm not even going to bother trying to sort out the "Mussolini wasn't a fascist" bit- that's too stupid even for me.

It really depends on what exactly you MEAN by the term "socialist", just as it depends on what you MEAN by the term "liberal". Hitler wasn't the sort of socialist you see hanging out at college coffeeshops, wearing Che t-shirts and loudly discussing the latest collection of essays by Chomsky. Most "socialists", the leftist version we all know and love, came either from Marx or from Marxist-influenced theorists, all of which Hitler and the NSDAP rejected as being "Jewish" and "internationalist"; tools with which the enemies of the Aryan race would try and undermine the accomplishments of the Germanic world.

However, not all socialists were Marxist, and there were a number of parallel developments during the 19th century, revolving around the idea of tighter state control (in a benevolent manner, of course) and an increased interest, by the State, in the welfare of it's citizens- however we define this welfare. That put it at odds with the then-dominant "liberalism" (the classical liberalism/ "Libertarianism" that Hitler-Smiley man was talking about), which preferred to leave the State out of things, let people run themselves, and in so doing (as the story goes) allow the upper classes to grow fat off the powerless masses. National Socialism was, IIRC, first developed in France of all places, and unlike many of the other strands of socialism stayed more or less unnoticed until a homeless git named Adolf fell in with a rabidly anti-Semitic German group, revitalized it, and set the stage for a million D-Day films and Anne Coulter jokes.

Was Hitler a socialist? Yes. In much the same sense that both Bush and Obama are "free-market democratics". Hitler nationalised industries, supported stuff like public schooling, public labor projects, gun control (although contrary to what most Freeperswill tell you, he was pretty lukewarm on that issue and most of "his" gun control laws were holdovers from the Weimar days) and universal health care, vastly expanded the power of the central government, peppered his speeches with class-conscious rhetoric (check his address to the Labor Service in Triumph of the Will for a good example of that) and in general was considerably further to the "left", economically and ideologically speaking (as long as we define "left" to mean "favoring government intervention in economic and industrial matters"), than the "Free West" was at that point (possibly even today). Of course, the real question here should be: so what? It's the old Argumentum ad Nazium! He also had a moustache, loved dogs, and ate a fairly strict vegetarian diet, ho hum, good for him. Oh, and hey, and Stormfront votes for Ron Paul! "Guilt by Association Fallacy" you say? Well, quite.

The REAL problem with Hitler, the one which made him such a bloody jerk in the first place (and I think everyone, even Hitler-Smiley man would agree with this) was that he blamed Jews for all of Germany's problems, got most of his world view from rabid racialist pseudoscience, stacked his government with the sort of weedy gits who would have become Wiccans had they been born fifty years later, and wanted to turn Eastern Europe into a land of milk and honey watered with the blood a hundred million Bolsheviks. Now whether or not his "socialist" tendencies contributed to the rotten stuff he did, and more importantly whether his very specific brand of "socialism" can translate over to any other brand of "socialism", those are separate questions which aren't addressed by pointing to Hitler and saying "Oooo look! A socialist!"

I talk too damn much, so I'll shut up now. Best bet for anyone who's interested is to pick up a copy of Ian Kershaw's "Hubris"; or maybe not. 900 pages of Hitler couldn't have been good for my mental health... :(

Sorry, one more.

IrishWhiskey: Ernst Rohm, Karl Ernst, and Paul Rohrbein. All fucked each other repeatedly, and while there's no "historical proof" that says Himmler was gay, I think it's pretty clear from those bedroom eyes of his which way he swung the sausage.

Karl Ernst was a bouncer at a gay nightclub.

What the Hell? I'm not reading all of that!

Hitler's government structure was a theocratic military dictatorship bent on war and racism. Any other consideration (like mustaches and organic food) is just ignoring the forest for the trees.

For Jonah Goldberg: Liberal = Bad. Therefore, Anything He Considers Bad = Liberal

I buried a reference to one of the Sailor Scouts in there just for you, Caminante.

What you are not addressing regarding Fascism is that it romanticized and encouraged pre-Christian religious, or pagan national ideas. This is a very important aspect of Fascism as it underlined their propaganda. In order to commit great evil it is necessary to corrupt a great good, and the Fascists borrowed heavily from the most beautiful historic artistic icons of their various national identities, in many cases (i.e. "Birth of a Nation") corrupting the histories for the sake of innovative and great art. It is hard to believe how important Birth of a Nation is to the history of art, in our current context, but it was extremely powerful.

This is why Yeats, Elliot, Pound, Dos Pasos and many other great artists chose to ally themselves with Fascism. There was a part of it that spoke to the soul itself in a post-WWI world that had no moral guidance from conventional religious and moral institutions.

Comparing fascism and socialism is kind of ridiculous in my opinion. Anyone with a minor education in the histories of these movements knows that they had very little to do with one another. It is absurd to give people like Coulter and Goldberg the credit of any kind of heartfelt discourse. He is one of many in a chain of anti-intellectual charlatans who have made fortunes on selling their reactionary demagoguery. These people exist on the left (hyperintellectual bullshitter Chomsky) and on the right.

EVILHOMER: Good stuff, tiger. Even if nobody else read it, I enjoyed every word. Keep readin' and keep talkin'.

Well sure, there's the whole "pagan" aspect to right-wing "fascist" movements, Italian Fascism with its attempts to revive the glories of the Roman Empire and the Classical world, National Socialism with its devotion to Wagnerian Germanisim, and that is one of the differences between the political movements we usually associate with "socialism" and "socialists" like Hitler and Mussolini. But what of it?

I'm not trying to say that Hillary = Hitler or the Black Shirts were really Nazi Commie Pinko Lesbian Commandos.* On the contrary, I agree with you, baleen, that it's silly to try and compare fascism and socialism, simply on the grounds that socialism encompases so many different angles and competing world views that what meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such a comparison? In the United States, for example, "progressive" positions that one call "socialist" are usually just classical liberalism with a few ideas taken from socialism grafted on the end. In Republican Spain, "socialism" took a more internationalist turn, favoring Marxist solidarity and working class collectivism. Blah blah blah, you guys know the deal. It was one big rainbow family of socialism, just as- I dunno- feudalism encompased everything from Nordic semi-democracies to French royal absolutism. Different approaches, sometimes very different results, all held together by common views on the role and nature of government, as well as common views on economic and agro/industrial policy.

I disagree with you on fascism and Nazism having little to do with socialism, for the reasons stated previously. I give credit where it's due, and Goldberg, Coulter, et al DO have a point there. He also has a point about classical liberalism vs progressive liberalism, which I'm surprised (and more than a bit disappointed) John didn't pick up on. But rather than fight them/ me (which, like the old debate about whether homosexuality is a "choice" or not, legitimizes the attack), why not just agree, point out that the comparison, while valid, is irrelevant without further clarification, and move on? Then you can start muddling out whether, say, "collectivism" is inherently prone to abuse and failure, or whether it just works out that way from time to time, and what elements (if any) of socialism can work with our society- do we stop with public schools, do we nationalize health care, do we detain or deport counter-revolutionaries, do we vote Ron Paul, what?

*mind you, I'm not saying Hillary ISN'T Hitler, either.

"A" for clever use of the asterisk, too

The Business Plot.

This interview was okay. 5 for your comment.

These stars are yours

Clip was lacking, but I'm bulbing this.

EvilHomer why did you go and wreck my warm fuzzy feelings for POE TV.

Because I'm a bouncer.

I'll second that one. POEtv people are cultured and well read, and even if I disagree with them, I still love em.

An Evil Bouncer!