Comments on: Ironic Accusations of Fascism in America http://www.technolitics.com/2009/08/20/the-irony-of-accusations-of-fascism-in-america/ the crossroads of technology, politics and the life of a geek who's probably a little too into both Thu, 20 May 2010 03:24:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Gareth Howell http://www.technolitics.com/2009/08/20/the-irony-of-accusations-of-fascism-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-16 Gareth Howell Tue, 01 Sep 2009 04:45:47 +0000 http://www.technolitics.com/?p=152#comment-16 It's so much easier to incite passions with certainty. After all, if an opponent is wrong in a complicated way that requires thought you'll lose most people. Far easier to invoke fear or hatred and generalize to make sure people don't need to think. For all the incongruous arguments of those on the right, we need to be careful not to silence their dissenting opinions. I think the violent introduction of religion into politics is partly to blame. Many on the fringe far right have wrapped themselves tightly around religion. Religion lends itself to judgment - evil and good, not compromise. The alternate danger is in the acceptance of all opinions, to the exclusion of action. Discussion and debate should not prevent action, only temper the more extreme applications of it. It’s so much easier to incite passions with certainty. After all, if an opponent is wrong in a complicated way that requires thought you’ll lose most people. Far easier to invoke fear or hatred and generalize to make sure people don’t need to think.

For all the incongruous arguments of those on the right, we need to be careful not to silence their dissenting opinions. I think the violent introduction of religion into politics is partly to blame. Many on the fringe far right have wrapped themselves tightly around religion. Religion lends itself to judgment – evil and good, not compromise.

The alternate danger is in the acceptance of all opinions, to the exclusion of action. Discussion and debate should not prevent action, only temper the more extreme applications of it.

]]> By: Matthew Merritt http://www.technolitics.com/2009/08/20/the-irony-of-accusations-of-fascism-in-america/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Matthew Merritt Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:32:25 +0000 http://www.technolitics.com/?p=152#comment-14 I agree with your overall argument that to attempt to silence those with dissenting views while labeling those dissenters as fascists is a bit ironic. I also have a big problem with the assumption that labeling something as "socialist" somehow inherently means that it has no right to enter the public discourse. I can't tell you how many times I've heard Barack Obama labeled as a socialist who wants to impose a socialist health policy - as if the labels alone, absent genuine arguments, prove the worthlessness of universal health care. However, that's not to say that government-run health care is not socialist. It pretty much is. But I was thinking, as I was reading the list of fascist qualities you presented, how does this list vary significantly from extreme socialism or communism, on the other end of the spectrum? Both ideologies purport to be "perfecting" human civilization; both depend on suppressing or killing the opposition (Soviet Russia, for instance); both ideologies were advanced by leaders who were insatiably power hungry (Mao); and both were devastatingly cruel and violent. It almost seems like they could be calling them either fascists or communists and the meaning is unchanged. I think fascist just sounds worse, so it's the popular label. I'm wondering how you would distinguish between the nuances of fascism and communism in this context? Does it all come down to communists being anti-nationalist? I agree with your overall argument that to attempt to silence those with dissenting views while labeling those dissenters as fascists is a bit ironic. I also have a big problem with the assumption that labeling something as “socialist” somehow inherently means that it has no right to enter the public discourse. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard Barack Obama labeled as a socialist who wants to impose a socialist health policy – as if the labels alone, absent genuine arguments, prove the worthlessness of universal health care. However, that’s not to say that government-run health care is not socialist. It pretty much is.

But I was thinking, as I was reading the list of fascist qualities you presented, how does this list vary significantly from extreme socialism or communism, on the other end of the spectrum? Both ideologies purport to be “perfecting” human civilization; both depend on suppressing or killing the opposition (Soviet Russia, for instance); both ideologies were advanced by leaders who were insatiably power hungry (Mao); and both were devastatingly cruel and violent.

It almost seems like they could be calling them either fascists or communists and the meaning is unchanged. I think fascist just sounds worse, so it’s the popular label. I’m wondering how you would distinguish between the nuances of fascism and communism in this context? Does it all come down to communists being anti-nationalist?

]]>