FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Fascims and Kennedy





D'Artagnan
I was reading about the WW2 and unavoidably i ended up in mussolini and since i'm in a vibe of knowing the political movemnts and ideologies, i was revising what was the ideal of fascism.

so one of the basis of fascism is that: The State comes prior to the individuas and doesn't serve the individual , but the individual do serve the state. Or country above all.

so it's a common John f. Kennedy quote:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"
or something like this.

Now i can't help but think that it sounds too much like the fascism, i would like to know if this has ever came up and why is it not most poeple don't see it fascism.


now before you pile up and start beating me senseless...
Let me explain the following, i'm not trying to say anyone was either good or bad, i am trying to understand the Views they had , much like wikipedia and true-neutral rpg characters (which wikipedia is Razz) before reaching any conclusion , also i'm not stating that kennedy was a facist , merelly that one of his quotes sounded like facism:
deanhills
I'd say in the one it is voluntary (democracy) and in the other it is compulsory where on is recruited without the option to say "no" (fascism).
Hexes
The ideas itself are good but we, people are abusing them. For example comunists said that everyone should gave according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. Everyone in the society should be treated the equal way etc. But the history showed as how all this slogans has worked in real world.
deanhills
Hexes wrote:
The ideas itself are good but we, people are abusing them. For example comunists said that everyone should gave according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. Everyone in the society should be treated the equal way etc. But the history showed as how all this slogans has worked in real world.
Agreed. The idea was a good one, but its implementation very imperfect. Particularly in Russia millions died with the end result being shifting power from one bad regime to another bad regime. For a long while people could not buy any food either, but the Party elite had been perfectly able to get food on the Black Market. Looks like one may never be able to reach the objective of everyone being born equal. We may be the same in basics, but there are huge individual differences and there are always people who like to control others "for their own good". "The own good" being interpreted and presented to "the masses" to maximize the people who want to be in control's power.
D'Artagnan
deanhills wrote:
Hexes wrote:
The ideas itself are good but we, people are abusing them. For example comunists said that everyone should gave according to their abilities and receive according to their needs. Everyone in the society should be treated the equal way etc. But the history showed as how all this slogans has worked in real world.
Agreed. The idea was a good one, but its implementation very imperfect. Particularly in Russia millions died with the end result being shifting power from one bad regime to another bad regime. For a long while people could not buy any food either, but the Party elite had been perfectly able to get food on the Black Market. Looks like one may never be able to reach the objective of everyone being born equal. We may be the same in basics, but there are huge individual differences and there are always people who like to control others "for their own good". "The own good" being interpreted and presented to "the masses" to maximize the people who want to be in control's power.


Now i think we need to draw a clear line here, Fascism is very diferent from communism, which in it's turn is diferent from capitalism.

In fact fascism IMHO is the exact opposite of communism , because the final goal of communism is to give power to the people while in fascim the final goal is to centralize the power in state.

to my limited knowledge the main problem of the current "mainstream" philosophies is that they would only work in a perfect world, with perfect people, they fail to account human nature, for example:

the socialism implemented in Cuba , north korea or previously in China leads to totalitarian governments, because when you put unrestrained power in small group is human nature to take advantage of that fact and try to imprint your ideas while benefiting from it.

our quasi-liberalist capitalism is only slightly better, because a true neoliberal freemarket capitalism asks for a complete free economy with minor intervention from the state and believes the marked will auto regulate itself, but then again human nature proves stronger and put the wealth in the hands of a few people, giving raise to problems such as poverty, violence and semi escravatory work.


i think what would really work would be stopping the extremism and trying to work on what we have towards something that would benefit the whole of a society. still that's my not so well informed opinion
deanhills
D'Artagnan wrote:
to my limited knowledge the main problem of the current "mainstream" philosophies is that they would only work in a perfect world, with perfect people, they fail to account human nature, for example:

the socialism implemented in Cuba , north korea or previously in China leads to totalitarian governments, because when you put unrestrained power in small group is human nature to take advantage of that fact and try to imprint your ideas while benefiting from it.

our quasi-liberalist capitalism is only slightly better, because a true neoliberal freemarket capitalism asks for a complete free economy with minor intervention from the state and believes the marked will auto regulate itself, but then again human nature proves stronger and put the wealth in the hands of a few people, giving raise to problems such as poverty, violence and semi escravatory work.
I completely agree with all of the above. Most of it is theory, and then those with lots of power become the end in itself instead of the means to the end.


D'Artagnan wrote:
i think what would really work would be stopping the extremism and trying to work on what we have towards something that would benefit the whole of a society. still that's my not so well informed opinion
What do you think we could do to stop it?
HistoryGuy
Mussolini explained fascism this way: "Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." America has been in this condition for a long time, corporate interests have been number 1 for over a century. Also, democracy and fascism go hand in hand. Hitler was elected overwhelmingly in a democratic election, twice.
deanhills
HistoryGuy wrote:
America has been in this condition for a long time, corporate interests have been number 1 for over a century. Also, democracy and fascism go hand in hand.
Agreed corporate and government interests have been merged in America, not so sure however that it is a fascist country. Not yet any way .... its electronic surveillance practices and attempts by the large media corporations to control the Internet may pave the way for that, but at least people are allowed to speak up against this, so there is at least some freedom of speech any way, which to my mind is always absent in a fascist country. Iran to me would be a great example of a fascist country where people are not allowed freedom of speech.
jajarvin
JFK and Fascism.
JFK aroused conflicting emotions both in politics and in his private live.

Let's see what wise men had said:

George Orwell wrote in 1944 that "the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless ... almost any English person would accept 'bully' as a synonym for 'Fascist'".

Richard Griffiths argued in 2005 that "fascism" is the "most misused, and over-used word, of our times".
HistoryGuy
jajarvin
I agree that the word itself is often misused. However, the word does describe a particular type of economic system. The basis of the fascist system is price controls. Individuals may privately own property, but every exchange has either a maximum or a minimum price, as well as a tax or taxes. Such was the system in Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. The existence of this type of legislation in America can't be denied, but it precedes JFK.
testsoc
It's pretty simple.

Fascism is a form of far-right authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training. Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles. Fascism views direct action, including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.

Kennedy was indeed appealing to the nationalistic zeal of the Americans at the time. But he wasn't doing it in a fascist way.
Excellsior
testsoc wrote:
It's pretty simple.

Fascism is a form of far-right authoritarian nationalism. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community through discipline, indoctrination, and physical training. Fascism utilizes a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation upon fascist principles. Fascism views direct action, including political violence and war, as a means to achieve national rejuvenation, spirit and vitality.

Kennedy was indeed appealing to the nationalistic zeal of the Americans at the time. But he wasn't doing it in a fascist way.


On a scale of right and left, what exactly is being measured? If the scale is control, then fascism and communism are on the same left. That would put me just to the left of anarchy, in a Constitutional Republic. This happens to be the first form of government ever to make each man a king unto himself. Prior to capitalism, everyone was a slave to some sort of authority.

The Nazi government maintained complete control of all the major industry, but left it in private ownership. The private owners even had their wages decided. This was pure brilliance because this way the private market takes the blame for whatever government is really doing. America does not seem much different to me. An example would be the oil business. Government regulation/taxes increases the cost of production, transportation, and manufacturing. The cost is passed on to the consumer so the company can stay competitive. As a result, the company gets blamed for being greedy capitalist pigs. Don't like it? Then do not buy it. Nothing can be made for free.

This a great video on the subject called Labor Market Myths by Thomas J. Dilorenzo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVNzmRn-0O4

I found this to be extremely interesting. People often accuse employers of taking advantage of workers by offering wages well below their worth. In a free market this is impossible because the employer is not only competing with other like firms, but all other employers. If an employee can get a different job for more money, he can. Productivity determines wages, but yet we have government forcing minimum wage laws or unions. If a firm can be more productive it can increase output. More supply of goods means the price goes down. A person may make less money, but have much more purchasing power. In fact, the only time an employer has ever been able to oppress its worker is under a socialist government where the ONLY employer is the government. Now the worker has no freedom to choose other employers and is forced to accept the dole. Truly communism is the true form of a greed. This is probably why Karl Marx, who never had a job in his whole life, loved it.

You are welcome to hate on people thinking politically incorrect and thats expected. We are taught in our institutions to always think to the right of Mitt Romney and the left of Obama. Anything outside that box is extremism or magically racist. Well we need to take that box and kill it with fire.
jajarvin
Surprisingly often, people confuse the fascist movement and the National Socialist movement to one another.
So I would like to make the following commentary to the discussion:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n3p30_Kennedy.html Kennedy's 1945 Visit to Germany

In late July and early August 1945, just weeks after the end of the war in Europe, the 28-year-old John F. Kennedy visited war-devastated Germany. Accompanying him on this tour was US Navy Secretary James Forrestal (whom President Truman later appointed as the first Secretary of Defense).


Just after this visit, Kennedy wrote a remarkable commentary in his diary, dated August 1, 1945, about Hitler and his place in history:

"After visiting these places, you can easily understand how that within a few years
Hitler will emerge from the hatred that surrounds him now as one of the most significant
figures who ever lived.

"He had boundless ambition for his country which rendered him a menace to the peace of the world,
but he had a mystery about him in the way that he lived and in the manner of his death
that will live and grow after him. He had in him the stuff of which legends are made."



So wrote the future President of the USA.
Related topics
FOR WAR OR NOT
Shuttle returns to flight
Shuttle returns to flight
Computer Virus Types
The Resident Evil Series
A soldier's rant
The justification for war
LINCOLN/KENNEDY - Weird History Lesson
bush and condi talking...
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
WWE
The History of Leftists verses Right Wingers.
Kennedy seeks drug abuse help
Teddy Kennedy dies ...
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> History

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.