User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Jay Covitz's avatar

99.9% of the time, when someone uses the term "fascist" they don't understand what the word actually means. Mussolini's fascist system was one which merged the public and the private. Yes, public companies were allowed to exist and operate, but only if they followed the party line. If they strayed, a party apparatchik who would sing the proper hymnal would be put in place.

What we have emerging in the western world is a true fascist system, in the real sense of the word, with Paypal just being the most recent, but certainly not the last, iteration on this theme.

This is simply a further extension of a theme I have written about in the past, which is that modern liberalism is an anti-human ideaology.

https://www.gordoncomstock.com/p/modern-liberalism-is-an-anti-human

Expand full comment
Jason E's avatar

It’s also what the Chinese system is. They pretend it’s communism but it’s really fascism.

Expand full comment
Anthony's avatar

They don't even call it communism now, the phrase they use is "socialism with Chinese characteristics"

Expand full comment
Kevin Durant?'s avatar

I really don’t understand how fascism and communism ever came to be defined as different things. Obviously it’s all fascism. How could you ever possibly do communism without fascism……….

Okay never mind I just realized how they became defined as different things. Same way ‘sexual preference’ was changed in Merriam-Webster *during* a SCOTUS hearing in order to smear Amy Coney Barrett.

I guess we should just call them “totalitarian communist fascists”. Cover all your bases. It’s one thing.

Ohhh no no no!! We can just call them Democrats.

Expand full comment
EZTejas123's avatar

The difference is in communism the State owns everything and the Leader assigns it to whoever he wants, while everyone works for the greater good.

In fascism, everything is in private hands, but the Leader seizes anything he wants and hands the title to whoever he wants, while everyone works for the greater good.

Expand full comment
Kevin Durant?'s avatar

Yeah I still don’t see the difference. If there’s a leader who can decide then you don’t really own anything. It feels the exact same to me.

Expand full comment
EZTejas123's avatar

My point exactly. Its the definition of a distinction without a difference. Communism, fascism, socialism, feudalism, tribalism, doesn't matter. You can wrap an infinite amount pseudo-intellectualism around it, and its still just the "rule of the few over the many."

Expand full comment
vernon's avatar

Totalitarian or authoritarian covers it for me. They’re easy terms to define. Covid mandates are authoritarian for example. Even covidiots don’t disagree. Try it sometime! I usually get some response along the lines of “well authority is important in some instances.” It’s fun to watch them squirm as they try to justify themselves.

Expand full comment
Skinny's avatar

🤣🤣

Expand full comment
Jim Wills's avatar

Exactly. Gub'ment plus corporate: fascism. Thanks for bringing that to the fore.

As for the anti-human aspect, it's not that the radical liberals, global-warming nutters, environmentalists and eco-terrorists love the environment; it's that they hate humanity.

Expand full comment
BigT's avatar

Word!

Expand full comment
Bruce Miller's avatar

And, Gordon, you can bet that, just as in Italy and Germany where people just wanted a government that worked for them, the rot will set in quickly and you won't hear a peep when people start to get midnight knocks on their doors and begin to disappear.

Expand full comment
Kevin Durant?'s avatar

I wrote about this previously. Just as the problem with communism is that real communism has never been tried, the problem with fascism is that real fascism HAS been tried.

So when there isn’t a guy with tall boots and a weird mustache people say

“Oh don’t be crazy this isn’t fascism.”

Expand full comment
Celia M Paddock's avatar

Too many on the Left believed Stalin's lie that fascism is a right-wing ideology (everything but his Soviet "republic" was right-wing to Stalin).

Likewise, too many on the Left believe that nationalism is a necessary component of fascism. It's not. The only thing necessary is a central ideology to rally people around. Nationalism was still useful for that in the 20th century, with national hatreds still simmering after WWI. But today's progressive ideology serves the same purpose: it allows easy identification of who is loyal to the cause and who is not.

I would modify Umberto Eco's list of fascist hallmarks thus:

- The cult of postmodernism/CRT--a new tradition that cannot be questioned. ("The cult of tradition.")

- The rejection of liberalism. ("The rejection of modernism.")

- "The cult of action for action’s sake." <--This one is on the nose. Change for the sake of change. Smashing windows and burning buildings.

- "Disagreement is treason." <--This one is also on the nose. Notice the Democrats' recent embrace of the word "treason" and their determination to make it apply to anyone who disagrees with them.

- "Fear of difference." Eco thinks this is only applicable to racism, but as we see with our university campuses, anything that does not fall in line with Woke ideology is labeled dangerous and is banned.

- "Appeal to social frustration." <--This is the historical appeal of all Leftist movements, and the central talking point of the Democratic party.

- "The obsession with a plot." As Eco describes further, "The followers must feel besieged." <--This is Oppression ideology in a nutshell.

- "The enemy is both strong and weak." <--This has been the constant refrain of the Left since at least 2000. Republicans are both highly dangerous and easily defeated.

- "Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy." As Eco describes further, "life is lived for struggle." <--Again, this is central to Leftist thinking. There is always another battle to be fought. And no compromise is allowed.

- "Contempt for the weak." Or as Eco labels it, “Elitism." <--Today's elitism is focused more on contempt for the non-Woke and non-college-educated, contempt for the rural, contempt for blue-collar workers--people who lack political and economic power.

- "Everybody is educated to become a hero." <--Teachers are training Social Justice Warriors right now.

- Virtue Signaling. ("Machismo and weaponry.") I think Eco is way off on this one, assuming that the personality of 20th century dictators is an inherent component of fascism. On the contrary, I would describe this point as a means of showing off one's power and influence, in whatever way is most popular at the time.

- "Selective populism." Eco explains further: "There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People." <--Legacy media is serving this purpose quite thoroughly.

- "Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak." <--Again, on the nose.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

It is my understanding that race had to be substituted for class warfare because class did not work well.here.

Expand full comment
Celia M Paddock's avatar

Class is not as fully engrained in American society as in European society. Although the Left seems to be working hard to impose class structures.

Expand full comment
JAE's avatar

Hahahaha, I usually like your posts, Kevin. But you honestly think Communism is good but it just hasn’t been implemented properly. So you think you can do Communism better?

By dint of its very nature Communism requires forced cooperation. So you think you would be a benevolent enforcer. You can’t be serious.

Expand full comment
Nicole Ann's avatar

Definitely misinterpreted his comment.

Expand full comment
Kevin Durant?'s avatar

No I’m just saying that’s a cliche about communism. Communism bad.

Expand full comment
JAE's avatar

Oh good. Had me worried for a minute.

Expand full comment
Lynne Morris's avatar

Or they like it because it embraces their idealogy. Until it doesn't. Then they will whine they did not know, they did not understand. Of course they did, or should have, they just did not care because it was being done to the others.

Expand full comment
Michael Frankel's avatar

And those folks will never define what fascism means or how one determines what makes someone worthy of the label fascist. Nor will they define any other term , word or concept they use or support the use of to deter or punish speech or thought. That is why the word racist morphed into white supremacist which morphed into fascist past year or so. Note also how we never hear anymore of his or her truth but we are back to THE truth with the proviso that only the enlightened are good enough or smart enough to DICTATE (caps intended) what is true or false. And then there is "hate speech," a phrase that needs no clear definition or boundaries because... ( you know the rest).

Expand full comment
Skinny's avatar

Brilliant post! one questions does the vote still matter yes or no.

Expand full comment
Michael Frankel's avatar

Not sure where you are going. If no votes then what? who governs and gets to decide how people live? Voting in theory in a free country allows for changes to those in power. Hence the need for peaceful transitions. But again I am not sure where you are heading with your question

Expand full comment
J. Matthews's avatar

I am concerned about the future manipulation of elections via a number of methods including legacy media and tech becoming Izvestia for the US security state, ballot harvesting, voting machine hacking and plain old fraud. Not to mention court packing and adding regime friendly states to maintain power.

Expand full comment
Michael Frankel's avatar

All good points. Whether GOP gets and stays focused remains to be seen. Imagine if there were no Elon musk

Expand full comment
Skinny's avatar

You have answered Michael JM, there is no need for me to say any more.

Expand full comment