by Robert M. Traxler

I would like everyone who refers to folks like Ranger Rick and I as fascists to know that the concept or phrase was coined by Benito Mussolini, the dictator of the Italians from 1925 to 1945. Originally a revolutionary socialist and the son of a prominent socialist leader, he was a school teacher, brick mason, community organizer, reporter, soldier, editor, publisher and politician.

Mussolini developed fascism (from a Latin word meaning bundle or political group) after analyzing elections in which the socialist party could never get more than 7% of the vote. He advocated two changes in socialist doctrine. Mussolini’s service in WWI made a deep impact on him, as did serving with deeply religious men, so he added religion and nationalism to socialism.

The concept of socialism as a pure socialist if not Marxist organization,  was replaced with socialism that allowed religion. The Roman Catholic Church is headquartered in Italy, after all, and nationalism, two concepts that were toxic to the socialist party. The people of Italy embraced the new socialist doctrine and Mussolini and the fascists took control of the nation.

Adolph Hitler watched and learned from Mussolini,  even referring to him as “my teacher,” and modeled the National Socialists German Workers Party after the fascists in Italy. Many of the Nazi concepts and most of its organization were copies of Mussolini’s model.

The contemporary politically correct definition refers to fascists as right wing, something that puzzles me. Besides being nationalistic, there is nothing right wing about fascism or that is conservative in its practice. Total government control of all aspects of life from womb to tomb, control of the economy, labor, production and distribution were the pillars of fascism. national health care, income redistribution, guaranteed minimum wage for all, government work for all who wish to work, massive civic action projects, sound familiar?

Read the Green New Deal, listen to a speech by Senator Bernie Sanders (hardly a right wing

person) and judge for yourself. Well, if we are allowed to judge for ourselves by the media mob/academics/progressives who tell us what we must think and say or be shouted down, oddly the same tactics the fascists (Baathists in middle eastern nations) in at least 11 countries used from 1925 to today.

We have been spoon-fed the party line that fascists are bad. No argument from me on that point, but the honest truth is that fascism is 90% socialism, OK it is not pure Marxism, but it is much more socialism than capitalism. Those who refer to government plans to assist the downtrodden as socialism fail to note that nothing in a market-driven republic prohibits helping folks in need. They also fail to note that socialism is an economic and governing system that empowers the government, not the individual.

The 300-pound gorilla in the presidential election is, will the swamp dwellers, the establishment Democrats, allow Senator Sanders to win the nomination? He should have last primary election cycle, but the swamp dwellers would not allow him to win, rigging the process to favor Secretary Hillary Clinton. I would love to see a head-to-head choice between a non-apologetic socialist and a free market capitalist. My money, pun intended, is on the capitalist.

At least Senator Sanders is a socialist who does not openly support religion or nationalism, simply because it is the politically expedient thing to do in an election cycle. Senator Sanders is closer to Karl Marx than Benito Mussolini in political doctrine; I would not call him a fascist, but the argument could be made he is a Marxist.

Is being a Marxist a good or bad thing in a constitutional republic? An election could answer that question. No surprise that I do not think Marxism or fascism would be good for our nation.

7 Comments

Lynn Mandaville
January 10, 2020
Mr. Traxler, You raise a very good point in this piece, and I'm not sure it's intended as the primary issue, but it sparked a secondary thought to me because you took the time to give us a history (or etymology, if you will) of the term "fascist." Setting aside any and all political arguments for the time being, I'd like to comment on the linguistic aspect of our (meaning society's) current political behavior. I'm a word lover, and I like to return to the specifics of dictionary definitions to make a point. But your background on fascism is a great example of how language is fluid, and how words can take on additional meanings or implications. Much like the word "socialist," fascist has a modern connotation that differs from the dictionary denotation. Both words have political power in that they can be loaded, argumentative words, used to conjure meanings other than the original definition. Neither taken alone is a bad word. It is only within political context that either side of any issue can dredge up words to misdirect, inflame, and sabotage any attempt at reasonable dialogue. Take as an example the words "socialism" and "communism." Communism is defined by its Marxist meaning, that goods and services should be equally distributed and shared among the people as directed by the government which owns them. Socialism, on the other hand, is a similar philosophy of equality of distribution of goods and services conducted through existing democratic structures. A subtle but important distinction. During the McCarthy era, communism became a dirty word by virtue of indoctrination of fear among Americans. To be labelled a communist was a terrible thing, because it was used to destroy peoples' lives, careers, and reputations. It is less so now, because time and education have erased the stigma, but the word can still be used to instill negative implications and to inflame an argument. Socialism is now taking the place of communism by virtue of its inflammatory usage in today's political arena. In and of itself, socialism is not a philosophy to be feared. In fact, by its definition it is fairly benign. It is only when an element of fear is injected that it becomes a loaded word, used by one political side to scare its followers and potential converts into becoming disciples. By the same token, the word "capitalist" is in jeopardy of taking on similar negative connotations. (I am ashamed to discover that I am falling into that camp of those who would make "capitalism" a dirty word. It is not, and by definition is as benign as "socialism.") It is when a particular philosophy moves too far to an extreme in its social application that we resort to turning a perfectly good word into a weapon. And when we (and when I say "we" in this instance I mean "I") take to loading a word with our own connotations, we distort it and make it impotent in meaningful dialogue. Because you have made me evaluate my own written behavior I will be much more careful in my use of words than I am currently. It doesn't mean I won't use certain words in certain applications. Sometime a loaded word is the correct choice, like profanity has its place when used correctly. The bottom line is, then, to me, that it is important that we use the correct words to express ourselves, and not use them as weapons, if we want to have real, meaningful dialogue. Now name-calling, that's another issue for another time, and I won't go there now. I sincerely thank you for the history on fascism, and the opportunity to think a bit more carefully about my own use of language.
0
Reply
Harry Smit
January 10, 2020
Army Bob The real big question is whether Sanders is a Socialist or Marxist.... Currently there is" fear" many of the Muslim faith are trying to hold political office, there is a " fear" of illegal immigration over taking this country. The biggest fear should be " Bernie Sanders " ...what is he really... If he is truly a Marxist the afore fears will be eliminated...Marxism will not except Christian or any form of religion to flourish...Marxist countries do not fear overpopulation due to illegal immigration. Yes, the November election will be one of the most important elections this Country may ever have. Unless the Democrats can find a candidate "not out in lala land" ....it will be Marxism vs Capitalism.... I as opposed to you Army Bob think.our Country is so " messed up politically " if Capitalism wins it will be by a very slim margin.
0
Reply
Robert M Traxler
January 10, 2020
Ms. Mandaville, Thank you for the comment. I do feel the folks on the left do more name calling/labeling than those of us on the right. Thanks again.
0
Reply
Lynn Mandaville
January 11, 2020
Mr. Traxler, I guess the name-calling is in the eye of the beholder. My view is the opposite of your observation. But as I said, that's an issue for another time. Thanks.
0
Reply
Robert M Traxler
January 10, 2020
Mr. Smit, Thanks for the comment. Sanders vs Trump 35% to 60% in my eyes. Socialism/Marxism appeal to those "who have not been mugged by the reality of life" mostly the young. When the two concepts are explained in full and folks find out what it truly means capitalism will win. Thanks again for the comment
0
Reply
Couchman
January 10, 2020
At this early date, the only things I’m 90% sure of is Donald J. Trump will be the GOP’s nominee unless something unforeseen occurs and 90% sure Mike Pence will be on the GOP ticket as VP. The premise the author presents is choice between a possible Democratic nominee who has called himself a socialist who has caucused with Democrats prior to declaring himself Democrat when he ran for that party's nomination and a secretive authoritarian real estate hustler who has lied about everything from releasing his prior returns the American people, shrinking the Federal deficit and even his golfing that he previously said he would be unable to play because he would be so busy as President he wouldn't have the time. If you think President Trump is a capitalist you don't understand the term or have chosen to ignore his (and his father's) business history as property developers. His properties have gotten tax breaks to be built (corporate welfare), have tenants getting government subsidies (social safety net monies) and directly benefitted from US tax policies that allow tax deductions for mortgages on his resort and condo properties. He has also had at least 4 bankruptcy reorganizations that erased major portions of debts including monies owed to lenders, suppliers and contractors who were then left in the lurch from not getting paid. If you have a disability or know someone with disabilities you are probably aware of the "socialism" that benefits people. Those benefits can include an voucher for specially equipped vehicles to transport those with disabilities, get funds to pay for care givers, get Social Security from early ages because they can't work and get tax breaks available only for their parents/guardians. Candidate Trump declared President Obama's ACA as a "disaster". To date he's got a tax cut that has contributed to the deficit he promised to erase but has been mute on an ACA replacement. If we allow health insurance to go back to "The Good Old Days" of companies being able to deny policy renewal for people they no longer want to insure and essentially dump poor risk patients (like those with disabilities) to Federal and state public health care. (That's capitalism folks) I find many of the same people who rail about the evils of "Socialism" are selectively unaware of how many legislated programs that benefit them, their families and employers directly. But we live in a world of sound bytes, chaos created to push events off the headlines and calling anyone who disagrees with the authoritarian in The White House to be labeled as a person who hates America, a friend of terrorists or a "Marxist". And so it goes.
0
Reply
Robert M Traxler
January 11, 2020
Mr. Couchman. Thanks for the comment. Websters defines Capitalism as" an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market". As stated, nothing in capitalism that prohibits the government from assisting people and we do. I think we can say with a fair bit of certainty you do not own a MEGA hat or t-shirt.
0
Reply

Post your comment

Discover more from

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading