First, they said no to MLK Day... Now this.

[Wagner]

Progressivism has a closer relation to Fascism than Nazism. And it is important to remember the progressive party (1912) was established by a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt.

Seriously, required reading if you want to discuss Socialism, Fascism, Nazism and incarnations of each.

Doubleday Books | Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg


How do they relate, not a fact sheet but a starting point: Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[asindc]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Progressivism has a closer relation to Fascism than Nazism. And it is important to remember the progressive party (1912) was established by a Republican, Theodore Roosevelt.

Seriously, required reading if you want to discuss Socialism, Fascism, Nazism and incarnations of each.

Doubleday Books | Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg


How do they relate, not a fact sheet but a starting point: Nazism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Oh I know that Theodore Roosevelt established the Progressive Party. He also staked his reputation on breaking up large corporations, recognizing their pernicious influence on society. I wonder what the reaction would be today if he tried to do so, what with so many of our elected government officials being bought and paid for.

I haven't read Goldberg's book, but there is nothing progressive about fascism. In fact, fascism is just about the opposite of progressivism. Nazism was not the only form of fascism, but was the most prominent.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by asindc

Oh I know that Theodore Roosevelt established the Progressive Party. He also staked his reputation on breaking up large corporations, recognizing their pernicious influence on society. I wonder what the reaction would be today if he tried to do so, what with so many of our elected government officials being bought and paid for.

I haven't read Goldberg's book, but there is nothing progressive about fascism. In fact, fascism is just about the opposite of progressivism. Nazism was not the only form of fascism, but was the most prominent.

You may want to redefine yourself then if you believe that progressivism doesn't have fascist roots. TR hated monopolies (ala Standard Oil) unless they were government monopolies. But had he not done what he did, this world would be far worse off. We have very few companies today as corrupt as standard oils monopoly practices.

Mussolini was a particular hero to the muckrakers—those progressive liberal journalists who famously looked out for the little guy. When Ida Tarbell, the famed reporter whose work helped break up Standard Oil, was sent to Italy in 1926 by McCall’s to write a series on the Fascist nation, the U.S. State Department feared that this “pretty red radical” would write nothing but “violent anti–Mussolini articles.” Their fears were misplaced. Tarbell was wooed by the man she called “a despot with a dimple,” praising his progressive attitude toward labor. Similarly smitten was Lincoln Steffens, another famous muckraker, who is today perhaps dimly remembered for being the man who returned from the Soviet Union declaring, “I have been over into the future, and it works.” Shortly after that declaration, he made another about Mussolini: God had “formed Mussolini out of the rib of Italy.” As we’ll see, Steffens saw no contradiction between his fondness for Fascism and his admiration of the Soviet Union. Even Samuel McClure, the founder of McClure’s Magazine, the home of so much famous muckraking, championed Fascism after visiting Italy. He hailed it as “a great step forward and the first new ideal in government since the founding of the American Republic.” (8)

- Out of the book I mentioned.

[asindc]

Originally Posted by Wagner

You may want to redefine yourself then if you believe that progressivism doesn't have fascist roots. TR hated monopolies (ala Standard Oil) unless they were government monopolies. But had he not done what he did, this world would be far worse off. We have very few companies today as corrupt as standard oils monopoly practices.

- Out of the book I mentioned.

I disagree. I think there is not a clear understanding of what progresssivism means, especially given that snippet from Goldberg's (not exactly a neutral observer, him) book that you quote. Progressives fought the Nazis in Europe. Progressives led (and lead) the human rights movements in throughout the world in such places as India, all the former British colonies, here in our country, and in South Africa, for instance. None of those extraordinary efforts have anything in common with Fascism or Nazism. Quite the opposite.

The recent hackneyed attempts to associate progressivism with fascism changes nothing about that progressive legacy. Such attempts are examples of what I mentioned in the other thread about insincerity in debate.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by asindc

I disagree. I think there is not a clear understanding of what progresssivism means, especially given that snippet from Goldberg's (not exactly a neutral observer, him) book that you quote. Progressives fought the Nazis in Europe. Progressives led (and lead) the human rights movements in throughout the world in such places as India, all the former British colonies, here in our country, and in South Africa, for instance. None of those extraordinary efforts have anything in common with Fascism or Nazism. Quite the opposite.

The recent hackneyed attempts to associate progressivism with fascism changes nothing about that progressive legacy. Such attempts are examples of what I mentioned in the other thread about insincerity in debate.

Well in my opinion and they absolutely do. You can't simply right off the goals and means of past dictator, leaders and ruler because they don't fit the current view of a 'human rights' based party. Mussolini, Lenin, Trotsky even Hitler's biggest concerns, in public, were social efforts. Primarily helping workers unite, workers have rights, workers owning their country, health care principals as well environmental issues, meeting what you described as progressive human rights issues.

Leaders like these didn't start out of Fascist, Nazi (as know today) or Socialist courses of politic. Check out Mussolini in Jan 1923 and Milizia Volontaria per la Sicurezza Nazionale. This was a progressive movement as defined in those times. And nobody classifies being a Fascist more than Mussolini (who by the way was beloved by parts of the USA during the 1920's)

In reviewing history many simply want to skip from 1900 to post World War I. I could state more than one source to point to this view, but honestly..why?