Not at all, but (not so) nice try. :bsflag:

Back on topic...

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.

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.

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?

Saw that, unbelievable. Told that you can't wear a US Flag shirt on the 5th of May, please. Almost as dumb as the Connecticut school that attempted to have dual graduations in a church...hello Civil Rights.

Beyond the fact that anyone requested the kids to do so in the first place, I wonder if it is just a coincidence that assistant Principal Miguel Rodriguez was the one who asked them to turn their shirts inside-out. :dunno:

Part of this decision was based on an effort to stem hostilities that could
have developed. So the folks in charge made this decision...

"They said we could wear it on any other day, but today is sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it's supposed to be their holiday so we were not allowed to wear it today"

I guess this is what happens when there are so many opinions or standards
as to what is acceptable regarding human behaviour in a case like this.