Fascism of the Left: Dinesh DSouza Breaks Down The Fun and Obvious Reality
Stephan Molinuex interviewed Dinesh Dsouza about his new book, The Big Lie: Exposing the Nazi Roots of the American Left. In this interview Mr. Dsouza gives us a great intro into the details which Progressive Historians would like us to forget. The left is and always has been Fascist, Socialist or Communist. Here are some fun bullet points off the top of my head:
- Democrats Fought the Civil War to KEEP Slavery they were AGAINST the anti-slavery Republican Party
- Democrats Formed and Operated the KKK
- Progressives Like Margaret Sanger wanted State Run Abortion Clinics to Genocide Black People. She actually inspired Adolf Hitler http://www.acts1711.com/sanger.htm
http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html - Hillary Clinton accepted the Margaret Sanger Award
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3207266/posts - Bernie Sanders Praised Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3281335/Bernie-Sanders-praised-Fidel-Castro-1985-interview-educated-kids-gave-kids-health-care-totally-transformed-society.html - Hitler Campaigned on Giving the People Of Germany "Free Healthcare" Which came about during his reign as the T-4 program. https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program
- George Soros was actually a Nazi and is unapologetic about it.
- Fascism is a Centralized Collectivist State, allowing private operation of economics with government controls.
I totally just shared the same video. Love American reboot.
Thanks! I always get a kick out of Dinesh. He's a great researcher.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.
Great quote, very inspiring.
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by Americana-Reboot from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews/crimsonclad, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows and creating a social network. Please find us in the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
A fascist is a nationalist, a socialist is an internationalist. The two are in no way similar. The former adheres to state-centricism, the latter transgresses borders. Molinuex's argument is theoretically underdeveloped and poorly conceptualised. He has little to no understanding what communism means. Stalinism, for instance, was state-capitalism, not internationalism.
I'll disagree that fascism is greatly different from socialism. Really the two are sister systems. Fascism takes on a more dictatorial role than socialism. Market controls exist in both, in root, but fascism silences opposition and uses force to oppress those they disagree with. Basically Antifa is actually fascist, funny. Communism has a stated goal of international socialism, that is what it's objective is. A unified, universal global governance established with socialist principles.
Socialism is not state-based, the state in socialist thought is an oppressive capitalist social relation. Under Fascism the state is the instrument for capital accumulation. There has never been socialism, with perhaps the exception of 1930s Barcelona when Spanish guerrillas fought Stalinist state capitalism and Franco's fascist corporatism. There is social-democracy which is the original so-called "third-way". It is absolutely necessary that the right starts reading (again). It is properous that the left reads the right, but the right does not read the left.
How does one implement socialism without a state? You're calling communism "state-capitalism". Such a funny move, you cannot subliminally attribute collectivist failures to free market capitalism. By socialism you mean that the government has absolute authority over the economy. Which means the suppression of individuals, correct? For the betterment of the collective the individual must lose basic rights, correct? I've seen this growing theme where extreme leftists, confronted by the fact that they have been supporting socialism all along, are trying to weasel their way out of admitting it fully. Socialism has a marred and ugly past because that is what comes from it. You're basically convoluting your discourse so as not to adopt the historical underpinnings which are the basis of collectivism. Call it what you will, but fascism, socialism and communism are but a group of disfigured siblings lumped under the umbrella of collectivism, which are all state operated. The mistake you are making for your followers is confusion, your message is unclear and untrue when researched.
Communism as practised in the SU was state capitalism. This is far from a “funny move,” it is a historical, established fact. Communism as theorised by Plato, Marx, Fourier and others can't be conceptualised as state-centric because it is anti-state. Again, the state is a historical social relation. The state is the product of social relations and consolidating those social relations. Communism is the withdrawal of the state and the instalment of the dictatorship of the proletariat. By socialism I refer to the Utopianists of the 19th century. You are confusing the state with capitalism in your assertion of giving up rights. Under capitalism there is no choice, because everything (emotions, nature, everything) is appropriate by surplus value. Under perfect capitalism, there is no outside. It cannibalises everything. Every emotion, is robbed and stripped from its essence and become another fetish of capital. The rest of your text is pure rhetoric and empty of argument. Fascism is corporatism, in which the state manages and regulates the drawbacks of a nationalised capitalist economy against the Other. The Other suffers time and again. Fascism is the ultimate and inevitable outcome of liberal economics. Once again, It is properous that the left reads the right, but the right does not read the left.
Hahaha, so to use the "left's" terminology against you. You are trying to appropriate anarchism and apply it to communism. You did mention dictatorship, which requires people organize into government, which means there is a "state" present. Argument destroyed.
People's Republic of China - Dictatorship of the People - Communism
People's Republic of Korea - Dictatorship of the People - Communism
Untold millions of dead at the hands of the "proliteriate"
So what happens to every single communist "revolution"? Huh? They ALL fail and end up being "state capitalism"? Come on. The end is the same, no matter which path you take the populace on. Free Market Capitalism is just the free movement of money, without state control, period. That's it. It is an economic system. You're rhetoric trying to associate capitalism with cannibalizing everything and marketing it is hilarious. Look, you don't want to pay your bills, you don't like that things in life cost money, you think if you and a bunch of other ner do wells "proliteriate" group up you can "dictate" how society should operate, to your benefit. What greed.
Why don't we look at the fruits of each system, free market capitalism has produced more wealth for every strata of social class than any other system to date, communism in the way it represents itself is the opposite, mass poverty, loss of basic human rights, mass murder. Explain the failures of communism. I'm reading you very well, you are promoting a populist ideology which attracts the "lottery ticket" mentality in people. The idea that you could have it all for free. Love what you've done in Venezuela.
I think you misunderstand what dictatorship of the proletariat refers to. Please read on this, because it does not mean what you think it does. For the conceptual difference between communism and anarchism, please read the discussions between Marx and Bakunin.
China is by no stretch of the imagination communist. Just because I say an apple is a banana, does not make the banana an apple. Read Wang Hui, Breslin and others on the political economy of China. For the “People's Republic of Korea - Dictatorship of the People”, please read on the concept of Juche. The DPRK is not communist, but for different reasons than the Chinese case. Again, communism is not possible within a state, a state is a social relation (third time I tried to explain this).
“Free Market Capitalism is just the free movement of money, without state control, period. That's it” Please stop the rethorical phrasing, Trump does this a lot. Just because you reiterate, things don’t get more factual. You need theorisation, conceptualisation etc. There have been several instances in history in which we have seen communism or anarcho forms of communism. They have all been targeted against or taken place outside of the state. They include 1930s Barcelona, 1890s Ukraine, contemporary Northern Iraq (under the Kurds) , but one can also think of the Greek polis as having been a direct democracy. There are numerous examples, but that requires again reading. Please do not give up, please do read. Ask people that did their PhDs on the subject, ask academics, visit lectures in universities nearby (they are often free to easy to enter and attend). Where are you based? Perhaps I can direct you?
Edit: "proliteriate"? proletariat, please And again, please use this concept wisely, it does not refer to a national "people" (as you seem to think it does)
Edit 2: "Why don't we look at the fruits of each system, free market capitalism has produced more wealth for every strata of social class than any other system to date" - I think even mainstream liberal economists would disagree with this somewhat dated 1990s thesis... https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/apr/28/thomas-piketty-capital-surprise-bestseller
Dude, you keep trying to say that communism is not a state. That is patently false and virtually retarded. It requires a centralized governing body to implement any of it's ideologies. In order to implement universal housing, healthcare, transit, education and on and on, you would be required to have a dictatorial force to impose this. Again it is a government, which purports to be run by the general will of the population, which is impossible because people differ so much in values/opinion. You can argue that the current American system is fledgling and I would agree, but is not operating in a free market capacity. Government is in control of the economy and government is bought and paid for by banks, which support and fund communist revolutionaries. Those precious universities that you uphold, are state run, and they promote what suits the state best. Communism (as taught by the university to you) is nothing but a means to corporate state control, "state capitalism" as you would call it.
Explain how communism works without a government, none, zero, zilch, nada. Explain it. No person or group in control of anything. Implementation of this pipe dream of a theory requires government, a state.
I suppose you mean a global, universal government that doesn't resist itself to nationalities, borders, regions... that is still a state, government, political body. Whatever vocabulary you want to put on it, it is the same meaning.