[Airbornelawyer]

Originally Posted by Divemaster

Why not "communists" or "socialists"? Many of them adhere to Marx's teachings. Socialist Action even has a Marxist Education section on their website. One of Lenin's main tactics in bringing down the Czar (before open warfare) was anarchy. Today we're seeing the same playbook.

One of the main tenets of Communism is the withering away of the state. Many socialists concluded that this would not happen on its own; rather, they concluded that the State itself would become the embodiment of and vehicle for socialism. One of the main proponents of this view was an Italian socialist by the name of Benito Mussolini. For him, the State was paramount - "everything within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State." He, of course, named his system of state socialism "fascism", after the bundle of sticks which since the Romans symbolized strength through unity. One of his disciples, a man named Adolf Hitler, rebranded his own party under the label of "National Socialist", since in Europe the modern state system and the concept of ethnic nationalism rose alongside each other.

Other fascist parties also embraced not merely statism, but ethnic nationalism, as they saw ethnicity as the strongest base by which the state could ensure the unity which would create strength. This was primarily a European phenomenon, since Europe had already moved so far in the direction of nation-states, although non-European fascist movements such as the Ba'ath in Mesopotamia and the Levant also embraced ethnic nationalism.

Elsewhere, such as in the United States, ethnic nationalism was not as important, but state socialism still had its appeal. American Progressives have pretty much whitewashed their own history, but before World War II, they were quite enamored of Mussolini and even Hitler, though Hitler's far more aggressively ethnic nationalism and anti-Semitism was a turn-off, especially after the Nuremberg Laws and later the Kristallnacht. Even then, after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, American Communists dutifully followed Moscow's lead and defended Nazi Germany up until the Wehrmacht crossed the Soviet frontier in June 1941.

While Mussolini is practically viewed as a buffoon since World War II, it is useful to remember that his image before the mid-1930s was quite favorable in many circles. He was portrayed as a manly pillar of strength, and often photographed shirtless. His image was very much like that of another shirtless tough-guy by the name of Putin, who reflects a more recent incarnation of fascism.

After World War II, American Progressives and the rest of the Western left again took their direction from Moscow and its surrogates, as Stalin determined that henceforth fascism would always and everywhere be defined as a "right wing" movement. And, to be fair, there were probably many right-wingers, especially in Europe, who did see fascism as a more extreme version of what could be described as "right wing" values - support for a strong state and a proud military, defense of a common heritage and tradition, and aversion to economic liberalism's treatment of humans as barely more than commodities in a market.

This idea is, however, a hard sell in the United States, since we were created a nation of immigrants fleeing despotism and our common heritage and tradition are rooted in our shared Constitutional values of limited-government democratic republicanism, and not our ethnic origins. That of course, hasn't stopped the American left from constantly labeling the American right as fascist, no matter how utterly ignorant it is to label strong advocates of limited government as "fascist". Although Georg Orwell, certainly an expert on how language can be misused politically, observed decades ago that "fascist" had pretty much been reduced to mean, "anything I don't like".

One of the bigger trends in American politics since the 1960s, with the rise of the conservative revolution and the shift of conservative Democrats away from their old party affiliations, has been the realignment of the two major parties into more ideologically-aligned movements. There are few conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans left. Perhaps without fully realizing its implications, the modern American left has become rather fascist, in the sense of embracing state socialism. This is especially the case for the ones who embrace the "Progressive" label, who are merely returning to their movement's roots in the 1920s and 1930s. I wouldn't label all Democrats thusly; I imagine like Republicans, most rank-and-file Democrats probably don't sit around debating political theory.

I doubt most could identify the Mussolini quote above, but these modern-day Progressives do seem to share his view of the state and embody what is properly a fascist ideology. Based on their rhetoric and policy prescriptions, they appear to believe that there is no problem for which the solution is not more government, and, consequently, if you oppose the "government" solution, you clearly do not care about the problem. If you oppose particular environmental regulations, you obviously favor dirty air and water. If you question the effectiveness of state-run or state-controlled health insurance and pension programs, you obviously want to push little old ladies in wheelchairs over cliffs. And to the extent they ever even admit there may be a problem with failing public schools, the problem is only ever a few bad apples, and of course can be solved by more government spending, so if you favor school choice obviously you are the one who is an extremist. Oddly, national defense is one of the few areas where the left seems hostile to state power, although when they have the reins of government they seem perfectly content to use the armed forces and intelligence services to their ends.

Of course, having spent the last eight years content with having the power of the state on hand to target the enemies of progress, whether through IRS investigations or targeting journalists under the Espionage Act, it remains to be seen how the Progressive movement will react when out of power. So far, early indications are impotent rage and petulant obstructionism. And, of course, rank hypocrisy, although to be fair hypocrisy is one of the few constants in politics.