In my previous post on this general subject, I shared how the man who invented the term, ‘Fascism,’ defined what it is and how it works. In this post, I will attempt to explain — in practical terms — how Fascism, Marxism and Progressivism are alike and how they are different. By ‘practical,’ I mean I am going to show you how they have always worked in the real world, not how their advocates have imagined them working on paper. This is what I mean by practical: what has actually been, not what was dreamed of being. So, if you have a few minutes,…
This first thing I want to do is point out that I am intentionally taking some liberties with the ideologies that lay behind each of these words: Fascism, Marxism and Progressivism. I am well aware of what Marx wrote about Communism. I know what Wilson, Mussolini and Hitler had to say about Fascism. And I know what Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson had to say about Progressivism. Just because I do not go into depth on each nuance or minor detail, please do not think that means I don’t know about them. In all probability, I not only know about it, but I know about it in great detail. It’s just that these details are not applicable to the issue at hand: how do these political ideologies manifest in the real world.
With that said, we need to understand something: all three of these ideologies — Fascism, Marxism and Progressivism — are Socialist. Marx said that Socialism was the step before Communism, and was necessary to force the People to make the last step to Communism. Because Marx ignored human nature, he did not admit that Socialism is the natural end of his theory: because, being human, once the Socialist leaders had power, they would keep it. This halts the march toward Communism, which explains why Communism has never and can never be — not even in small communes. As for Fascism: Mussolini said it is National Socialism, and Hitler even put National Socialism in the name of his Party: National Socialist Workers Party, which is commonly abbreviated from the original German as, NAZI. Finally, Wilson said that he took the term, ‘Progressive,’ as a way to market Marxism to America through a series of incremental steps. Otherwise, by describing society as an organism and the leader as the brain of that organism, Wilson laid out the very fabric of what Mussolini would eventually call, ‘Fascism.’ And, since Fascism is Socialist in nature (as is Wilson’s ultimate goal of Marxism), Progressivism is Socialism by yet another name. IN each case, I can (and have) made my argument that Fascism, Marxism and Progressivism are Socialist systems. Feel free to disagree, but you will have a difficult time making a practical case against me.
OK, now that we have established that Fascism, Marxism and Progressivism are all just different flavors of Socialism, let’s look at what all three have in common. The following is meant as a primer, and certainly does not represent an exhaustive list:
–While they may make a passive nod toward religion, ultimately, they all see the State as godlike, and incapable of making mistakes.
–They all tend to have utopian dreams of a re-ordered society (as well as the world in which it exists).
–They are all very ideologically driven, to the point of fanaticism.
–Their leaders all tend to think in terms of ‘the ends justify the means.’
–They all see the State (which is always a personification of the ruling class) as the ultimate ends of social purpose, thus, the ultimate authority in directing every effort in society.
–They almost always make a great show of paternalism by advocating social welfare/justice programs which can never be realized.
–They are all dictatorial in nature (as this is the only way to achieve the goal of making the State the ultimate focus of society or implementing their dictates).
–They all appeal to democracy, but are all intolerant of any dissent or opposition.
–They all speak in terms of being the champion of ‘The People,’ but, in reality, they all see the People as merely a resource on which or by which to work their will.
–They all force their will on the People through deception, fear/intimidation and violence.
–They all steal, consume and destroy: they produce nothing because they stamp out any sense of individuality, which kills invention and industry.
–They all lead to extreme poverty for the People and great wealth for the ruling class: i.e. universally corrupt leadership.
–They are all typified by hypocrisy between their words and actions.
–Finally, they are almost always militaristic and expansionist/interventionist in nature.
In short, if Socialism were a person, it would be a intolerant, destructive narcissistic, virtue signaling sociopath with a god complex.
Now, let’s look at how they are different — and, again, I am going to boil this down to the most obvious differences between the three because, aside from the following, they are essentially the same system:
–Typically established through creating civil unrest, intimidation and terrorism until the people relent to Fascist rule.
–Typically, Fascism tends toward nationalism.
–Most tolerant of religion.
–Examples of Fascism would be Mussolini’s Italy, Franco’s Spain and Hitler’s Germany.
–Typically established through violent revolution.
–Tends to be nationalistic, as well — only it sees the entire globe as one nation!
–Most intolerant toward religion.
–Examples would be Stain’s Russia, China, Vietnam and Cuba..
–Typically established through gradual, creeping infiltration of the government and social institutions.
–Can be Nationalist, or Globalist, depending on the flavor of Progressives in charge.
–Generally ambivalent toward religion.
–Primary example is the U.S.
Now, let me put this in ‘street’ terms:
Fascism — think: death by suicide (they terrorize you until you give in).
Marxism — think: death by execution (they take you by force, all at once).
Progressivism — think: death by cancer (they creep in slowly, over time — like a cancer).
And that, my dear reader, is the practical difference between Fascism, Marxism and Progressivism. I’ll leave you to decide how all of this applies to the various factions in our current political environment. However, I will offer this observation: the better you understand the distinctions, the easier it gets to tell who follows which school of tyranny.