Friday, March 22, 2013

Communism ≠ Fascism


When you're given a choice between living under a communist dictator or a fascist dictator, everything else being equal, take the fascist dictator.  Interestingly, communists in general are safer under a fascist dictator than they are under a communist dictator.  Chances are, with the fascist, if you keep your nose clean and your mouth shut, you'll survive okay even if you're a communist. But with a communist dictator, you might not be the right kind of communist.  So they'll kill you. Just ask Lev Bronstein. Communists, you see, aren't satisfied with behavior control, which is usually plenty for a garden-variety fascist, but communists also want thought control.  If you don't believe me, just ask George Orwell.  This is assuming, of course, that the people our intellectual leaders call "fascists" are fascists.

Look at it this way.  Sure, fascists do mean stuff to people, and have lots of other flaws, but communists do all the same things, usually to a greater degree, and add other awful stuff on top of that.  You see, fascism is a philosophy, but it's not a totalitarian philosophy, meaning that it has no intention of determining everything about life.  It generally leaves most decisions to individuals or other authorities — the family, the church, other non-government associations. It does want to control politics, so we call it "authoritarian."  Communism is totalitarian, however, and the churches are banned and so are any other groups that rival government authority, including the family. The late Jeane Kirkpatrick popularized this distinction years ago.

One dictator usually called fascist was Augusto Pinochet. Gavin McInnes starts out writing about him positively, but expresses doubts after talking to some anti-Pinochet people. (A little too many doubts, if you ask me.)  But at least he can't be accused of hagiography.  So it's well worth a read, and don't miss the comments — They're worth the read all by themselves.


Reconsidering Pinochet


With the passing of Hugo Chávez, we got a lot of crocodile tears from liberals claiming we had “lost a friend” who “lifted the poor and helped them realize their dreams.” Jimmy Carter told us that he “never doubted Hugo Chávez’s commitment.” The Nation lamented that “he wasn’t authoritarian enough.” I haven’t seen this much love for a Latin American tyrant since Che Guevara became a T-shirt.

But if we’re going to perform oral sex on every despot who can’t pronounce the letter “J,” why not Pinochet?

In 1973, Augusto Pinochet was faced with a dilemma: Let the communists control his country or stand and fight. McCarthyism and the Cold War get a bad rap these days, but communism was responsible for millions of deaths and was spreading all over Central and South America like a red plague.
I never realized this before, but he looked a lot
like Melvyn Douglas.
Pinochet chose Door #2 and led a military coup against President Salvador Allende that was nasty and brutal but pretty much the norm as far as coups go. He killed thousands of people, but so did Che. Where’s Augusto’s T-shirt? Why did The Nation call him “murderous” while acting as if Che and Chávez were the greatest things since sliced tortillas?

Where Allende had taken land from the rich in a Castro-like redistribution program, Pinochet gave it back. He traveled the world talking to economists, politicians, and academics. Critics of libertarianism call Milton Friedman a “Pinochet sympathizer,” but all Milton did was take a meeting where he told Pinochet that dictatorships don’t work in the long run. He also explained that Chile would thrive if the market were given free rein.
(Not as simple as we've been led to believe, eh? — Read the rest HERE.)

5 comments:

  1. Fascism is the closest thing in modern times to old-fashioned monarchy (as opposed to the idiotic QE2 figurehead type), which explains why the usual suspects still salivate blood at the thought of it.

    If any lesson is to be learned from the American Experiment it is that government by multiple "representatives" cannot be held to account. I'd rather have a king.

    Not very libertarian, I know. Meh.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You realize that Orwell was a communist right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Communist secret police and fascist secret police both bleed red. No difference. (Okay, I'm having a mood.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I know nothing about Pinochet.

    But I do know about anime girls.

    The picture of anime dictators at the top reminded me of a show called Asobi Ni Iku Yo! In that show, there is a magnificent blonde cult leader who runs a secret group called the Underside of the Kitty Paw. In one episode she gives a magnificent, arm-waving, rabble-rousing speech.

    You can view the entire show as a vapid exercise in fan service, or you can argue that the people making it are smart enough to understand the silliness of their premise. My take is that charismatic leaders provide a much-desired emotional release from the bleakness of modern life. Note that "much-desired" is not the same as "much-needed."

    This applies whether the charismatic leader is Lenin or the latest seiyuu.

    ReplyDelete