Does Progressivism = New Age Fascism?
Progressivism ultimately leads to New age Royalty. The Fascism part is optional. A world where the many are lead by the few, indebted to the State, isolated, and socially stratified, is much more reminiscent of Monarchs and Serfs, than of anything 'new'. The Progressives divine right to govern is now based on self defined expertise and superior sensitivities, rather than God's Will, but the overriding premise of elitism remains the same. Whereas originally, the key to the enlightenment, and subsequently the end of Absolutism, was the idea of Self-Empowerment, the current manifestation of Progressivism strikes at the heart of that concept by instead allocating all power to the State, at the expense of Liberty.
Why did America blame Communism for the world's problems?
When I look at the course of the past 50-60 years, I see that Communism was always seen as a great threat to the world. I also saw that the USSR was always portrayed as the bad guys. However, the United States under a Capitalist dominated system was responsible for many atrocities: Nicaragua, Iran (1953), Vietnam, as well as many other 3rd world countries. Anyways, communism in its true form has never existed. The type of system seen in the USSR and (communist) nations was a form of state socialism. According to the principles of Marx, Democracy cannot survive in a stable mode without the eventual evolution to true Socialism nor can Socialism exist without Democracy. So why do you all think that Communism was seen as a culprit when it in fact never really existed?
Did the demonization of communism give the right the upper hand in the U.S.?
I mean think about it, "communist!" even "socialist!" is like a swear word in this country (due to the cold war and the environment of fear that it created for so many years). but what do you get when you take leftist philosophy to it's most extreme conclusion? you have communism... and that's not a bad thing. Just because there are socialist elements in your political philosophy doesn't mean you're Stalin or Kim Jong Il. Politics need balance to KEEP from being extreme. What do you get when you take right wing philosophy to it's most extreme conclusion? fascism, that's what. Forced allegiance and sacrifice to your country with no return from the government. Or worse... theocratic fascism, look at Islamic countries, look at how brutal they are, that is the religious right wing taken to it's logical extreme. The right can embrace fascist ideals without being pegged as fascists for two reasons: 1. A lot of people don't even understand what fascist ideology implies and 2. Fascism is connected to something considered monstrous and inhuman (the holocaust) and it is considered impolite or even cruel to compare people to fascists. Do you think the left seems so guileless and ineffectual in this country because it is essentially cut off from it's core ideals (standing up for the working class, creating social programs and regulating business/commerce) by a shared American hatred of communism? Do you think the party could be restored by embracing those ideals again? Do you think, in this economy (which is only going to get worse) people will turn to more socialist philosophies as the divide between rich and poor grows larger and the middle class shrinks to almost nothing (hint: If you think you're on the "rich" side of the divide, you're not. Almost definitely not.)?
Why did Communism inevitably lead to dictatorship and totalitarianism?
The central communist tenet demanding that private property be relinquished to the State necessitates violence."From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs," rapidly gives way to its echoic distortion, "From each according to his virtues, to each according to his flaws." Why would a Russian or Cambodian farmer yield his well-tended 40 acres to be held in common trust alongside the weed-choked drunkard neighbor's lot, except by fear for his and his family's lives? In this specific instance (which is a historical fact) his ability (to grow food and feed his village), not won through heritage or capricious fortune but through conscientious effort and ethics, is sacrificed to meet another's needs, which befell him not through ill fate but through poor choices. Do not interpret that to mean that in all instances, poverty is the result of poor choices. I refer only to the expropriations (and death) which have begun all communist regimes: Cuba, China, Cambodia, Russia, North Korea. My point is specific to the fact that many productive farmers and workers were forced to "be equal" to their less dedicated countrymen, destroying their incentives to continue to strive. In order to have a centrally-planned economy and destruction of the principle of private ownership, "despotic inroads" are the means. The authoritarian use of force is innately repressive, giving undue and unrestrained power to those who wield it: if they were not already corrupt by dint of their attraction to the opportunity to employ violence, then they are certainly corrupted by the power to abuse it. The peacelover does not wish to bully his neighbor and take his land, for himself or for "the State."That is how tyranny is born. The vaunted ideals of abundance, comradeship and common property inevitably becomes the reality of an unbalanced and unjust system, with grandees living in the party's inner circle, protected by a cruel regime of fear, while serfs abound, forever oppressed.