This thread is for defining fascism as a government, its economy, its benefits and draw backs. I'm going to head off any flame wars by forbidding calling any politicians fascists who appeared after 1950.
Cookies for anyone who can quote Plato or Mussolini.
Drawbacks? I'll give you one major one... the holocaust.
Plus the inherent illogic and stupidity of collectivism, the social contract, nationalism and just about everything else fascism stands for.
Technically, all governments sort of believe in the social contract. I mean, all governments do what they are doing "for the good of the people," and believe that people must give up some amount of their rights and freedoms in the name of the good of the people. Of course, fascism dictates the loss of a few more rights and freedoms... :P
The social contract is moronic. It's an example of convenient fiction. For one, it presumes that a majority can consent on the minority's behalf, which automatically disqualifies it as any sort of "contract." The sole implications of that fact show what a crock of **** it is. Anybody who believes it is justifiable is an enemy of reason and anyone who enforces it causes irreparable damage to society by that very act. There is no justification for rejecting reason. Not even if it serves some notion of a "greater good." To believe that you have the right to make that trade-off -- and rationalize it using utilitarianism -- means to bring humanity itself down to the level of dumb animals.
Like ALL political ideologies, Fascism isn't a bad thing is moderation and when balanced with other political ideologies, same as capitalism, socialism, libertarianism, communitarianism, and almost any other political "ism" you can think of. They're all bad when you take them to the extreme, but they all have good ideas that we can use to come to a balance.
You mean like where people settle for being robbed of their possessions and dignity every day for the illusion of safety?
Like so many other people, you fall into the logical fallacy that the middle ground is the best solution because it's the middle ground. It's not.
You mean like where people settle for being robbed of their possessions and dignity every day for the illusion of safety?
Like so many other people, you fall into the logical fallacy that the middle ground is the best solution because it's the middle ground. It's not.
I'm not saying the middle ground is the best. In fact, I never used the term "middle ground," because I don't think the middle ground is best. I'm saying that all of the extremes suck, and somewhere in between works much better. That somewhere in between might lean to one side as opposed to the other, of course.
EDIT: For an example, to clear up what I mean, I think that liberalism is better than its opposite extreme of conservativism (or switch that around if you prefer, it's just an example), but I don't think that we could do with no concervativism at all, and the extreme of liberism isn't a very good idea, so my proposal is leaning heavy liberalism with some light conservativism. This is NOT a "middle ground" but it is a specific balance between the two as opposed to the extreme of one or the other.
Like ALL political or economic ideologies, Fascism isn't a bad thing in moderation
The thing is that Fascism is never some "moderate" thing, it is extreme in its very nature.
This thread is for defining fascism as a government, its economy, its benefits and draw back
Benefits, eh? Are ya bleedin' kidding? Well, 'ere is *sarcasm* 2 of them:
- Just take at Nazi Germany's industrial agenda. Everything was geared for war. They built their Autobahn (highways) with war in mind, for the easier deployment of their troops, and the industry too was meant to aid the war effort.
- Glossing over conflicts inherent within a (national) society by putting the blame of minorities, modernism, progressive movements in art and politics for everything.
In short, the only people benefitting from Fascism were the sickos and opportunists, its own ruling elite.
Anybody disagreeing here should better take a couple of history lessons... No, blokes like David Irving and David Ike don't count as Historians.
PS: Here 's a virtual toast to the memory of all who fought against Fascism!
The social contract is moronic. It's an example of convenient fiction. For one, it presumes that a majority can consent on the minority's behalf, which automatically disqualifies it as any sort of "contract." The sole implications of that fact show what a crock of **** it is. Anybody who believes it is justifiable is an enemy of reason and anyone who enforces it causes irreparable damage to society by that very act. There is no justification for rejecting reason. Not even if it serves some notion of a "greater good." To believe that you have the right to make that trade-off -- and rationalize it using utilitarianism -- means to bring humanity itself down to the level of dumb animals.
Depends on how you define "Social Contract". One could argue that - for example - the US consitution is a social contract, because it lays down the fundamental rights everyone can agree to.
Depends on how you define "Social Contract". One could argue that - for example - the US consitution is a social contract, because it lays down the fundamental rights everyone can agree to.
Indeed, it is a social contract and thus predicated on the presumed consent of the governed, but as Spooner showed, it is the consent of a man with a gun to his head. Thus is has no moral binding at all.
If you don't like your country... move out!!!!!!
The number of flame like posts are exactly the problem I've made this thread to fix.
Rule #2: Nazism =/= Fascism
I'd like to mention that, unlike America, Mussolini took in Jewish refugees.
Notable features of fascism, which should be discussed, incomplete list:
Dictatorship
The Mythology
Government regulation of economy (documents on how this has been implemented would be especially helpful)
Worker armies
The third way
Militarism
OP, you'll get a more lively defense of fascism from your local university--the more expensive, the better.
And a more lively defense of socialism and liberalism too...
See what happens when all the old 60's hippie liberals begin teaching your children?
I think the voting age should be increased to 25 and an intelligence test be administered before people are allowed to vote.
Besides, elections nowadays are either bought or stolen by special interest groups and/or communists...
Mostly uneducated replies, The Holocaust is a result of Nazism, not fascism.
The number of flame like posts are exactly the problem I've made this thread to fix.
Rule #2: Nazism =/= Fascism
I'd like to mention that, unlike America, Mussolini took in Jewish refugees.
Notable features of fascism, which should be discussed, incomplete list:
Dictatorship
The Mythology
Government regulation of economy (documents on how this has been implemented would be especially helpful)
Worker armies
The third way
Militarism
Well said.
Another example of liberal professors hmm?????
Indeed, it is a social contract and thus predicated on the presumed consent of the governed, but as Spooner showed, it is the consent of a man with a gun to his head. Thus is has no moral binding at all.
Thank you.
What's wrong with nationalism?
If you don't like your country... move out!!!!!!
One, nationalism isn't just "liking your country." Nationalism is an irrational thought process that leads a man to blinding himself to the evils of his own nation. There is nothing wrong with trying to preserve your environment for the sake of your own well-being. But when you try to preserve it for the sake of preserving it, then you've gone down a dangerous road.
Two, what if the other country doesn't want me? Your basic argument is that ultimately, if I want to exist, I have to take all kinds of ******** from my own people. This doesn't work on a small scale and so it doesn't work on a large scale either. I don't have to accept two people stealing my car, so why should I have to accept three-hundred million people stealing my car? Because not doing it would be "un-'Merkuhn!"?
If I remember correctly, Italian Fascism had a 'use it or loose it' rule.
If some one owned land, they were required to use it, or it would be confiscated by the government.
Mostly uneducated replies, The Holocaust is a result of Nazism, not fascism.
The number of flame like posts are exactly the problem I've made this thread to fix.
Rule #2: Nazism =/= Fascism
I'd like to mention that, unlike America, Mussolini took in Jewish refugees.
Notable features of fascism, which should be discussed, incomplete list:
Dictatorship
The Mythology
Government regulation of economy (documents on how this has been implemented would be especially helpful)
Worker armies
The third way
Militarism
Your argument is in fact a logical fallacy. What you have said is the equivalent of saying, the deck is not necessarily wet because of the rain. Therefore, even though it rained, and you slipped on a wet deck right afterward, you did not slip because of the rain.
Nazism IS fascism. Fascism is NOT necessarily Nazism. But, as Nazism IS a form of fascism, and the holocaust happened because of Nazism, the holocaust happened because of a form of fascism. The dictatorial powers, coupled with military doctrine that usually accompanies fascism, allows for a loss of control over the actions of the government to an extent where an event such as the holocaust becomes a very real possibility. Moreover, its a possibility which I believe is ALWAYS, to some extent, inherent in the fascist doctrine. Fascism is accompanied by nationalism. Nationalism often includes a set of ideals about "what is, or is not, iconic of the nation being represented." These ideals have nothing to do with reality, but rather with the personal ideals of the dictators in control of the fascist regime. These dictators are likely to take away certain basic humanitarian rights from SOME minority group that does not fit the "nationalistic" ideal. Maybe it will be Jews. Maybe gay's and lesbians. It doesn't matter who. The point is, the set up of fascism leads to a scenario that at the very least is likely to take away rights and freedoms, and at the very most is likely to take away life. This is not acceptable. Its a huge drawback of fascism.
Also, please note, just because people do not agree with you does not mean that they are not educated. Many educated men and women believe that fascism is inherently an evil construct upheld only by the scum of the earth. It is not an uncommon opinion, even among the academic community.
You are the one guilty of fallacy. You are saying, because there is a deck, it got wet and I slipped and fell, so the deck made me slip and fall.
Fascism is the deck, like any government.
You are saying that somethign that allows is a cause.
That is how you are wrong.
Did not this republic suppress the descendants of Africans, or China the Christians, or Russia anybody who spoke? What of the tribes of Africa?
Nazism is the Ideology, the myth in fascist terms, that lead to the Holocaust. The myth does not need be somethign so malign though. Racism is independent of fascism; fascism is independent of racism. The association of the two is the kind uneducated thought that I am talking about.
That is a part of any dictatorship.
You are the one guilty of fallacy. You are saying, because there is a deck, it got wet and I slipped and fell, so the deck made me slip and fall.
Fascism is the deck, like any government.
You are saying that somethign that allows is a cause.
That is how you are wrong.
Did not this republic suppress the descendants of Africans, or China the Christians, or Russia anybody who spoke? What of the tribes of Africa?
Nazism is the Ideology, the myth in fascist terms, that lead to the Holocaust. The myth does not need be somethign so malign though. Racism is independent of fascism; fascism is independent of racism. The association of the two is the kind uneducated thought that I am talking about.
I am not guilty of any fallacy. You have switched around the relationship of my metaphoric and allegorical elements, but even with the relationship you provided I can still illustrate my point. If the deck is covered with an extremely glossy finish, which becomes extremely slippery when wet, and the deck is also under the open sky, and as such cannot protect itself from the necessary eventuality of rain, and one must traverse the deck in order to get in or out of the house, then yes... the deck did make you fall. There are too many unacceptable risks in the decks construction which point to the highly probably outcome of you slipping and falling. This is fascism's relation to the holocaust.
Fascism is not independent of enforcing a template of "nationality" based on its construction myth. But this template of nationality can never hope to encompass all of the groups that form the population of any given nation, especially the globalized nations of contemporary life. As a result, by enforcing this template of nationality fascism must, by extension, remove the rights and freedoms of some minority group. It might be a minority based on race. It might be a minority based on sexual preference. It might be a minority based on philosophical bent. Which minority is irrelevant. The loss of rights and freedoms is what is relevant. The chance that this loss of rights and freedoms can possibly escalate to the point of loss of life is relevant.
A major drawback of the fascist system is the manner in which it removes rights and freedoms from minority groups, and in the past has done so to the horrific extent of costing one minority group millions of lives. This drawback is so horrific, especially at its extremities, that it is unacceptable.
And nothing about this association has ANYTHING to do with a lack of education.
Of course, other structures are sometimes prone to similar unacceptable problems. The deck is not the only slippery surface. But, this does not stop the deck from being a slipper surface. This does not make the decks construction any less faulty.
before commenting about fascism I guess you should document about it. The best books to start with are those by Renzo De Felice. Even if they may be criticized in some aspect they are are the ones who offer the widest overview of fascism.
You will see that fascism is something quite different from nazism even if they've been allied for several years.
I suggest this because, as an italian, I often see anglo-saxons discussing fascism in general when they actually talk only about the last years of fascism when it became entrenched with nazism.
Even if I have not old enough to have witnessed fascism directly, I have spoken with many people who did (my four grandparents first) and have seen a lot of different points of view so please do not speak of fascism in one way only. It did have many evil aspects, but it did some good things for the italian people. If we have a public health and school system that anybody can access without paying, we owe that to fascism.
So my suggesting is: document yourself in the widest possible way and then make up your mind about it.
Cyber-Dave, for the sake of all that is sane, post no more on the subject until you can actually prove with sources how it provokes such things, or you will be reported for flaming. I've seen how you have done some good work in house rules on other boards, but you are now completely ignoring the point of the thread, to educate on what fascism really is.
To other things, I'd like to know more on how Mussolini's regime controlled the Italian economy, and its policies in doing so. I so fave have been unable to find any accurate sources on such.
The Cave and The Divided Line are the two central and main passages in the book. In short, there are people who are born and raised inside of a cave, unable to move due to chains and forced to watch shadow puppets on a wall made by people who watch over them. All that the chained know are the shadowy images they see. Now say someone escapes from their imprisonment and climbs out of the cave and is initially blinded and pained by the light of day, never seeing it before. Most will return to their seat in the cave but a few will remain in the light and eventually their eyes will adapt to the light and they will be able to see clearly the objects that they had seen shadows of before. Their task therefore, is to return to the cave, and try to convey what they had seen, which would likely result in their death as the people in the cave will refuse to hear it.
The divided line portion of this is the explanation. There is a line divided in half. above and bellow the line, there are two more lines cutting the top and bottom sections in half. Those chained cave dwell in the bottom, their captors, the one above. Those outside the cave cross the dividing line and can exist in the two areas above it.
This is later explained by his theory that there are three types of people, gold, silver, and base metal. The gold people are the wisest, the ones above the divided line and have the greatest intellect. The silver are above the bottom area and can interact with both the gold and base metal. The base metal are only focused on the material, not the ideal. This makes the gold the most fit to rule as they are the only ones smart enough to do so and the silver serve as their emissaries to the base metal. In Plato's view, the worst form of structured government is the democracy, it gives the base metal enough power to over rule the gold as the base metal are by far more numerous. The best government in his opinion is a Philosopher King that is wise enough to know the nature of justice and order, one that encompasses all aspects without exception and the children of the said society should be raised by professional care givers who specialize in raising children who would be divided along the nature of their birth, gold, silver, and base metal.
This theory is best exemplified in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World which is a good read in which the government runs the same way, which is a form of fascism. And that is truly a shortened version of Plato's argument in The Republic.
,you weren't perfectly clear, but you got Plato in. Public education is important to any government that controls its citizens, Fascism included. It helps implant the myth of the state as well as create suitable workers in the eyes of the powers that be.
The myth, is part of the nationalism. A mythology was needed to make the people believe in the state and support it, something that is better and grander than the reality.
Cyber-Dave, for the sake of all that is sane, post no more on the subject until you can actually prove with sources how it provokes such things, or you will be reported for flaming.
There is nothing wrong with his argument, and his posts are a far cry from constituting flaming. If you are trying to promote fascism, then this discussion was doomed the moment you posted, as you clearly have little intention of listening to dissenters.
Fascism is a deeply flawed system, with no logical justification for its existence. It promotes totalitarianism, robs its citizens of liberty, possessions and dignity, and is an inherently arrogant school of thought.
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
Yeah, great.
Oh, and fascists also support violence (or the threat of said) against dissidents. Sort of like what you are doing to Cyber-Dave by threatening to report him. Face it, buddy. Fascism not only leads to violence. It is violence, and the enemy of reason.
Indeed, it is a social contract and thus predicated on the presumed consent of the governed, but as Spooner showed, it is the consent of a man with a gun to his head. Thus is has no moral binding at all.
Of course it has no moral binding. It is a pragmatic and legal binding, as it should be. The word 'contract' implies as much.
And no, it has nothing to do with consent to the government. That is a very vertical view of the matter. Your consent is given to the fundamental rules of state and society, which you guarantee to everyone of your compatriots. It is a reciprocal relationship between every citizen (and in some cases even non-citizen). The government is only the administrator that converts the rules of the constitution into more detailed law, and deals with those who violate the law and with that the constitution. It is not the government that "puts a gun to your head". It's your fellow countrymen.
It promotes totalitarianism, robs its citizens of liberty, possessions and dignity, and is an inherently arrogant school of thought.
Oh, and fascists also support violence (or the threat of said) against dissidents. Sort of like what you are doing to Cyber-Dave by threatening to report him. Face it, buddy. Fascism not only leads to violence. It is violence, and the enemy of reason.
Fascism is totalitarian. Any form of socialism ultimately removes freedom. And arrogance is inherent in any ruler of people. Violence against dissent is nothing special, in fact it has expected in almost every government since record history began, and quite a few before that... Even wolves and other pack animals use it.
Violence is not the enemy of reason, it is a tool to destroy what is perceived to be a threat. If something is going to harm or destroy the self, the self must damage the harmer so that it may no longer cause harm.
I threaten cyber-dave not because he disagrees. I disagree with fascism as well, but for deeper and better founded reasons. He is threatened because he is single minded and bring nothing further than "Fascism = racism" to discussion.
Fascist Italy was as different from Nazi Germany as the Republic of Rome is from the republic of the USA.
It is a complex government that should be understood for its benefits and flaws. Not just used as insult.
This thread is to discuss the government in depth with all of its complexities in mind.
Fascism is totalitarian. Any form of socialism ultimately removes freedom.
And is thus unjustifiable from a logical perspective.
And arrogance is inherent in any ruler of people.
False. Having authority does not lead to or cause arrogance.
Violence against dissent is nothing special, in fact it has expected in almost every government since record history began, and quite a few before that... Even wolves and other pack animals use it.
And we are not animals. Using violence to silence dissent means to destroy hope of progressing beyond bestiality. If a man is secure in his position's validity, then he should have no problems engaging others in a debate instead of beating them over the head and locking them in his basement.
Violence is not the enemy of reason, it is a tool to destroy what is perceived to be a threat.
That is not what I said. I said fascism is both violence and the enemy of reason. This does not say anything about the relationship between violence and anti-intellectualism other than that the two are not mutually exclusive.
I threaten cyber-dave not because he disagrees. I disagree with fascism as well, but for deeper and better founded reasons. He is threatened because he is single minded and bring nothing further than "Fascism = racism" to discussion.
But his point is valid. Nazism is a sub-school of fascism. He is fully within his right to draw a link between the two because fascism can (and has) been connected to institutionalized racism.
Fascist Italy was as different from Nazi Germany as the Republic of Rome is from the republic of the USA.
It is a complex government that should be understood for its benefits and flaws. Not just used as insult.
This thread is to discuss the government in depth with all of its complexities in mind.
I'm prepared to do so. I'm violently opposed to both fascism (and communism), though, so don't expect much in the concession department.
To the bolded statement: Why not? I mean, insults in general are bad form, but why not use an insult that fits (when it fits) if you're doing it in the first place?
Of course it has no moral binding. It is a pragmatic and legal binding, as it should be.
You're attempting to draw a distinction which does not exist. Pragmatism is just another form of morality and stands in contrast to others, most notably natural rights. A valid contract is morally binding.
And no, it has nothing to do with consent to the government. That is a very vertical view of the matter. Your consent is given to the fundamental rules of state and society, which you guarantee to everyone of your compatriots.
This is a distinction without a difference. A monarchy has all the moral authority of a democracy if that is what people will agree to and/or put up with. The measure of their agreement is inversely proportional to the quantity of blood flowing in the streets. Remember that the social contract is a meta-morality: it doesn't demand any specific arrangement of human affairs. All that's required is that people (presumably) cede their natural rights to the collective.
That's how the taxman gets the authority to collect your taxes--you've ceded your property rights to the tune of whatever the law says (the law being either strict legislation or taxman's whim--again, whatever people agree to/tolerate). Otherwise it would be outright theft.
(Again, I'm not advocating social contact theory, just clarifying it...)
Cyber-Dave, for the sake of all that is sane, post no more on the subject until you can actually prove with sources how it provokes such things, or you will be reported for flaming.
[sarcasm]This statement indeed reveals your intentions... So, anybody responding in agreement to your OP is educated and "gets cookies" while anyone not falling for that gets reported for flaming. I can't help the feeling that this strategy of yours sounds very similar to what we are discussing here.[/sarcasm]
Mostly uneducated replies, The Holocaust is a result of Nazism, not fascism.
The number of flame like posts are exactly the problem I've made this thread to fix.
[sarcasm]Speaking of uneducated, I 'm wondering whether your best source is John Gill, the historian in the infamous "Star Trek Nazi Episode":
Gill confesses that his original intent was to help the planet’s society evolve from its backward anarchic state into a functioning civilization. His plan: model the Ekosians after what he thought was the “most efficient system the Earth ever knew”, the Nazis.
(source)
[/sarcasm]
Rule #2: Nazism =/= Fascism
[sarcasm]First, my most humble apologies, I thought that I might add something on the Fascist regime I studied more closely than others.[/sarcasm]
1.) In accordance with Godwin's law your thread and general topic had it coming, with the difference being that it is entirely aprobriate. But trying to wiggle out of it by implementing another rule seems rather cheap to me.
2.) The difference between Nazism (a form of fascism) and fascism in general is pure nitpicking to save your argument here. Furthermore, it is plain to see that a totalitarian regime with domination and subjugation in mind is unable to provide any benefit for the total populance, as parts of said populance are being stigmatized, ousted, hunted down, and eventually, even killed.
3.) In accordance with your own list, I 'm taking a closer look at Nazi Germany:
Dictatorship - check (Hitler and the hierarchial structure of the NSDAP)
The Mythology - check (Hitler set up the basics, people like Rosenberg and Himmler filled in the gaps.)
Government regulation of economy (documents on how this has been implemented would be especially helpful) - check (centralization of work forces, government working in accordance with industrial leaders)
Worker armies - check (The Reichsarbeitsdienst)
*...
Militarism - check (The whole Single-Party system)
*I left out the third way intentionally, for in itself, the harmony it propagates between different social classes is based on nothing but pure "myth", thus, it is already included in "The Mythology" as the big impact of popular culture, since it only served to gloss over the elitarian hierarchy of the system. But if you insist: The Third Way (being a myth to reduce tension between different social classes) - Check.
Regarding the Mythology
What you call "The Mythology" of the 3rd Reich does not only include the highly ritualized Party celebrations, the new-agey mythicism that Himmler fancied so much, the fostering of a Fuehrer-cult etc., but also the popular culture of Germany, which became an extension of the NSDAP: the arts, the movies, the recreational programs, even the Olympic Games (and even more Riefenstahl's Olympia). That 's why it's totalitarian, after all, and we could leave it at that.
But, in fact, the Nazi Regime while adhereing to the economical doctrines of industrialism and efficiency (the modernist part of it, one 'd call it) founded its roots - and indeed its entire raison d'étre - in its own mythology (the reactionary part of it) which:
- abhorred the modern world as evil and soulless (yes, despite its own attempts at enforcing industrialism),
- despised reason as not befitting the german "tradition" as they envisoned it, (in contrast to german philosophical tradition),
- contrived a seemingly perfect era made up from cheap nostalgia for a more rural times, national pride, and imperialist intentions.
- pictured purebred Teutons who never did exis- pictured purebred Teutons who never did exist as a racial/ethnic ideal,
- on the contrary, portrayed other groups as "the enemy" to hammer home the notion of said racially-contrived unity. (In fact, they had a group for everything: Jews, the disabled, vagabonds, Roma, homosexuals)
In short, in order to maintain its power, the fascist mythology's aim is provide its subjects not only with "simple answers" like a populist politician or some guru would but taking a step further. They provide answers and solutions which grossly distort the real problem they appear to answer too and yet do nothing but provide a diversion while a ruling caste reaps the benefits.
Speaking of which, when erleni says that public health was implemented by Mussolini, one should always ask for the aim. And the aim behind the fascist regimes was not the benefit of the people, but to remain in power and placate the constant reduction of citizens' rights and liberties. Yes, the people needed public health, but even for that, the costs of a fascist regime are too high. What would have happened if said grandparents had become victims of the fascists for some reason or another? Just because it didn't happen to you or your ancestors doesn't mean that you should feel fine with it.
______________________
Awesome Dude, Cyber-Dave, I tip me hat to you fine folks!
The point is, the set up of fascism leads to a scenario that at the very least is likely to take away rights and freedoms, and at the very most is likely to take away life. This is not acceptable. Its a huge drawback of fascism
Fascism is a deeply flawed system, with no logical justification for its existence. It promotes totalitarianism, robs its citizens of liberty, possessions and dignity, and is an inherently arrogant school of thought.
Gotta agree with that...
Captn M.
While you are looking stuff up, I would also like you to find the post where I stated that "fascism equals racism." You will note, I NEVER said that. I stated that Nazism is a form of fascism. I stated that Nazism led to the holocaust. I stated that it is thus clear that a form of fascism has led to the holocaust. I have also stated that ALL forms of fascism lead to a forceful removal of rights and liberties from a minority. I never, however, stated that this minority would be a race. The minority could very well be any who dissent against the philosophical concept of fascism. Or it could be a race. The problem is that there are no checks and balances in the philosophical construct of fascism which stops a chosen myth from demonizing either or. And, as I pointed out, the loss of rights and liberties IS an inherent quality of fascism. What is more, the philosophical construction of fascism contains NO checks or balances designed to ensure that this loss of rights or freedoms can not escalate to morally reprehensible levels (due to the nature of totalitarian and dictatorial rule). Thus, an inherent drawback of fascism is that it contains no checks and balances which stops its totalitarian and dictatorial government from choosing to implement motions which lead to the loss of life for millions of people from some minority or another. This statement is historically factual. Point in case, Nazi Germany.
Mussolini's state did not initiate a holocaust. However, there was quite a bit of loss of rights and freedoms, as well as life, present there as well. Dissenters were not given the option of a voice. To attempt to voice dissent was a good way to get yourself locked up, or killed. Blackshirts murdered the socialist Matteotti for his criticism of Mussolini. They also tied people to trees, force a pint or two of castor oil down the victim’s throat, and forced them to eat a live toad or frog. The ability for a government to perform these acts, or condone them, without reprieve, is a serious drawback.
Once again, my perspective is neither illogical, nor is it uneducated. Fascism does make use of a myth. A myth cannot logically include all of a countries population. Minority groups that do not fit into the nationalist myth will find themselves loosing rights and freedoms that they hold dear. One of these losses of rights or freedoms COULD potentially be life. It might instead be swallowing a pint or two of castor oil and being forced to eat a live toad or frog. The key problem is that there is no checks or balances that limit what sort of minorities will be targeted, or limit how serious the loss of rights or freedoms will be. The key drawback of a fascist government is that it is not held responsible for its actions by its people. It can literally do whatever it pleases. This has historically lead to some very serious problems... such as the holocaust.
Thanks for the hat tip Morgrim. You deserve one as well! Nice work with your last post.
The thing is that Fascism is never some "moderate" thing, it is extreme in its very nature.
Oh please, you can say that about anything.
I think somebody said it about nationalism on the last page, which is another concept that's horrible to the extreme but that we do need some degree of to actually stay a cohesive and sovereign nation.
Speaking of which...
What's wrong with nationalism?
If you don't like your country... move out!!!!!!
. . . I really hope that was either sarcasm or parody.
I think the voting age should be increased to 25 and an intelligence test be administered before people are allowed to vote.
The intelligence test should be enough. No need to bring ageism into it. ;)
Originally Posted by La dottrina del fascismo, 1935
The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State—a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values—interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
A bit of history. After the first world war Italy was finally united as a single country with the acquisition of "Trento and Trieste" as they said. Unfortunately what was a single political entity was very much fragmented as it had been separated for hundreds of years. Piemonte was influenced by the French domination, north eastern Italy by the Austrian one and southern Italy was even more different. The so called "Questione Meridionale" meaning something like "Southern Issue" has been the center of italian politics since 1860 till nowadays. Even today in many areas of southern Italy the state is not the main power and less was just after the WW1.
Italian leaders, Mussolini being one of them, always needed to find a way to unify the society. The unified school teaching program, meaning that in every elementary school of Italy (6 to 10 years old children) the same program was thought was implemented under fascism. To give you an idea of the importance of this act I can tell you that I basically studied the same program (with a few updates) even if I was born in 1975.
The "total vision" of fascism was to some extent a tool to unify the italian society as well as obviously a way to create a central control over it.
It proved to be quite a successful way. Italy after the second world war was much more a single entity than it had been before. A very important step in this unification was the creation of the state radio URI in 1924. The same voice was giving news all over the country and at least one radio was present in every town at the local "Casa del Fascio" (Fascist House).
Before fascism Italy was simply a collection of different parts (the Austrian Chancellor Metternich called it a "purely geographical expression"), but after WW2 Italy was a country or at least started to be.
The birth of nazism is very different. It comes mainly from the terrible depression that Germany suffered after WW1, which has been fostered by the stupid idea of asking the Germans to pay back the war expenses (a huge amount). Germany was already a single country has they have been unified for a long time and had a very strong and common culture, so the situation was completely different from the italian one.
I hope this helps in setting a background for this discussion. As many said both fascism and nazism have been evil and they have been allied together, but they were also very different. Nazism is not a version of fascism, it is a different phenomenon.
– George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.
I think this is the problem that is facing this thread. For me, the word as also lost all meaning because it is forever teinted by the pejorative nature it as taken on. The OP obviously wants to discuss a political movement, but the word 'facism' is not a proper name for one, because it is not neutral. It stirs passion in everybody. How does one credibly examine/debate a social structure when the mere utterance of it's name causes people to scream at the top of there lungs that it is evil, it is violence, etc.
And a more lively defense of socialism and liberalism too...
See what happens when all the old 60's hippie liberals begin teaching your children?
I think the voting age should be increased to 25 and an intelligence test be administered before people are allowed to vote.
Besides, elections nowadays are either bought or stolen by special interest groups and/or communists...
Why, how elitist of you. I sincerely hope that you are not advocating a retuen of the voter supression of the reconstruction period. It certainly sounds like you are.
The intelligence test should be enough. No need to bring ageism into it. ;)
Well I think he brought up age since he has intuited that any test he might pass will easily be surpassed by the average 8 year old.
The word ‘Fascism’ is almost entirely meaningless. In conversation, of course, it is used even more wildly than in print. I have heard it applied to farmers, shopkeepers, Social Credit, corporal punishment, fox-hunting, bull-fighting, the 1922 Committee, the 1941 Committee, Kipling, Gandhi, Chiang Kai-Shek, homosexuality, Priestley's broadcasts, Youth Hostels, astrology, women, dogs and I do not know what else... almost any English person would accept ‘bully’ as a synonym for ‘Fascist’.
– George Orwell, What is Fascism?. 1944.
I think this is the problem that is facing this thread. For me, the word as also lost all meaning because it is forever teinted by the pejorative nature it as taken on. The OP obviously wants to discuss a political movement, but the word 'facism' is not a proper name for one, because it is not neutral. It stirs passion in everybody. How does one credibly examine/debate a social structure when the mere utterance of it's name causes people to scream at the top of there lungs that it is evil, it is violence, etc.
Fairness and objectivity does not imply a favorable review.
You're attempting to draw a distinction which does not exist. Pragmatism is just another form of morality and stands in contrast to others, most notably natural rights. A valid contract is morally binding.
I disagree. Morals tell you whether something is good or evil, ethics tell you whether something is right or wrong. A constitution tells you what is acceptable to uphold a stable society. It may be that constitutions have their fundaments in morals, ethics, or both, though.
Contracts are only morally binding if they exist in a legal vacuum. If not, and there are laws concerning the contract, breaking it would trigger repercussions.
This is a distinction without a difference. A monarchy has all the moral authority of a democracy if that is what people will agree to and/or put up with. The measure of their agreement is inversely proportional to the quantity of blood flowing in the streets. Remember that the social contract is a meta-morality: it doesn't demand any specific arrangement of human affairs. All that's required is that people (presumably) cede their natural rights to the collective.
Only that in a monarchy, the people do not cede their rights to a collective, but to a central authority, the monarch. The ruler can do what he (or she) wants, because no-one dares to speak up against him. The people weren't asked if they agree or not. There are no natural rights in a monarchy, save the "natural" right of the monarch to be monarch.
A social contract presumes that the people were asked and continue to agree.
The birth of nazism is very different. It comes mainly from the terrible depression that Germany suffered after WW1, which has been fostered by the stupid idea of asking the Germans to pay back the war expenses (a huge amount). Germany was already a single country has they have been unified for a long time and had a very strong and common culture, so the situation was completely different from the italian one.
I hope this helps in setting a background for this discussion. As many said both fascism and nazism have been evil and they have been allied together, but they were also very different. Nazism is not a version of fascism, it is a different phenomenon.
No, not really.
First, your history lesson in the case of Germany isn't quite correct. We did not have a "very strong and common culture", lest a unified one. (It's questionable that we have one now.)
Remember, the Reich was only formed in 1872, after the allied german states beat France. Prior to that, the situation was not unlikely to the one in Italy: many small, fractured states, but with Prussia looming over them all. You cannot form a common culture out of that. It needed an ideology that constructed a common element (race) and a strong man to bully and charm all the states into a whole. That man happened to be Bismarck.
But he didn't manage to get the province leader to fully support his and the emperors rule. They wanted as much power as possible. So, the Reich had a strong federal element in it's structure. It still was conveniently dominated by Prussia, but the emperor had not as much power as he liked.
The whole mess was carried over into the Weimar Republic, with the added complication that it wasn't well liked by all the royalists in the right wing parties. They wanted at least a "strong leader", if they couldn't have an emperor.
The people might have felt as Germans by blood (an idea which was pounded into them since the mid-1850s), but they still primarily identified themselves with their home region, with all the rivalties included. A strong leader was a way to ensure that other regions didn't get ahead of them. Add to that all the other reasons you described above, the fact that the Bismarck government was effective to rid most of the people of any democratic tendencies, weak federal governments, almost continuous elections, and civil unrest, and you have the breeding ground for a fascist movement.
Hitler and his cronies just took the only common element that tied the people together, race, and exaggerated it tremendously. They just added it to the other elements of fascism, and called it differently.
Nazism is not a version of fascism, it is a different phenomenon.
This is a complete and utter lie. Fascism has a number of defining features. Nazism contained all those features (as CaptnMorgrim showed in his post). Nazism is a form of fascism. It is historically remembered as a form of fascism. To say otherwise is nothing more than a lie. It might not be the exact same fascism as Mussolini's fascism, just like Canada is not the exact same democratic republic as America, but it is still fascism. What is more, as already pointed out in this thread, Mussolini's fascism is not innocent of committing atrocities against its own people. Killing someone because they criticize you verbally, or forcing someone to drink 1-2 pints of castor oil and eat a live frog while they are tied up to a tree, is not exactly an "act of kindness."
Your argument is in fact a logical fallacy. What you have said is the equivalent of saying, the deck is not necessarily wet because of the rain. Therefore, even though it rained, and you slipped on a wet deck right afterward, you did not slip because of the rain.
Nazism IS fascism. Fascism is NOT necessarily Nazism. But, as Nazism IS a form of fascism, and the holocaust happened because of Nazism, the holocaust happened because of a form of fascism. The dictatorial powers, coupled with military doctrine that usually accompanies fascism, allows for a loss of control over the actions of the government to an extent where an event such as the holocaust becomes a very real possibility. Moreover, its a possibility which I believe is ALWAYS, to some extent, inherent in the fascist doctrine. Fascism is accompanied by nationalism. Nationalism often includes a set of ideals about "what is, or is not, iconic of the nation being represented." These ideals have nothing to do with reality, but rather with the personal ideals of the dictators in control of the fascist regime. These dictators are likely to take away certain basic humanitarian rights from SOME minority group that does not fit the "nationalistic" ideal. Maybe it will be Jews. Maybe gay's and lesbians. It doesn't matter who. The point is, the set up of fascism leads to a scenario that at the very least is likely to take away rights and freedoms, and at the very most is likely to take away life. This is not acceptable. Its a huge drawback of fascism.
Also, please note, just because people do not agree with you does not mean that they are not educated. Many educated men and women believe that fascism is inherently an evil construct upheld only by the scum of the earth. It is not an uncommon opinion, even among the academic community.
The Holocaust and Nazi myth actually stemmed from a general occult revival in Germany and Austria from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century. Central to the revival were the teachings of Guido von List, Madame Blavatsky, and Jörg Lanz-Liebenfels. According to Jörg Lanz-Liebenfels “****” peoples originated from interstellar deities (termed Theozoa) who bred by electricity, while “lower” races were a result of interbreeding between humans and ape-men (or Anthropozoa, the Jews and Slavic peoples). The effects of racial crossing caused the atrophy of paranormal powers inherited from the gods, but these could be restored by the selective breeding of pure **** lineages. Liebenfel's teachings were compiled into a monthly publication called Ostara of which Adolf Hitler and Heinrich Himmler were regular subscribers. Himmler himself was an avid occultist (believing himself to be the reincarnation of an ancient Germanic king) and was the man responsible for the actual killing of over 11 million people. Fascism was the system of government which allowed it to happen. It wasn't the cause but it certainly did nothing to stop it which makes it just as bad as racist ideals.
What is fascism? Fascism is a governmental and social philosophical system derived from Marxian Socialism that holds the nation as a supreme entity. It is known also as National Socialism. It holds the state, as embodied by the leader, as an organic voice of the unified people. It sees all threats to the state, be they large or small, as morally just in their termination. This definition encompasses both Nazisms and Fascism, and would also include the Soviet Union as well were it not for the caveate that the U.S.S.R. held the workers (and not the nation) as supreme, and sought to found a World-Socialist-State, whereas Fascism sought only to benefit the mother nation.
Fascism, as is any type of derivative of Marx's hard socialism, is inherently evil in its construction, motivation, and methodology. Fascism holds the state above any man. At the core of its ideal is that it is morally acceptable to steal, be it property, money, or lives. Theft is theft. A system built upon the sacrifice of its adherents will not last. Not without looking for new victims. The myth of the efficient fascist state is simply that - a myth. The trains ran on time because Mussolini was controlling both the strike and the trains. In the years after Mussolini took power, the Italian nation, already a weaker power, began to descend. When the United States attacked, Mussolini ran almost right away. If it weren't for Hitler sending his troops to all but take control of the peninsula before the Americans did, Italy would have fallen much faster. Most of the battles fought in that campaign were against the Nazis and not the Italians.
Germany is more complex problem as it is often touted as the more efficient state. The myth that Hitler restored the economy is false. The depression had almost ended by the time he took power, and the country went down hill quickly. Perhaps the only reason Germany remained such a threat to its neighbors (besides the utter incompetence of both Stalin and the French), was something I like to call the "Us" effect. In a situation of "Us or Them" (Germany vs. The World), you create a psychological illusion of a fight or flight situation on a massive scale. This "Us" effect may very well also be how Wilson and Roosevelt got away with what they did.
Driven to defeat these phantom foes, German people were highly motivated and unquestioning for a very long time. Even so, the furor of the Germans mattered little in the end. Consider that the American army, which was smaller, recently cobbled together, and far from both its supply and power base, was able to yank all of Western Europe out from under the "might" of Hitler in a matter of years. So much for the unstoppable Nazi Germany.
Now, of course, that historical overview was brief and very broad. There were more factors and details which I only grazed over. The final summation still stands. Fascism is an evil and destructive system. You can't compare Mussolini to Hitler and claim Fascism isn't all that bad. Its like comparing the plague to the Ebola virus and claiming that the black death isn't as horrible as its made out to be. Its a logical fallacy to assert that something is good just because its not the worst.
As Awesome Dude said, being fair does not mean being supportive.
I disagree. Morals tell you whether something is good or evil, ethics tell you whether something is right or wrong.
No, philosophers use those terms (ethics & morals) interchangeable. There is only moral or immoral action. You can call them "good" or "evil" for "moral" and "immoral" if you like, but it doesn't change the structure of the arguments.
A constitution tells you what is acceptable to uphold a stable society. It may be that constitutions have their fundaments in morals, ethics, or both, though.
Again, it is just a specific form of social contract, but certainly not the only form.
Contracts are only morally binding if they exist in a legal vacuum. If not, and there are laws concerning the contract, breaking it would trigger repercussions.
A contract is morally binding because it creates moral duties for each of the parties. The existence of third parties (such as a court system) to objectively enforce it is beside the point. In fact, explicit contract is the primary way moral duties are created (there are others, but those are beyond the scope of this thread.)
Only that in a monarchy, the people do not cede their rights to a collective, but to a central authority, the monarch. The ruler can do what he (or she) wants, because no-one dares to speak up against him. The people weren't asked if they agree or not. There are no natural rights in a monarchy, save the "natural" right of the monarch to be monarch.
Natural rights are inherent to personhood, respected or not. The lack of bloody revolution at any particular point in time is enough for the social contractarians to presume consent through the veil of ignorance (i.e.: people prefer the order, any order, to the presumed alternative of anarchy/state of nature...).
A social contract presumes that the people were asked and continue to agree.
No, social contracts operate by implicit consent, not explicit. No one living today was asked their consent to the US Constitution. In the case of the Confederacy, it was clearly over and above their wishes.
The Holocaust and Nazi myth actually stemmed from a general occult revival in Germany and Austria from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century. Central to the revival were the teachings of Guido von List, Madame Blavatsky, and Jörg Lanz-Liebenfels.
While Hitler drew on these ideas indeed, I 'd still like to debate their impact on Nazi politics. The Mythology Hitler used was a mere tool to hold the 3rd Reich together while the Holocaust also had some deeper roots in (christian) anti-semitism. The zeal with which parts of the Nazi Elite pursued these esoteric goals boiled down to individual members. But even these took a backseat in the war and in the last stages of the Holocaust.
A far more important cause has been outlined by Fabius above: The lack of a strong democratic tradition and the high demand for a strong leader. Furthermore, the concept of nation being based on an imagined bloodline. Also, the racist pseudosciences of the Nazi Regime were more based on scientific racism rather than this. The occultism in the vein of Blavatsky and Liebenfels served as inspiration, but research has shown that it didn't reach the masses, iIn the end it was more of a hobby for the Nazi Elite.
Fascism was the system of government which allowed it to happen. It wasn't the cause but it certainly did nothing to stop it which makes it just as bad as racist ideals.
Incorrect. As has been outlined above, the elemental of brutal exclusion and suppression, including genocide and the Holocaust, is inherently tied to Fascism, thus, Fascism was if not the cause, the it was the perfect tool. It didn't "do nothing to stop it", worse, it aided it.
And now to something completely different:
@ Nyronus,
Fascism, as is any type of derivative of Marx's hard socialism, is inherently evil in its construction, motivation, and methodology. ...
At the core of its ideal is that it is morally acceptable to steal, be it property, money, or lives.
Question 1: Is it perfectly morally acceptable or "Good" to make use of another person's situation by turning said situation to one's own gain, e.g. them having to spend their strenght, vitality, and lifetime to work for one's profit? Even more so, if said profit is far greater in comparision to what said person earns for their work? Furthermore, what put each participant into his/her position in this example - nothing but an accident of birth, time and place. Or even simpler put: "You can make if you really want" is an even greater lie than the cake. Which begets another question.
Question 2: Wouldn't be fair if said profit were shared equally?
Supply and Demand, I assume, you 'll agree here, is completely independent of morals, in fact, the more independent of such concerns, the better the profit - see sweatshops, hell, see subprimes.
Even more, history itself shows that the status quo you wish to protect from "stealing" was itself founded in theft: colonialism, slavery, the reorganization of rural Britain, the working houses. What makes a poor person a thief? Wouldn't it be the very same person that put him or her into this misery? But here 's the catch: Even Marx, the old bugger himself, explained that the Capitalists were not "evil" per se, but merely doing what the system expected them to do.
In short, you can't have read much Marx, matey.
Cheers!
Capt M.
Fascism was the system of government which allowed it to happen.
Re-read all my posts. That is exactly what I said is the major drawback of fascism. It is precisely set up to allow such myths, and then perform atrocious acts in the name of such myths. Does it have some sort of benefit? Yea... it unifies the nation. The problem is that it unifies the nation by randomly picking certain minority elements and stomping on them... as a nation of course.
In short, you can't have read much Marx, matey.
I was going to bring up that there were some very serious problem in that post, and its total equation of Marxism with national socialism, but you seem to have done the job for me.
Hats off to you CaptnMorgrim.
This is a complete and utter lie. Fascism has a number of defining features. Nazism contained all those features (as CaptnMorgrim showed in his post). Nazism is a form of fascism. It is historically remembered as a form of fascism. To say otherwise is nothing more than a lie. It might not be the exact same fascism as Mussolini's fascism, just like Canada is not the exact same democratic republic as America, but it is still fascism. What is more, as already pointed out in this thread, Mussolini's fascism is not innocent of committing atrocities against its own people. Killing someone because they criticize you verbally, or forcing someone to drink 1-2 pints of castor oil and eat a live frog while they are tied up to a tree, is not exactly an "act of kindness."
Sorry Cyber-Dave but you're wrong on this. You use the word fascist where you should use totalitarian. Totalitarian systems are far older than fascism. Fascism to me is a phenomenon which happened in Italy during the first half of the 20th century and here in Italy when we use the word fascism we mean that. So you can't say that there are more kinds of fascism, unless you widen the meaning of the word. If you used fascist and meant totalitarian then I agree with you. But don't call me a liar, please.
Sorry Cyber-Dave but you're wrong on this. You use the word fascist where you should use totalitarian. Totalitarian systems are far older than fascism. Fascism to me is a phenomenon which happened in Italy during the first half of the 20th century and here in Italy when we use the word fascism we mean that. So you can't say that there are more kinds of fascism, unless you widen the meaning of the word. If you used fascist and meant totalitarian then I agree with you. But don't call me a liar, please.
I won't, if you don't make a claim which is a lie. I did not mean totalitarian. Totalitarian governments would include a number of Communist governments. I was speaking specifically of fascist governments. Fascism does not only apply to the phenomenon which happened in Italy. It is a term which is applied to a 20th century phenomenon of philosophy. It is a philosophical construction of government. There are a couple governments which attempted to implement this philosophy, which is composed of a number of key themes. Nazism is a form of fascism. It is historically remembered as such. It contains all of the key elements of philosophy upon which the philosophical construct of fascism is built. This has already been pointed out in this thread. CaptnMorgrim already provided examples of how Nazism contains all of these key elements. To claim otherwise is to lie.
I won't, if you don't make a claim which is a lie. I did not mean totalitarian. Totalitarian governments would include a number of Communist governments. I was speaking specifically of fascist governments. Fascism does not only apply to the phenomenon which happened in Italy. It is a term which is applied to a 20th century phenomenon of philosophy. It is a philosophical construction of government. There are a couple governments which attempted to implement this philosophy, which is composed of a number of key themes. Nazism is a form of fascism. It is historically remembered as such. It contains all of the key elements of philosophy upon which the philosophical construct of fascism is built. To claim otherwise is to lie.
Unfortunately I'm not lying. Fascism is not what you say and the word applies only to the italian one (Fascio is an italian and the Fascio Littorio gave the name to fascism). Only to understand, to you the government of Pinochet in Chile was fascist? By the way, who's remembering nazism as a form of fascism? Nobody here in Italy will do that.
Well I think he brought up age since he has intuited that any test he might pass will easily be surpassed by the average 8 year old.
OH SNAP!
Unfortunately I'm not lying. Fascism is not what you say and the word applies only to the italian one (Fascio is an italian and the Fascio Littorio gave the name to fascism). Only to understand, to you the government of Pinochet in Chile was fascist? By the way, who's remembering nazism as a form of fascism? Nobody here in Italy will do that.
Please forgive me, as I am about to do something I hate doing. I am about to quote Wikipedia. Its a bit of a no-no in academic terms, but this is not an academic paper, and I have no time to go and find proper sources at the current moment in time. I'm busy writing a paper on Derrida, Barthes, and Mauve Desert.
First, let me point out the following key quotes from the wikipedia article on definitions of fascism:
"Originally, "fascism" referred to a political movement that existed in a single country (Italy) for less than 30 years and ruled the country from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini. Clearly, if the definition is restricted to the original Italian Fascism, then "fascism" has little significance outside of Italian politics. Most scholars prefer to use the word "fascism" in a more general sense, to refer to an ideology (or group of ideologies) that was influential in many countries at many different times. For this purpose, they have sought to identify a "fascist minimum" - that is, the minimum conditions that a certain political group must meet in order to be considered fascist."
The whole article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism .
I would also like to point out this key quote on Nazism from the article on Nazism; "Nazism is sometimes considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. "
The whole article can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi .
Now, fascism, once upon a time, was used to define a very specific government. Mussolini's government in point of fact. But, the defining philosophical aspects of Mussolini's government were not specific to his government. Indeed, the only defining aspect of the term "fascism" which was specific to his government was that it was used to define his government. Remove that stipulation and suddenly it could be used to define a number of other governments as well. Thus, the meaning of the term (in the English language) no longer represents Mussolini's government in specific. The term has been broadened to include any government which contains certain key philosophical elements, the fascist minimum.
Nazism contains these elements. Nazism is considered by academics, or at the very least some academics (and those academics I agree with), to be a form of fascism.
I consider all attempts to claim that Nazism is not fascism, and thus not pertinent to the discussion, to be childish and foolish. You are using an antiquated stipulation to remove a very pertinent aspect of the discussion. Its also an aspect of the discussion which was NOT removed by the original poster. The original poster offered cookies for people who bring up Plato. This means that he included, or at the very least seemed to include, Plato's philosophical constructs as a form of fascism. Plato, obviously, did not live between 1922 to 1943. If we are only discussing Mussolini's government then Plato should not really be pertinent. If he is then we are discussing the philosophy behind fascism, and its benefits and drawbacks. If that is what we are doing then ALL governments which fit the fascist minimum are pertinent to the discussion, and are considered a form of fascism for the purpose of the discussion. They are all built on a certain common set of philosophical grounds. Moreover, even if you were only trying to discuss Mussolini's government, Nazism and all governments that fit the fascist minimum would still be pertinent IF you were also discussing the potential benefits and drawbacks of a neo-fascist revival, and not just the lasting benefits and drawbacks that Mussolini's government had upon the Italian population.
If you are looking to see where Mussolini's fascism has historically benefited and hindered the Italian population, then certainly Nazism's only influence in the conversation would be through the fact that Mussolini allied himself with Nazi Germany, and in so doing permanently tarred his own reputation (more than his dictatorial actions already did). If we are talking about the benefits and drawbacks of the philosophical construct of Nazism, then all governments which fulfill the fascist minimum are important and applicable to the conversation at hand. It is my understanding that we are discussing the later and not the former. If we are discussing the former then I slightly alter my original comment to say: Murder, torture, tying people to trees and forcing them to swallow 2 pints of castor oil and a living frog, and allying oneself with an entity capable of committing the holocaust... how is that for a drawback? The rest of my points still stand, only with slight addendum that changes the examples given to the actions of Mussolini's government instead of Hitler's.
Hats off to you CaptnMorgrim.
Cyber-Dave, I 'm humbled...
EDIT: Seems like you beat me to it... Cheers!
I consider all attempts to claim that Nazism is not fascism, and thus not pertinent to the discussion, to be childish and foolish. You are using an antiquated stipulation to remove a very pertinent aspect of the discussion.
Well said!
Unfortunately I'm not lying. Fascism is not what you say and the word applies only to the italian one (Fascio is an italian and the Fascio Littorio gave the name to fascism). Only to understand, to you the government of Pinochet in Chile was fascist?
I 'm sorry, but you are trying to apply an all too narrow definition here. I took the time to check up wikipedia's (not the best source, I know) definition of fascism, and even there it was acknowledged that Fascism applies to a broader spectrum of movements.
After all, the later fascist regimes took their cues from Mussolini's ideology. Maybe not the influence he craved, but hey, Italy got some big impact on World History again for a short while and isn't that what that bloated toad wanted?
Seriously, one more try: lets use the definition of Fascism given by the OP:
Dictatorship
Germany - check
Italy - check
The Mythology
G: - check
I: - check
Government regulation of economy (documents on how this has been implemented would be especially helpful)
G: - check
I: - check
- The Third Way (being a myth to reduce tension between different social classes)
G: - check
I: - check
- Worker armies
G: - check
I: - check
Militarism, including aggressive expansionism
G: - check
I: - check (the Abbessinian War, including genocide)
Oppression (of minorities, political enemies,...)
G: - check
I: - check (A few examples have already been given: Antonio Gramsci)
So, please, Erleni, stop it. Just because Italy had the first Fascist movement doesn't imply that only the Italian definition counts, not with their successful franchise being imported to Germany, Spain, Southern America.
By the way, who's remembering nazism as a form of fascism? Nobody here in Italy will do that.
Um, like, Historians? People who know that stuff? Mayhap the Italian public school system could use a few more updates in this instance. As a historian myself, I learned to recognize the fine distinctions between Fascism and Nazism, but still, and I have never found any reason to seperate between these 2 entirely. Their ties and connections are too strong, not only politically, but also in regard to ideology.
Erleni, bring some more solid proof, will ya?
Captn M.
PS: Erleni, if you desperately need something to be proud of, be proud of those Italians who risked and lost their lives to oppose the Italian and German Fascists.
Sorry Cyber-Dave but you're wrong on this. You use the word fascist where you should use totalitarian. Totalitarian systems are far older than fascism. Fascism to me is a phenomenon which happened in Italy during the first half of the 20th century and here in Italy when we use the word fascism we mean that. So you can't say that there are more kinds of fascism, unless you widen the meaning of the word. If you used fascist and meant totalitarian then I agree with you. But don't call me a liar, please.
You must differentiate Fascism from fascism.
Big F Fascism was the italian government
Though it could be argued that the difference between fascism and effective communism is nil. China for example is "Comunist" but allows some capitalism.
I'm going to have take this to the third way myth.
Id say fascism, and communism(effective) are the same in the reign of governments. Lets call them 10 on a number line.
Then at 0 would be total anarchy, around 1/2 to 2 would be theoretical communism. Then straddling the middle around 5 to 7 would be republics, true democracies taking the 4.
CaptnMorgrim,
differentiate political enemies and races, because that is most of my opposition with Cyber-Dave, then add Soviet russia, Red China, 1800's America, and as many other governments as you can think of to the checklist. I like it allot, and can only hope for greatness on its improvement.
differentiate political enemies and races
Is it less morally reprehensible to kill someone because they say that they don't like your governmental philosophy then it is to kill someone because they had a Jewish mother or father? Does the word minority in some way connotate racial minority instead of political minority?
Though it could be argued that the difference between fascism and effective communism is nil.
I will agree with that. China's actions against Tibet are reprehensible, as were Soviet Russia's actions against their own people, and those actions happened for much the same reason that fascist governments commit atrocities. However, it is important to make a distinction between effective communism and theoretical communism... aka Marxism. Effective communism breaks down, and stops working as it is theoretically meant to be implemented. History has taught us this. One of the major problems with fascism is that committing atrocities is not against its theory. Fascism, theoretically, is fully within its intended modus operandi when it commits acts of atrocity (so long as those acts somehow help to propagate the myth, the nation, or the right to rule).
I'm going to have take this to the third way myth.
Id say fascism, and communism(effective) are the same in the reign of governments. Lets call them 10 on a number line.
Then at 0 would be total anarchy, around 1/2 to 2 would be theoretical communism. Then straddling the middle around 5 to 7 would be republics, true democracies taking the 4.
Or split them into two axes (preferably more, but I'm two tired to think in more than two dimensions right now): For example cultural and economic (for now). Any one-dimensional political spectrum is a gross oversimplification, and ratings aren't of much use. Total anarchy would be way down, smack in the middle, communism would be way left, authoritarianism up and capitalism to the right. Fascism would then lie high on the vertical axis and lean slightly to the left.
You must differentiate Fascism from fascism.
Honestly the wider definition of fascism seems to me quite wide but I see what you mean.
What does define fascism then? Several of the points listed for the comparison between Nazism and Fascism do not apply to the dictatorship in Chile but I see the tendency to call that a fascist govenment.
Is the definition due to the methods the government uses to enforce his control on the people only or is there something more?
No, philosophers use those terms (ethics & morals) interchangeable. There is only moral or immoral action. You can call them "good" or "evil" for "moral" and "immoral" if you like, but it doesn't change the structure of the arguments.
Okay, I concede the point.
Again, it is just a specific form of social contract, but certainly not the only form.
Didn't say that. Modern dictatorships are also dependend on social contracts, because they legitimate their rulership as if the people (or at least the majority) agreed with them.
Monarchy is not a modern state form. The ruler does not have to legitimate his actions to the public in any way. His rule is legitimated by a higher authority, i.e. god. Since social contracts are made not between individual and government, but between individuals, the term does not apply here.
A contract is morally binding because it creates moral duties for each of the parties. The existence of third parties (such as a court system) to objectively enforce it is beside the point. In fact, explicit contract is the primary way moral duties are created (there are others, but those are beyond the scope of this thread.)
I think the moral duties within contracts are an illusion. There is always a downside to breaking one, whether it's bad for business, assassination attempts, severing social ties, and so on. Also, contracts are made because the parties involved get something out of it. Primarily, they follow the contract out of personal gain or fear of personal loss, not because it's morally right or they agree that the contents of the contract are morally right.
No, social contracts operate by implicit consent, not explicit. No one living today was asked their consent to the US Constitution. In the case of the Confederacy, it was clearly over and above their wishes.
You could say that remaining on US territory and be a law abiding citizen is enough to agree to the specific social contract that is the consitution. If they wouldn't, they'd revolt or withdraw.
PS: Erleni, if you desperately need something to be proud of, be proud of those Italians who risked and lost their lives to oppose the Italian and German Fascists.
Hello CaptnMorgrim,
even here history has been more complicated than you put it. A lot of the people who actively opposed Fascism (the Partisans) where no better than the Fascists themselves. What happpend right after the second world war is a clear example of that. See the recent book "Il sangue dei vinti" (The blood of those who lost) by Gianpaolo Pansa.
Most of the common people did not really understood if they were fighting for good or evil, they where simply given a gun and told that they had to shoot the enemy.
Hello CaptnMorgrim,
even here history has been more complicated than you put it. A lot of the people who actively opposed Fascism (the Partisans) where no better than the Fascists themselves. What happpend right after the second world war is a clear example of that. See the recent book "Il sangue dei vinti" (The blood of those who lost) by Gianpaolo Pansa.
Most of the common people did not really understood if they were fighting for good or evil, they where simply given a gun and told that they had to shoot the enemy.
If the enemy was a fascist, they were doing something right... ;)
Okay, I concede the point.
Didn't say that. Modern dictatorships are also dependend on social contracts, because they legitimate their rulership as if the people (or at least the majority) agreed with them.
Monarchy is not a modern state form. The ruler does not have to legitimate his actions to the public in any way. His rule is legitimated by a higher authority, i.e. god. Since social contracts are made not between individual and government, but between individuals, the term does not apply here.
I think the moral duties within contracts are an illusion. There is always a downside to breaking one, whether it's bad for business, assassination attempts, severing social ties, and so on. Also, contracts are made because the parties involved get something out of it. Primarily, they follow the contract out of personal gain or fear of personal loss, not because it's morally right or they agree that the contents of the contract are morally right.
You could say that remaining on US territory and be a law abiding citizen is enough to agree to the specific social contract that is the consitution. If they wouldn't, they'd revolt or withdraw.
I think you are getting the social contract mixed up with reality. Its not. Its a myth. It exists as a theory, and not some agreement between people and country that actually took place. Modern dictatorships are no more (or less) beholden to the social contract then anyone else, but the people of a country did not necessarily elect the dictator into power. Many dictators manage to enforce their will against an unwilling majority due to a powerful military presence. It doesn't meant that they are not affected by the theory of the social contract. Its just not practiced in reality...
Even monarchies are beholden to the theory. The idea is that god ordained their rule, they rule in gods will, but they must rule BY gods will. Gods will is for the good of the people. The monarch is suppose to look after his people and treat them well. They give up their freedom so that he can in turn give them safety. Again, theory and reality do not always match up...
If the enemy was a fascist, they were doing something right... ;)
If life was so easy...
Modern dictatorships are also dependend on social contracts, because they legitimate their rulership as if the people (or at least the majority) agreed with them.
Monarchy is not a modern state form. The ruler does not have to legitimate his actions to the public in any way. His rule is legitimated by a higher authority, i.e. god. Since social contracts are made not between individual and government, but between individuals, the term does not apply here.
Again, there's no difference. "Government" is just shorthand for agents acting in concert. If the agents in a monarchy throw up their hands and quit, it falls just like anything else. It is only the fact that they and the serfs/citizens keep supporting it which gives it any moral credence under SCT.
I think the moral duties within contracts are an illusion.
No more illusiory than morality itself. Contracts are predicated on natural rights, self-ownership and thus the ability to trade. Even simple trade itself is a form of contract. And there are plenty of good arguments for why contracts are morally binding (the principle of estoppel being my personal fav), but again, they're way OT here.
You could say that remaining on US territory and be a law abiding citizen is enough to agree to the specific social contract that is the consitution. If they wouldn't, they'd revolt or withdraw.
That is exactly what SCT says. Of course it also morally validates nations like North Korea (gulags and all!) where people could, if they so desired, revolt against the leisure-suited despot.
Of course, the social contract sweeps the alternatives under the rug and ignores the economics of human action. It ignores the amount of blackmail a government might threaten you with, like a robber with a gun, to take away everything that's of value to you.
What about that state in Heinlen's Starship Troopers novel? In a sense, didn't it combine democratic and fascist traits- the belief that All Political Power is Force, but decision making by vote (vote being restricted to ex-soldiers)
Yes. That government is a sort of democrofascism.
even here history has been more complicated than you put it.
Thus spake the one who simplified history to explain the rise of Italian fascism by drawing on a wrong example, the rise of the German Reich.
A lot of the people who actively opposed Fascism (the Partisans) where no better than the Fascists themselves.
Sorry for taking sides here, but when there are 2 buggers, one fighting for the Nazis and the other against them, I sure 'd side with the one whose 's not fighting for an inhumane, nay, barbaric regime which tries to control every aspect of public and private life with deadly consequences for those who don't fit the regime's standard...
Hell, I 'm not inclined to say that the Allies' strategies, tactics, or ideologies, were flawless and perfect, or that the Allies always prime examples of virtue, humanity and reason (even far from that, when one thinks of Stalin...).
But I guess you need to be reminded that the brutal oppression of dissenters and groups not fitting the standards set by the "Mythology" was hardwired in the very core of f/Fascism.
Example: The USA imprisoned Japanese citizens and US citizens of Japanese descent in "War Relocation Camps". While the financial, physical and psychological damage the U.S. did to them, most of them its own citizens, was great and intolerable for a democracy, the USA did NOT systematically kill them or work them to death like the Nazis did.
Did they use their hair for stuffing pillows? Pry the gold out of their teeth? Or did they tie them to trees and make them swallow Castor Oil?
Sure, they imprisoned them on largely fabricated grounds of espionage and sabotage, with a crucial racist undertone. But still, the answer is: No!
What happpend right after the second world war is a clear example of that.
Care to elaborate? If the Partisans committed acts of cruelty, I won't deny it, but due to reasons given above, I 'm inclined to think that these acts wouldn't be on the same scope compared to what the Fascists did. Plus, while the legal/democratic system that superseded fascism may have been too lenient in prosecuting these acts, I also find that in many other instances, many fascists got away with what they did during their reign all too easily. Sure, there were some executions at Nuremberg (question: Does this also count as cruelty?), and many maybe didn't know what they had to fight for, but many a former Nazi continued with their ideology unbroken. Re-Education, indeed.
Also: The infamous "Ignorance of the masses" is one hell of a big pile o' crap: "Oh, our Jewish neighbours have left over night, some beggars and the noisy Commie kids partying next door were rounded up last night and taken away, and those Gypsies don't come to our town any longer. And cousin Otto - you know the one with the *whisper/whisper* - doesn't write us any longer from the clinic he 's staying in. Still, everything 's fine."
Even more, people were encouraged to denounce their neighbours if they suspected of not doing what the regime expected, like listening to foreign radio stations. So I call BS if anybody tries to use that sorry excuse.
Thus spake the one who simplified history to explain the rise of Italian fascism by drawing on a wrong example, the rise of the German Reich.
Sorry for taking sides here, but when there are 2 buggers, one fighting for the Nazis and the other against them, I sure 'd side with the one whose 's not fighting for an inhumane, nay, barbaric regime which tries to control every aspect of public and private life with deadly consequences for those who don't fit the regime's standard...
Hell, I 'm not inclined to say that the Allies' strategies, tactics, or ideologies, were flawless and perfect, or that the Allies always prime examples of virtue, humanity and reason (even far from that, when one thinks of Stalin...).
But I guess you need to be reminded that the brutal oppression of dissenters and groups not fitting the standards set by the "Mythology" was hardwired in the very core of f/Fascism.
Example: The USA imprisoned Japanese citizens and US citizens of Japanese descent in "War Relocation Camps". While the financial, physical and psychological damage the U.S. did to them, most of them its own citizens, was great and intolerable for a democracy, the USA did NOT systematically kill them or work them to death like the Nazis did.
Did they use their hair for stuffing pillows? Pry the gold out of their teeth? Or did they tie them to trees and make them swallow Castor Oil?
Sure, they imprisoned them on largely fabricated grounds of espionage and sabotage, with a crucial racist undertone. But still, the answer is: No!
Care to elaborate? If the Partisans committed acts of cruelty, I won't deny it, but due to reasons given above, I 'm inclined to think that these acts wouldn't be on the same scope compared to what the Fascists did. Plus, while the legal/democratic system that superseded fascism may have been too lenient in prosecuting these acts, I also find that in many other instances, many fascists got away with what they did during their reign all too easily. Sure, there were some executions at Nuremberg (question: Does this also count as cruelty?), and many maybe didn't know what they had to fight for, but many a former Nazi continued with their ideology unbroken. Re-Education, indeed.
Also: The infamous "Ignorance of the masses" is one hell of a big pile o' crap: "Oh, our Jewish neighbours have left over night, some beggars and the noisy Commie kids partying next door were rounded up last night and taken away, and those Gypsies don't come to our town any longer. And cousin Otto - you know the one with the *whisper/whisper* - doesn't write us any longer from the clinic he 's staying in. Still, everything 's fine."
Even more, people were encouraged to denounce their neighbours if they suspected of not doing what the regime expected, like listening to foreign radio stations. So I call BS if anybody tries to use that sorry excuse.
You're missing my point. During the civil war (fascists against partisans) most on the people on both sides were common people who did not really know what was going on. The average guy in the italian army, before the 8th of September 1943, was a simple soldier of his own country. The fact that fascism was leading the country didn't make this poor guy better or worse.
By the way most of the soldiers on the fascist side never committed a "fascist" act in their lives. Members of the party probably did everything you mentioned (and probably something worse) but the average soldier didn't and wouldn't do those things.
My grandfather was a soldier in the italian army. You would have probably called him a fascist for this reason but he never was a militant (actually he was socialist). After the 8th of September the Nazis sunk the ship he was on with a torpedo, captured all the people who escaped the sinking ship and imprisoned them in camp on the polish border. The few who survived where able to leave the camp only after the russians bombed it in 1945.
Do not think that all the people who fought on the fascist side where evil guys. Many of them had no other choice or couldn't even think about a different choice. They were young guys who were raised as farmers, could barely read and write and had no clue of politics or whatever. Those living in the mountains like most of the Alpini had never seen a Jew or a Gypsy in their own lives.
So a partisan fighting against the fascists could have easily killed somebody who had no clue about what was going on and was honestly thinking that he was defending his own country against invaders.
I completely agree about all the rest you said. The holocaust has been the biggest evil of 20th century (and most likely of all history) and thanks God it has been stopped.
Do not think that all the people who fought on the fascist side where evil guys.
Never said that, I said that I still side with the partisans, as I have the option to do so from a historical, political and philosophical point of view. Another point is that even if many Italian people thought in those days that the fascists were the good guys, then we can cite history that they actually weren't.
I 've met a few people during my studies, who were the sort of old geezers you 'd meet every day, quirky, a tad senile, even likeable up to a point. But when they talked politics, they still reeked of the Nazi ideology, no chance of ever seeing what horrendous things the Nazis did, many went even further by denying it. I know the reasons why they supported the Nazi Regime but, still, knowing the reasons doesn't make their choice acceptable by any standard.
All in all: The problem are those who still adhere to the fascist ideology or parts of it, think of it fondly, and to whom any positive mention of fascism is a foot in the door to spout the same olde bilge either in the same olde fashion (the Revisionists like David Irving) or in a new cunning disguise (like the Nouvelle Droite's take on culture). Just to make everything clear: I don't think the Nazis 'll march the streets again like in the 1930s, but that the main problem is the persistance of their ideology in popular memory, which still may influence politics and society for the worse. Which is also why I responded so emotionally in my first post.
Cheers!
Captn M.
As to the two axis system, it is very hard to differentiate freedom of the political, and freedom of the material, as they are very much intertwined if not are the same. They are at most a 60 degree angle to each other, but more likely around 30 degrees.
As to the differentiation between racial and merely political imprisonment, it has a great different long standing effect. Race is not chosen and thus causes a long standing and bitter divide that lasts centuries: Black VS white in America, Hebrew VS Arab in the middle east, etc. While political imprisonment does not leave such deep scars. there is now very little emphasis on communism, that divide lasted only a few decades.
All in all: The problem are those who still adhere to the fascist ideology or parts of it, think of it fondly, and to whom any positive mention of fascism is a foot in the door to spout the same olde bilge either in the same olde fashion (the Revisionists like David Irving) or in a new cunning disguise (like the Nouvelle Droite's take on culture). Just to make everything clear: I don't think the Nazis 'll march the streets again like in the 1930s, but that the main problem is the persistance of their ideology in popular memory, which still may influence politics and society for the worse. Which is also why I responded so emotionally in my first post.
Cheers!
Captn M.
Fully agree. Cheers.
I completely agree about all the rest you said. The holocaust has been the biggest evil of 20th century (and most likely of all history) and thanks God it has been stopped.
I've taken the liberty to highlight the portion I would like to dispute.
The Nazi heirarchy managed to reach unbeleivable numbers in their genocide, but I would hardly call the 22 million or so deaths as the worst of all time. Taking into account the murder of Jews, Czechs, Poles, Slavs, Rom, and the intellectuals, homosexuals and dissidents within the Nazi sphere at it's height, they still didn't match the Soviet casualties under Stalin. And that's in the same century. If we open it up to all time, the Catholic church and the United States may be tied.
Although, to a degree they may both be partially responsible for the staggering number of victims of the final solution of "the Indian problem" in the Americas. No one will ever know the exact figures on that prolonged campaign of extinction.
The Catholic church had carte blanche when it came to the wholesale slaughter of it's enemies in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas for many centuries. Once again, we'll never have an accurate accounting of the number of victims.
Genocide isn't exclusive to Fascism, Nazism, religion, Democracy or despotism. You'll find that it crosses all the forms of government or belief. When a people come to blame another ethnicity, religion or political affiliation for their problems, you can expect to see genocide rear it's ugly head.
My apologies for the off-topic rant.
I've taken the liberty to highlight the portion I would like to dispute.
The Nazi heirarchy managed to reach unbeleivable numbers in their genocide, but I would hardly call the 22 million or so deaths as the worst of all time. Taking into account the murder of Jews, Czechs, Poles, Slavs, Rom, and the intellectuals, homosexuals and dissidents within the Nazi sphere at it's height, they still didn't match the Soviet casualties under Stalin. And that's in the same century. If we open it up to all time, the Catholic church and the United States may be tied.
Although, to a degree they may both be partially responsible for the staggering number of victims of the final solution of "the Indian problem" in the Americas. No one will ever know the exact figures on that prolonged campaign of extinction.
The Catholic church had carte blanche when it came to the wholesale slaughter of it's enemies in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas for many centuries. Once again, we'll never have an accurate accounting of the number of victims.
Genocide isn't exclusive to Fascism, Nazism, religion, Democracy or despotism. You'll find that it crosses all the forms of government or belief. When a people come to blame another ethnicity, religion or political affiliation for their problems, you can expect to see genocide rear it's ugly head.
My apologies for the off-topic rant.
This is some of the biggest crock of bull I have ever read. Stalin MAY be tied, MAY surpass, or MAY have killed less people. Its very hard to tell because the evidence was hidden a lot better. And, one has to take into account that the Nazi's tried very hard to hide evidence of their crimes as well. It is quite possible that many deaths that should have been attributed them have not, as of yet. Any sort of empirical comparison between the deaths the two caused is impossible. And even trying to put the actions of America on the same playing field is an EVEN bigger joke. America as responsible for even close to the number of deaths caused by Hitler or Stalin? Aside from the fact that comparing all the deaths America has caused to the deaths that another nation caused under ONE leader alone is a little bit of a lopsided comparison, I don't believe that the death toll would STILL come anywhere close. There is both no evidence to support this fact, and the lack of evidence to support this fact suggests that it is not true. What is more, America tends to cause deaths to other countries during wartime. I'm not saying that this is admirable. It is certainly not. But there is certainly something to note about the difference in causing deaths to your own population, and causing deaths to a population with which you are at war.
I'm not a big fan of America either... at least Bush era/Republican America. But to even put America in the same playing field as Hitler and Stalin is nothing more than propaganda and bologna.
As for Hitler and Stalin, they certainly deserve to be in the same playing field, but any sort of empirical quantification as to which of them caused more suffering is likewise impossible. There is just no way to know.
It went democrat through the same time as the fascists existed and then its pretty much been back and forth.
As to deaths caused by Russia and Germany, I remember Russia having several orders of magnitude greater off hand.
Fascism really has its roots in the great depression, and world war one. The fascist movements in America for example were trying to re-create the economy America had during the first world war... All the others were revolutionaries who gained power because they were able to play off the suffering caused by the economic crisis and use the redistribution of wealth to, in effect, bribe the masses with promises of jobs and/or free money.
Although bribing the masses with their own money is ultimately ineffective, the fascist movements gained power through socialism.
In truth, the reason I created this thread was to analyze Fascism deeply to understand its symptoms and how it gains power. I see a great deal too much cooperate power being unified wit the government. This is in fact a part of the fascist economic system. Should there be the creation of worker armies or the increased movements of certain police forces, especially the Bureau of Tobacco and Firearms or IRS.
As to deaths caused by Russia and Germany, I remember Russia having several orders of magnitude greater off hand.
You remember off hand? So, you remember seeing the piles of bodies off-hand? You see these piles of bodies personally? As far as I know, to date, nobody is really 100% certain how many people either Stalin or Hitler killed. There was once a 6,000,000 jews number floating around, but this number has been proven to be grossly underestimated since then. Nobody knows exactly how many... in either case. If you are going to pretend that they do, then please cite a source that proves this as a fact (or at least claims it as a fact).
that said I'll read the thread!Please keep your posts polite, respectful, and on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.
Please refrain from personal attacks and flaming, these are violations of the Code of Conduct. You can review the Code here: http://forums.gleemax.com/community_coc.php. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Russia seems to have been moving steadily towards a modern fascism before the global economic recession hit. I see the rise of Vladimir Putin and the Oil oligarchs, who are really a lot of recycled KGB mixed in with youthful fanatics bred to the idea of the good old days of empire and Russia's manifest destiny in Eastern Europe. I know people like to see sources, so here are a few links:
Medvedev vs Putin: An article calling in to question whether Putin, who is constitutionally no longer the "leader" of Russia, or his handpicked predecessor Medvedev, actually wields the power of the presidency. Putin seems to preempt Medvedev in proclamations of national importance, and has occasionally even publically contradicted him. When that happens, Russia inevitably follows the course that Putin has declared.
The Putin Youth: The youth group "Nashi" is designed to indoctrinate young people into the current "myth" of Putin's Russia. The group also reportedly gets training in specific pro-liberal and pro-democracy "enemies of the state" as well as paramilitary training. Their curriculum is full of anti-Western sentiment and ultra-nationalism.
A judo video and Putin's reported fight with a Siberian Tiger might be simply over-the-top publicity stunts, but seem to me to reflect a growing movement to build a cult of personality around the figure of Vladimir Putin.
I have attempted above to show that Putin is on the way to becoming (I would argue has already become) a dictator in all but name, with a cult of personality strong and growing. The Nashi (or Putin Youth) organization is a clear example of indoctrination of the nationalist "myth". Note that it is not the only such example, the National media regularly glosses over bad news and relies on the government to approve their broadcasts. There is no independent media in Russia. This Nashi movement is also reminiscent of citizen or worker armies alluded to by the OP.
This post is already off topic, and longer than I meant it to be, but there is plenty of other evidence I had to prove other points, all of which suggests that Russia is on the verge of becoming an outright Fascist dictatorship and oligarchy. If anyone posts a response, I may put that information up along with my further arguments.
If nobody responds, I guess my post was too off-topic and I'll go away:P .
I'm not a big fan of America either... at least Bush era/Republican America. But to even put America in the same playing field as Hitler and Stalin is nothing more than propaganda and bologna.
I wasn't putting Bush on that level. I was talking about the program of genocide that started long before there even was a United States here and continued into the first half of the last century.
I get a little sick of hearing about the genocides in the world and people here aren't even aware of the systematic destruction of the cultures that existed in the very same places they now live. You want to talk about atrocity? People like me are used as mascots. Next time you hear a Washington Redskins score on ESPN, substitute an racial slur for your ethnicity and tell me it's a crock.
My people once controlled Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, part of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, part of Texas and part of northern Mexico. Thanks to the genocide that didn't happen, there's less than 2000 of us left. My grandfather, like his grandfather before him were followers of a religion still outlawed in the United States. Go on, tell me the Soviets and Nazis were worse.
My people once controlled Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, part of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, part of Texas and part of northern Mexico. Thanks to the genocide that didn't happen, there's less than 2000 of us left. My grandfather, like his grandfather before him were followers of a religion still outlawed in the United States. Go on, tell me the Soviets and Nazis were worse.
A lot of Americans are hesitant (to put it mildly) to call the settling of the United States a genocide, wrapped up as it is in our sense of identity and national history. But it is true. From being the only people in a large, bountiful, and beautiful continent the Native Americans were hunted, exterminated, and driven off their lands. Strategies for accomplishing this included attacks on civilian villages, forced marches where the welfare of the people marching was actively attacked, germ warfare through smallpox infested items, substance addiction via alcohol, mass exterminations of the food supply . . . just to name a few.
I'm not pointing fingers, because nobody alive now was there during these tragedies. But pretending they didn't happen or denying who was responsible (settlers and all European comers to the new world) is ridiculous and downright scary.
response to goblin_pride
I wasn't putting Bush on that level. I was talking about the program of genocide that started long before there even was a United States here and continued into the first half of the last century.
I get a little sick of hearing about the genocides in the world and people here aren't even aware of the systematic destruction of the cultures that existed in the very same places they now live. You want to talk about atrocity? People like me are used as mascots. Next time you hear a Washington Redskins score on ESPN, substitute an racial slur for your ethnicity and tell me it's a crock.
My people once controlled Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, part of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, part of Texas and part of northern Mexico. Thanks to the genocide that didn't happen, there's less than 2000 of us left. My grandfather, like his grandfather before him were followers of a religion still outlawed in the United States. Go on, tell me the Soviets and Nazis were worse.
@ Nyronus,
Question 1: Is it perfectly morally acceptable or "Good" to make use of another person's situation by turning said situation to one's own gain, e.g. them having to spend their strenght, vitality, and lifetime to work for one's profit? Even more so, if said profit is far greater in comparision to what said person earns for their work?
Yes.
Question 2: Wouldn't be fair if said profit were shared equally?
No. Not if the value of the work was not the same.
In short, you can't have read much Marx, matey.
Cheers!
Capt M.
I would go through how many logical fallacies are inherent in this post, on top of a number of bad premises swiped straight from Marxist rhetoric, but I've all but given up on the off-topic forum. Seem to me that you've read too much. Also, tossing loaded questions at me and accusing me of being ignorant does not equate with breaking the Marx-Mussolini connection.
Have a nice day.
Culture is an artificial identity construct which may be productive or counter productive. For example the culture of the planter south has been destroyed, and it was a counter productive culture for its arbitrary rulings based of race.
Do not assume the destruction of a culture is evil (that is counterproductive).
I wasn't putting Bush on that level. I was talking about the program of genocide that started long before there even was a United States here and continued into the first half of the last century.
I get a little sick of hearing about the genocides in the world and people here aren't even aware of the systematic destruction of the cultures that existed in the very same places they now live. You want to talk about atrocity? People like me are used as mascots. Next time you hear a Washington Redskins score on ESPN, substitute an racial slur for your ethnicity and tell me it's a crock.
My people once controlled Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, part of Iowa, Kansas, Oklahoma, part of Texas and part of northern Mexico. Thanks to the genocide that didn't happen, there's less than 2000 of us left. My grandfather, like his grandfather before him were followers of a religion still outlawed in the United States. Go on, tell me the Soviets and Nazis were worse.
I'm sorry. I was sort of picturing modern cultures, as in cultures that were only created in modern day times, only. My bad. You are right, what was done to Native American cultures WAS a crime just as bad as any perpetrated by Hitler or Stalin. I would like to point out though, its not a crime of which only the USA is guilty. Spain, Britain, France, and Canada should all get their fair share of the blame for that as well. No, I am not saying this takes away any of the blame from America. In fact, I would rather put all the blame on America if I could... as a Canadian it would make me feel a lot better. However, my country is no less guilty. Indeed, along with America and Australia we are one of the only three countries in the world which does not want to sign the indigenous peoples act proposed by the UN.
I would like to point out though, its not a crime of which only the USA is guilty. Spain, Britain, France, and Canada should all get their fair share of the blame for that as well. No, I am not saying this takes away any of the blame from America. In fact, I would rather put all the blame on America if I could... as a Canadian it would make me feel a lot better. However, my country is no less guilty.
Why do you look for a place to lay blame? I was pointing out that it's not only Fascism, Nazism and Sovietism that waged genocide. Blame and guilt are pointless and should be discarded. If you want to feel guilty and act apologetically, take steps to ensure that it doesn't ever happen again.
Alot of Native Americans feel like they're second-class citizens because no one is taught the cultures and languages that did bind us to each other. They aren't aware of who they are, who their ancestors are and as a result who their children and future relations will be. They live as a conquered people and accept that theirs is a lost cause. That is a slight to their creator and yours.
I find similarity between Native Americans and other people within the world. The Jews under Nazi rule suffered just as we have. The Palestinians under Israeli rule suffer as well. The tribal wars in Africa are far too numerous to list, but they suffer none the less. They fight and die for causes that are no more than smoke in the wind.
Mitakuye oyasin means loosely "we are all one nation", how is it that no one else can see it? I am one man. My family is small. My tribe is minor among the rest. But as a Kickapoo, I have kin among the Meskwaki, the Mingo, the Shawnee, the Pottawotami, the Tsalagi, and many others. Our tribes live among you. We are citizens of the United States as well. The United States is part of North America. North America is one of the two continents that make up the Greater America. North America is one of seven continents and there are people that were born and live on six of the seven. Am I any different than any other man born in any other part of this world? We are all one people, the differences are superficial.
Just a thought, although your milage may vary....
Why do you look for a place to lay blame?
My point was that it is hard to place blame, because many, many countries have had a hand in the act. I was not very clear. Sorry. I'm sort of exhausted right now.
I was pointing out that it's not only Fascism, Nazism and Sovietism that waged genocide.
Certainly not, and I don't think anyone here stated as much. Indeed, Fascism, Nazism, Sovietism, and all parties responsible in the genocide of the Native American peoples are not the only ones to commit genocide either. Darfur, Rewanda, Tibet... the list of atrocities in the world would not fit on two hands and two feat. Indeed, if you look to the earliest holy books, there are textual examples where "god" ORDERS a genocide!
Fasicsm is not the only governmental structure I am opposed to. Its still an incredibly evil one though...
Fasicsm is not the only governmental structure I am opposed to. Its still an incredibly evil one though...
Nothing is Evil. At least not in and of itself. A type of government isn't evil, although the desires of the people in control of that government may be. A gun is not Evil, although the motives of the person holding it may be. These things are tools, nothing more than a stick to pull termites from a mound like our chimpanzee cousins do. Seperating the malicious from the benevolent is the stuff of legend, but don't blame the hammer for it's misuse by the carpenter.
Nothing is Evil. At least not in and of itself. A type of government isn't evil, although the desires of the people in control of that government may be. A gun is not Evil, although the motives of the person holding it may be. These things are tools, nothing more than a stick to pull termites from a mound like our chimpanzee cousins do. Seperating the malicious from the benevolent is the stuff of legend, but don't blame the hammer for it's misuse by the carpenter.
And this is where I disagree with you. Certainly I see "evil" as a social construction. But, I'm sort of existential about that social construction. Morals are not dictated to us by god, but rather ourselves. But, we still do dictate morals. Fascism requires/facilitates certain very unsavory actions in order to operate. These unsavory actions fulfill every criteria which I attribute to the definition of evil. Fascism is evil, at least so far as I define evil. If you define evil as a forceful removal of rights and freedoms, often to the extent of removing life, from minority groups, then fascism is what you describe as evil as well.
Fascism is not the only governmental structure to be the cause of a genocide, but its one of those governmental structures which by its very nature REQUIRES unsavory activities in order to operate. You don't get fascism without a totalitarian military enforcing a myth for the sake of a nationalistic idea. And, that situation ALWAYS leads to the removal of rights and freedoms from SOME minority group which is part of the fascist civilian population (to a greater or lesser extent).
A fine hair, to be sure, but some things are just evil.
written in 2004 by Dr. Laurence Britt
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism
From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights
The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause
The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism
Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.
5. Rampant sexism
Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.
6. A controlled mass media
Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.
7. Obsession with national security
Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
9. Power of corporations protected
Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated
Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts
Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption
Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.
14. Fraudulent elections
Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.
Just gonna' throw this out there if it wasn't done prior (don't feel like sifting through 'x' # of pages of rhetoric and/or truth. I think this cuts to, captures, and epitomizes the spirit or template of fascism as it were.
Always insightful, to the point and provacative. Kudos, Ghost.
Always insightful, to the point and provacative. Kudos, Ghost.
Appreciated to be sure, respect and all 'GP', but I really didn't do anything special beyond cut n' paste a fast search on Yahoo. That is, as much as I'd like to take credit for it, those aren't my words. I'm just another nobody on here in terms of political positions, ie)not my strong suit at times.
I like to think I'm savvy in that way, but I have no illusions about it really. Now, we wanna' talk about my fields of study, gaming, religion/spirituality, military theory, history, psych, etc., yeah, maybe I might toss out a gem I'd been saving up, but the Dr. has me totally beat here.
I figure if you got something to say you're not well versed in, someone else probably said it better. Which is most cases and positions I traffic w/ on the forums
. Just cannibalizing other, better poli-sci thinkers, but I am grateful for the kind word...especially after just having my boss hand me my own head about 15 minutes prior cuz' I drank the rest of the coffee. If anything fascism encourages the dissolution of old religion and the worship of the state. Hitler was enemy to Jews and Christians and Mussolini originally wished to destroy religion, but allied with the Vatican as a political move to better gain the support of the masses. China also is officially atheist and banns Christianity.
I would like some deeper exploration of the form of the fascist government, especially that of Mussolini. A diagram of listing of the bureaucracy present in it and official policies taken.
All in all: The problem are those who still adhere to the fascist ideology or parts of it, think of it fondly, and to whom any positive mention of fascism is a foot in the door to spout the same olde bilge either in the same olde fashion (the Revisionists like David Irving) or in a new cunning disguise (like the Nouvelle Droite's take on culture). Just to make everything clear: I don't think the Nazis 'll march the streets again like in the 1930s, but that the main problem is the persistance of their ideology in popular memory, which still may influence politics and society for the worse. Which is also why I responded so emotionally in my first post.
.
Are you so sure?
This image of the fascist salute shows supporters of the current Mayor of Rome. Also the Italian President of the Chamber of Deputies (the lower house) as a young man:
http://www.cmostia.org/immagini/FINI%20BOIA.JPG width="40" height="100"
(The slogan is from his former Fascist followers who are angry that he left them to join the Centre right coalition and says "Don't be like him, don't betray (the cause)"
Extemist politics is rife in Italy - the left contains many communists just as the right contains many fascists (I mean actual fascists, not people I'd slag off by calling fascists). I spoke to school kids and one asked me, "So who're you with, Che Guevara or Mussolini?" I asked if there were any other options. (THough in practice in Italian schools it's more akin to Indie kids versus Hip hop kids than actual political belief).
We currently have the army on the streets as part of a law-enforcement drive. Hatred of Gypsies is intense, the Government has introduced finger printing of Gypsies. Television is pretty intensely controlled and Berlusconi has given himself immunity from prosecution since he was facing criminal corruption charges after bribing a judge and witness (David Miliband) in a case involving his dubious business practices.
Compare this to the US where Clinton had to answer for a blow-jobs or Israel where the (now former) President recently answered corruption charges and accepted the court's decision.
At the Metro station near where I work a newstand sells Mussolini Calenders and other Fascist memorabilia (and this is pretty common).
Most of the 14 points 1_ton_ghost mentioned are becoming prevalent).
So Fascism in modern Italy is not so far-fetched.
As to what it is I think the two cows joke sums it up prety well:
Capitalism - you have two cows, so you sell one and buy a bull.
Liberal Socialism - you have two cows so you give one to your neighbour.
Communism - the State takes both cows and gives you the milk.
Fascism - the State takes both cows and sells you the milk.
In other words you get the worst of Capitalism (without any of the potential freedoms) and the worst of Communism (without State welfare).
In this light a dividing line between Soviet-style Communism and proper fascism might be the fascist appropriation of religious tradition, and the belief in one race's supposed superiority and the manifest destiny of the fascist nation.
In fact a number of prominent business families attempted a Fascist coup in the US on the 21st November 1934.
Well in actual practice that's probably true and China is a case in point. But fascism is far more business friendly than true Marxism. Mussolini defined fascism as "The combination of State and corporate power".
In fact a number of prominent business families attempted a Fascist coup in the US on the 21st November 1934.
True, and "true Marxism" is something the world has never seen. Soviet Russia was definitely unfriendly to businesses, but modern Russia has taken the other extreme and empowered oil-fueled oligarchs, while China is now extremely friendly to business if not always individual businesses.
Kind of funny isn't it?
I have to disagree to a certain extent on your assessment of Point 8:
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together
Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.
... for at least Spanish and Austrian fascism fill this gap nicely. I 'd have to take a closer look at less well known fascist movements like the Hungarian one, before I can comment this any further.
But then, in regards to the German and Italian forms of fascism:
- The religious element of fascism was often tied to a new concept of religion. Even though Hitler wasn't that sort of esoteric nutjob as popular media portrayed him (actually, 'twas Himmler's fancy), the Nazi Movement celebrated itself and its elite religiously. Leni Riefenstahl's so-called documentaries on the Reichsparteitage (Nazi Party Conventions) clearly display this religious moment, and even Riefenstahl's work added to this religious moment, as it was far more being from distant and balanced...
- Opposition to the "godless" modern times (including godless science like psychoanalysis, communism, democracy,...), however was still a key-element of Nazism and Italian Fascism. They just used the terms of divinity differently than the established churches. Insofar, I agree that this point is not entirely correct, as the arrangement with the dominant religion was more a political consideration than an ideological one.
________________________
Ahoy there, Werral,
The picture is indeed a good point. I however doubt we 'll see the same level of violence and genocide, organized in the same old patterns. I should made that more clear, I 'll probably have to edit that. But, and that 's a big but, I find the situation in Italy is more in accordance with my statements than one 'd think at a first glance:
I don't think the Nazis 'll march the streets again like in the 1930s, but that the main problem is the persistance of their ideology in popular memory, which still may influence politics and society for the worse.
I hate quoting myself, but in this instance, given the political climate in some European countries, I 'd say that what we have here is exactly said persistance I 'm talking about. While xenophobia, racism and anti-semitism are the result of many factors, one of the most important ones would be the rise of rightwing extremist populism and its positive portrayal, e.g. (but not limited to) in the yellow press. All in all, these fascists are coming from another angle, not a (pseudo-)revolutionary one* with its own codes etc, but right from the middle of our society or societies. And that 's I think is where these problems have their roots and maybe even make fascist ideology all the more dangerous.
________________________
Yeah, modern "communism" seems to be a preferred path for underdeveloped countries to rapidly progress economically. Ironically, this form of government is poorly equipped to make the economic gains equitable and shared among the population. Modern communism is largely a top-down organizational structure that eschews personal enterprise in favor of national development, and private rights in favor of the collectivised "greater good". Also unfortunately this greater good is often hijacked by those in power for personal benefit.
Well said! I can naught but agree.
Cheers!
Captn M.
*(Pseudorevolutionary in this instance, because I tend to view a revolution per se as progressive thing, but a conservative revolution is a contradiction in terms in my book, as they strive to maintain the status quo.)
It's interesting also that Engels in Communis Manifesto (I think) affirms that after the revolution: "The State should wither away".
When historically that's exactly the opposite of what happened.
When you actually look at any political/economic theory and compare it to the actual practice, the two rarely match up.
That also goes to capitalism where we are now seeing massive State bail-outs to businesses (also agricultural subsidies and military research funds are examples of capitalist practice in the US and Europe that don't match a theoretical capitalism. In fact the IMF forbids 3rd world countries from granting agricultural subsidies - so they have to play "by the book" capitalism while we don't.
Fascism basically combines the all the worst aspects of communism with the worst of corporate big business.
I think the best defence against this is something that's written on all Italian law courts (though no-longer actually true since the President has legal immunity). "La Legge è uguale per tutti" - "The Law is the same for everyone".
I do wish that I could find a good translation for some of Mussolini's writing, if merely for the better understanding of propaganda, if not fascism and how to avoid it.
Its called fascism when its started by the middle,
and Communism when its started by the bottom,
but it always ends at the top.
Fascism calls the group "The State" communism "The People's Will"
However the communist manifesto, is in its entirety, what Mussolini calls the "myth"(propaganda). That is a set of ideals and ideas, which the people adopt with religious zealotry and is used to support the uprising that forms the dictatorship.
Still, there is a difference. The dictatorship is more clearly defined in the fascist myths and perpetuated for all eternity, indeed, its authoritharian rule is the main aim of fascism. Furthermore, if one is so inclined, we could compare whether it was the intention of the Manifesto to become "gospel" in comparision to the fascists' ideological basis like Mein Kampf. The later was indeed intended this way, being steeped in its irrationalism (where it meets with religion). This is also an aspect that made fascist movements more appealing for the ruling classes.
Since it became gospel and this is, indeed, where theorectical communism failed, as dictators adopted it, often adding a hefty dose of nationalism to the mix - Stalin's Soviet Union being the prime example. On a sidenote, some of the best analysises of totalitarian rule, like Adorno's and Horkheimer's studies on these matters, did not turn a blind eye on the Soviet regime, even they were Marxist themselves. To put it short: Marxism lend itself not only to (IMOa gross misappropriation of its ideas in the shape of) Soviet Communism, but even more so, it was fundamental for a ver important in-depth analysis of totalitarism and authoritarism. Nobody can claim that or something similar for about any fascist ideology. (Hell, even the Nouvelle Droite puts some distance between themselves and Nazism/Fascism by (ab)using communist author like Gramsci.) Sidenote of a sidenote: Furthermore, I 'd go as far as saying that the Critical Theory is more akin to Marx than Lenin, Stalin or any other Commie.
Also, I 'd like to challenge the term "myth" in this instance, as Marx and Engels based their works on political philosophy rather than a reactionary preconception of racial or national greatness. Their preconceptions could be labeled as rational, whereas the fascist movements' ideology were highly irrational or rather, anti-rationalist. The above mentioned Adorno and Horkheimer, however, critized the shortcomings of rationalism of the enlightenment as being the basis of capitalist rule.
Then it is used to set up the dictator as a heroic figure and guarantee that by his worship, so that the government will remain stable over its peons.
The Communist Manifesto itself did not support the single rule of a single dictator - a tad nitpicking, I know. As Cyber-Dave and I pointed out on page 2, there 's the difference between theorethical Communism and Communism as a totalitarian regime, and within these parameters, the Manifesto 'd fall within the former category.
The collective dictatorship of the proletariat can be quite rightly seen as a dictatorship, but within the context of Marxism, it was deemed not only a transistory state and an apt reply to Bourgeois/Capitalist dictatorship.
________________
Altruistic Fascism? That 's one hell of a great misconception. In fact, many forms of fascism found and still find the concept of altruism abhorent, and indeed, it is contrary to their competitive and supremative schemes. Perverted forms of altruism however may have persisted in this instance.
I've seen claim that Facism and communism come from the same root- altruism- taken to the extreme- the good of the group justifies mistreatment and sacrifice of individuals.
Those people miss the point of altruism. Altruism implies willing sacrifice. Fascism and communism are collectivist philosophies applied to sociology and economics, respectively.
Both are effectively the same. Most of the sentiment that they are different came from their own propaganda, to work off the hate of the other.
All you states, though they had a great difference, were difference in the propaganda.
But has there been an effective difference? Beyond that of the trivialities of weather or not a person actually has property, which tends to vary over time.
Both are effectively the same. Most of the sentiment that they are different came from their own propaganda, to work off the hate of the other.
All you states, though they had a great difference, were difference in the propaganda.
NBot really. The attempted fascist US coup was a case in point - it was backed by business interests and there is no way that they would have backed a communist coup. The peopel who backed communism were mostly the unemployed, industrial workers and Middle class intellectuals and their financing was from donations, Unions and crimianl activities. Those who supported Fascism/Nazism included major business interests as well as business interests. Even Nazism's Antisemitism probably appealed to some cynical individuals since German businesses/banks could seize Jewish assets.
I'd say that communism is a totalitarian form of socialism while fascism is a totalitarian form of corporate capitalism. The fact they often drift towards the same thing is part of the character of a totalitarian regime (the last line of Orwell's "Animal Farm" springs to mind).
Another major difference is fascism/Nazism's belief in social Darwinism - the "survival of the fittest". This goes directly against teh socialist idea. In Chairman Mao's Cultural Revolution for example, anyone bettering their peers was considered suspect - even soldier's who were better shots than their compatriots could be persecuted*. That's a horrible perverse extreme, but a more reasonable version is the Welfare State, which has as it's basis that someone shouldn't starve just because they can't find a job.
In Nazi Germany during the 30's they had 6 Foreign Offices. Why? Hitler would allow one guy to set up one, then someone else to set up another and there was the guy who already ran the original foreign office and another guy who rose through the ranks. The idea was that they should all try and those that failed should be weeded out. There was a lot of gross inefficiency in Nazi Germany as various leaders all tried to get one over on their peers.
Altrusim has nothing to do with Communism or Nazism - alturism is when you give something or do something for someone with no vested interest (giving money to someoen you've never met while no-one is looking is an example of altrusim), whereas these regime's played on "comraderi" the idea that you are part of a group and the interests of the group are paramount.
*The obvious irony is that Mao himself was raised to the status of divine being by the regime's propaganda.
You have a king, some worker armies, secret police* and way too many bureaucrats.
*There is the distinct possibility of using financial controls as a back door secret police force. Everybody loves a revolutionary, but hates tax fraud.
What distinguishes Willing collectivism from altruism? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" or "Love your neighbour as yourself"
Communism and fascism tried to enforce the idealogy when people didn't live up to it- that people ought to be completely willing sacrifice their needs for others (or The State As A Whole), and if they didn't, something was wrong with the people, to be fixed by re-education.
This is, however, the Objectivist argument- what are the errors in it?
The fundamental philosophy behind it is sacrifice, assumed to be willing. Treating your neighbour's needs as just as important, maybe even more important than your own (if you roll altruism and anti-selfishness together).
What distinguishes Willing collectivism from altruism? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" or "Love your neighbour as yourself"
Communism and fascism tried to enforce the idealogy when people didn't live up to it- that people ought to be completely willing sacrifice their needs for others (or The State As A Whole), and if they didn't, something was wrong with the people, to be fixed by re-education.
This is, however, the Objectivist argument- what are the errors in it?
For me the flaws in the argument are different for Communism and Fascism:
Marxist Leninism and Maoism both changed Marxism as written by positing that a a "vanguard of the proletariat" a small group, should lead the revolution for "the worker's" good. Once you had a small group leading then this concept of "enforced altruism" did not apply to everyone. Orwell put it perfectly: "All the animals are equal, but some are more equal than others."
Communist party members led privelidged lifestayles, not unlike the feudal nobility that preceded them. Calling Stalin "The Red Tsar" is actually pretty accurate and Mao followed the Chinese divine emperor tradition almost perfectly (but used Communist terminology).
In Fascism the concept "to each according to his needs" does not exist. The weak should die and the strong survive was at the heart of fascist ideology.
Captain Mogrim: I just re-read your post and I think your right about the fascist coming from a more "acceptable" position. Italian revisionism for example makes a strong effort to distinguish between Hitler and Mussolini even though such a distinction is meanignless. Yes anti-semitism was a key tenent of Nazism and not of Italian Fascism (which originally had many Italian Jews in its ranks). BUT, Mussolini did pass racial laws as a favour to his buddy Hitler - he was willing to have Jews exterminated as a political expedient, it was a calculated decision, which in my mind makes him worse than Hitler who was a rug-chewing maniac. Racism was still at the heart and sould of Fascism (not especially anti-semitism but contempt for other races such as Gypsies, blacks, arabs).
In the end Nazism caused more suffering than Italian Fascism simply because Germany was a more powerful country than Italy. Mussolinin didn't relally want to fight in WWII, he knew the country wasn't ready and woulsdn't be for 20 years. But after France's immediate capitulation he thought he might as well join in and share the booty. Of course Hitler was dumb enough* to invade the USSR and that pretty much sealed the doom of the the Axis (and if they stiull had any chance of winning the Japanese ended that in 1943 by attacking Pearl Harbor).
*Actually it was his own ideas, he held the Slavic races in utter contempt. So fascist racism contained the seeds of its own ruin.
Same principle with the Communist one.
Even if they had practiced what they preached absolutely, with the leaders being elected and having no privileges, no extra wealth, no purpose other than "to enact the will of the people" it STILL wouldn't have been morally right.
China also is officially atheist and banns Christianity.
China is officially atheist, but it doesn't ban Christianity. You are allowed to follow religion in China, as long as you understand you have to answer to Chinese law, not religious law.
China's got a lot of issues, but they are improving at a remarkable pace.
You are allowed to follow religion in China, as long as you understand you have to answer to Chinese law, not religious law.
You know, that is one thing that makes China look like a wonderful place to live. When people here figure out that their religion is not mine and stop trying to legislate their religious practices as the law of the land, then we will have at least tied China in this respect. I suppose a temple tax would be considered too much to bear, wouldn't it?
Oh, and they are having severe environmental issues. China's newfound prosperity is coming at a massive price.
You know, that is one thing that makes China look like a wonderful place to live. When people here figure out that their religion is not mine and stop trying to legislate their religious practices as the law of the land, then we will have at least tied China in this respect. I suppose a temple tax would be considered too much to bear, wouldn't it?
On the other hand, the communist party's ideals of urban development and advancement to the fore of international economics take the place of religious fundamentalism in guiding repressive policies. And there is not the moderating influence of a participatory democracay or a two-party system to slow the implementation of those policies. It seems to be obvious to me that America is still a much "freer" place to live.
China is officially atheist, but it doesn't ban Christianity. You are allowed to follow religion in China, as long as you understand you have to answer to Chinese law, not religious law.
China's got a lot of issues, but they are improving at a remarkable pace.
....Sure. It just utterly bans talking to other people about it, ever, in any way, or in meeting outside of state approved churches. Yessir, no religious oppression there. /sarcasm
Good, we're in agreement. What's the next topic?
Not so much. I just edited my post to note my sarcasm, especially with my final phrase.
Let me put it another way; I dare not say specifics on people who may, theoretically, be trying to help ministry in China in various ways, because, again theoretically, they might be arrested or deported. When they're doing absolutely nothing that actually harms the government, or the people of China.
China may be better than, oh...Vietnam, and a few other places, but it's not a good place to have religious beliefs.
Of course, I'm sure there are theoretically individuals on this board who think that's a good thing, but whatever.
www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/09/13/the-net-censors/
We would have defeated communism with honor instead of traitory, and save millions of (North)Koreans and Chinese of suffering.
Control of information is vital to a Comu-fascist state, because it allows them to propagate the myth/propaganda and thus keep control of the people.
Not so much. I just edited my post to note my sarcasm, especially with my final phrase.
Let me put it another way; I dare not say specifics on people who may, theoretically, be trying to help ministry in China in various ways, because, again theoretically, they might be arrested or deported. When they're doing absolutely nothing that actually harms the government, or the people of China.
If they would just register with the chinese government and followed the local laws, then they would be in no danger. I'm sorry you feel need to break the law to spread your faith.
edit: Not to mention the mindset of missionaries befuddle me. Why would you try so hard to shove your faith down the throats of people that have collectively decided they aren't interested? There aren't any places that haven't heard of christianity, anyone who isn't one now isn't going to change their minds because you whine at them.
If they would just register with the chinese government and followed the local laws, then they would be in no danger. I'm sorry you feel need to break the law to spread your faith.
edit: Not to mention the mindset of missionaries befuddle me. Why would you try so hard to shove your faith down the throats of people that have collectively decided they aren't interested? There aren't any places that haven't heard of christianity, anyone who isn't one now isn't going to change their minds because you whine at them.
Why should they have to register to discuss their faith and worship together?
As for "shoving faith down throats", you really just don't know how any of these peopel go about it. Besides, it's not the country as a whole that has decided this, it's a few people at the top who wish to control every aspect of their people's lives. The irony here is that Christianity is spreading widely in China, of the free voilition of those listening. Many stories I've heard from people who were there talk of people asking them about Christianity with notable interest, or saying things like "I'll believe if X happens" (which, oddly enough, X often happens; X being a miraculous healing and the like).
I'm sure there are places that haven't heard; remote tribes in various places. People raised in other countries that may have overall "heard" the Good News, but on a more local level know little of it. Or nations that have people who may write "Chrisitian" on a census, but don't really have such beliefs. Those people are often incredibly receptive, incidentally
Why do we do this? We're told to. We want to. To echo the words of Isaiah, the Word of God becomes like a fire in our bones, and many are called to go and give the chance to others to hear it. Sorry if this offends you.
Oh, and I totally dare the US government to try China's policy, and see what happens. :D
And people should register to be preachers in China because that is the law there! Whether you recognize it or not, you DO present a threat to the current ruling regime. Right or wrong, ruling regimes generally don't want to be overthrown. I don't have sympathy for people that go to other countries and break the laws there. If China wants to change the laws, then it's China's responsibility, not the responsibility of meddling foreigners who think they know better because their magical sky faery told them.
Well, at least christians would have a reason for whining. Considering the absolute stranglehold you have on politics though, it's not likely. It's about as likely for Iran to restrict islam.
And people should register to be preachers in China because that is the law there! Whether you recognize it or not, you DO present a threat to the current ruling regime. Right or wrong, ruling regimes generally don't want to be overthrown. I don't have sympathy for people that go to other countries and break the laws there. If China wants to change the laws, then it's China's responsibility, not the responsibility of meddling foreigners who think they know better because their magical sky faery told them.
Hm. So, by this logic, the Underground Railroad shouldn't have run. After all, they were going in from the North (or Canada) to the South and breaking laws concerning slaves. Or how about the Civil Rights movement last century? I mean, those oppressive laws were still law, after all.
See, this isn't just about preachers and church meetings over there. My understanding is that they can't even really sit down to have an informal Bible study among a half a dozen friends.
Tell me, if the government in China were instead restricting the right of, say, atheists to gather informally and talk about atheism, would you protest more? I'm calling for the people of China to be able to freely gather and run any kind of religious service, or gather for any kind of religious discussion. Christianity just happens to be the group I know about most directly.
China doesn't just fine these people. They jail them, beat them, torture them, and/or kill them. But hey, they deserve it, after all, they got together for a vicious round of Bible study. That's sure to upset the order and fabric of the nation! How dare they want free religious expression to believe in a God!
I'll finish by saying that, while typically Christians can be some of the meeker and more law-abiding citizens, you are pretty much guaranteed to have them break laws about not gathering or preaching. It hasn't worked since Rome. We'll face fines, deportation, imprisonment, torture, and death. Doesn't matter. Because ultimately, we answer to God, not men.
Tell me, if the government in China were instead restricting the right of, say, atheists to gather informally and talk about atheism, would you protest more?
We gather to speak about atheism now? Never heard of that myself, don't forget atheism as no structure. So no groups, no central writings to discuss and no apointed communal estates (churches....) to gather inside. Hell, we don't believe in any central concept, so there is no real thing to discuss. Except maybe the laws of the nation and the treatment of atheists at large.
I rather you continue this discussion in private or another thread, as it clearly steered in off-topic waters. Even more so, if somebody (not naming names here) sees this as an opportunity to spread the word again...
On the accounts of the people-who-were-there:
(Note Bear with me, this won't be off-topic for long, KD's tale gave me some inspirations)
Has it ever occured to you that said tales are often highly subjective (even more so if something supernatural is involved)? If you only happen to meet like-minded or interested people than your whole assessment of the situation is skewed in their or your own favour, even tho' I don't mean to disparage your missionary buddies' accounts. As a historian, I 'd like to point out that every "individual" impression/account has to be taken with a grain of salt. No, scrap that, with a huge ammount of salt.
E.g., An European Maoist group went to China in the 1970s and returned with good impressions from said trip. They spoke all too highly of the regime, with the Commie Utopia seeming to wait just around the corner.
Can one take them serious? Hell, yes, but only to a certain extent, as these accounts are not worthless at all. Still, one has to be all too aware that these impressions were highly influenced not only by their selective impression (and most likely, their guides' propaganda) but also by their own preconceptions about Maoist China. Same with Knights_Disciple's missionaries buddies, but the impressions taking a 180° turn in the other direction.
Back on topic (finally), said accounts of witnesses are even more problematic if they relate to a period such as German Nazism and Italian Fascism. These accounts cannot be seen or related to without the political context of said times and thereafter. The defeat of Nazi Germany gave the whole story another "spin" when people needed to excuse themselves. In the interviews I did with the former Nazis (which I refered to in one of my above posts), I found that they were more eager to talk about said times when it was technically off the record.
__________________________
On Fascism and Conservatism:
Now that we have discussed the parallels of communist and fascist regimes, I say it 's high time to discuss the parallels between conservatism and fascism. After all, that 's what Fascism so effective on its way to the top.
There were/are many crossovers between conservative and fascist/neo-fascist ideology (quoted from various historians):
- Authoritanism, the belief in the necessity of hierarchy and submission.*
- Scepticism towards egalitarism and democratic movements
- The primacy of nationalist view/concepts
- The ahistorical/essentialist view on nation/race/social status
- Intolerance of ambiguities, freedom of expression
- The tendency to refer to a crisis as a crisis of morale and values, turning it into a "cultural" crisis rather than the economical/social one it actually is.
- The easy adaption of new technology, medias and even cultural techniques in contrast to their own idealogy which often harbors contempt for anything "new" or "modern".
Issues where both differ are the definition of power and politics and the political system, with the fascist movements prefering the imagined unity of a leader and his people and the conservatives prefering a democracy of a strong authoritarian bent.
Another point of note is that conservatives had indeed less trouble with working in concert with the fascist movements. After all, they had a similar ideology, and the fascists did not only NOT THREATEN the status quo, but also use their myth to gloss over social friction by subjugating these frictions within the unity. Thus, it is far from the truth to believe that the fascists forced the strong to subjugate themselves to the "nation" and thus, weakening themselves. It is rather the case that nationalist/racial unity/superiority was formed to further the strong, hence the social darwinism...
______________________________
*An excourse on submission:
Submission under a collective interest is in fact not privy to communist and fascist regimes. In western countries, this submission is enforced via the supremacy of economical interests, the need to remain a productive member of the society in order to maintain your lifestyle, or at least, your continued survival. Or to put it simply in 2 phrases:
- "Wanna keep your job? Work harder and longer for less pay!"
- "Wanna have a halfway decent life? Take a couple of jobs to pay for it!"
As "Cardboard Capitalist" as they may seem, these phrases illustrate how the way the so-called democratic capitalist system works for the mayority of its subjects.
While there are some precautions which alleviate the problems of people who fail to be productive, they do so only to a certain extent. You soon might run into trouble if you don't wish to accept a job not befitting your education, or social benefits are only paid for a certain ammount of time, and so on. Furthermore, those who do not work are also of value for the continual run of the economy.
First of all, what little money they gain is invested into their continued survival, up to the point where the state might even finance part of their jobs (either directly or indirectly by granting a company certain rights, e.g. tax cuts).
Second, the army of those without job has the real life benefit of unwittingly putting pressure on their working peers, creating an amorphous mass that threatens the security of those with job
If this need to work is not submission than nothing is, for it curtails humanity's freedom and rights to lead a meaningful existence without fear and sorrow.
Cheers
Captn M.
Hm. So, by this logic, the Underground Railroad shouldn't have run. After all, they were going in from the North (or Canada) to the South and breaking laws concerning slaves. Or how about the Civil Rights movement last century? I mean, those oppressive laws were still law, after all.
That was an internal thing. You are talking about sending people to a foreign country. The underground railroad was American project. Americans have the right to change American laws. Americans do NOT have the right to change Chinese laws. And you're smart enough to know that, you just wanted to run the "Hurr hurr Count Arioch iz a RASIZT!!1! HURRR" angle. It insults two causes, the Abolitionist movement, and whatever the hell it is you champion.
Tell me, if the government in China were instead restricting the right of, say, atheists to gather informally and talk about atheism, would you protest more?
No. I don't give a rat's ass what China does, I don't live there.
China doesn't just fine these people. They jail them, beat them, torture them, and/or kill them
Yes. That's common knowledge. You people KNOW the penalty for that action. You go there and face it anyway. That doesn't make me admire you, that just makes me think missionaries are idiots. I didn't feel bad when that American kid got caned in Singapore for vandalism, he KNEW the penalty for breaking the law there, he CHOSE to break it anyway. Don't go to a foreign country and break their laws.
Because ultimately, we answer to God, not men.
And that's the problem right there. Although I agree that most Christians are decent people, and I get a long with most of them, a very small minority will follow what they think their non-existent deity regardless of where they are. The most prevalent terrorist groups in America today are pro-life groups. Although they make a small minority, there ARE Christians that have no compunction about murdering doctors and pregnant mothers and destroying medical centers because they don't answer to man, they answer to God.
And to make things worse, Christians have the worst persecution complex of anyone. If everyone else's thoughts aren't supressed, they cry "Oppression! Opression!" and make inane posts on gaming message boards.
That was an internal thing. You are talking about sending people to a foreign country. The underground railroad was American project. Americans have the right to change American laws. Americans do NOT have the right to change Chinese laws.
Actually, he's talking about breaking the laws, not merely changing them. And I'd really like to see a moral argument why it's ethical for Chinese citizens to break Chinese laws, but not for foreign citizens to break those same laws while visiting. The social contract applies equally to both individuals. This appears to be a conclusion created out of thin air.
I don't have an answer for that because that's not what I said. I am not prepared to debate a statement that was conjured out of thin ass then attributed to me.
Eh? Your words were plain enough to me--I even quoted you! If you wish to clarify, I'll wait.
I COULD accuse you of saying it's okay to break laws in other countries and not be punished for it, but I'm not a liar, and I don't make up stories in order to demonize people.
I COULD accuse you of saying it's okay to break laws in other countries and not be punished for it, but I'm not a liar, and I don't make up stories in order to demonize people.
Your argument jumps to conclusions. My thesis that it's wrong for foreigners to come in and change a country does not mean that I think it's okay for people in the country to break the law, it means I literally don't care what they do in their own country. It's their business.
The passage you quoted from me literally has no conceivable way of meaning what you said it does.
The Underground Railroad was a massive exercise in lawbreaking which you appeared to condone in your post. So it is your position that the Underground Railroad was, in fact, unethical by the virtue of its criminality?
That was an internal thing. You are talking about sending people to a foreign country. The underground railroad was American project. Americans have the right to change American laws. Americans do NOT have the right to change Chinese laws. And you're smart enough to know that, you just wanted to run the "Hurr hurr Count Arioch iz a RASIZT!!1! HURRR" angle. It insults two causes, the Abolitionist movement, and whatever the hell it is you champion.
No. I don't give a rat's ass what China does, I don't live there.
Yes. That's common knowledge. You people KNOW the penalty for that action. You go there and face it anyway. That doesn't make me admire you, that just makes me think missionaries are idiots. I didn't feel bad when that American kid got caned in Singapore for vandalism, he KNEW the penalty for breaking the law there, he CHOSE to break it anyway. Don't go to a foreign country and break their laws.
And that's the problem right there. Although I agree that most Christians are decent people, and I get a long with most of them, a very small minority will follow what they think their non-existent deity regardless of where they are. The most prevalent terrorist groups in America today are pro-life groups. Although they make a small minority, there ARE Christians that have no compunction about murdering doctors and pregnant mothers and destroying medical centers because they don't answer to man, they answer to God.
And to make things worse, Christians have the worst persecution complex of anyone. If everyone else's thoughts aren't supressed, they cry "Oppression! Opression!" and make inane posts on gaming message boards.
My entire point was that just because a country has a law, doesn't make it right. Blindly following laws just because they're there is dangerous. My focus on Christians is, in the end, incidental.
That said, what I'm advocating, and terrorist killings of abortion doctors, is vastly different. So I guess we're both unjustly attributing things to each other, eh?
Furthermore, we're not talking about blindly following laws. Well, maybe YOU are, I'm not. I'm saying if you choose to break a law, don't cry when you are dealt with according to the legal standards of the area you are in. Especially when said laws aren't as restrictive as you're pretending.
The Underground Railroad was a massive exercise in lawbreaking which you appeared to condone in your post. So it is your position that the Underground Railroad was, in fact, unethical by the virtue of its criminality?
No it isn't. Stop jumping to conclusions.
My thesis that it's wrong for foreigners to come in and change a country does not mean that I think it's okay for people in the country to break the law, it means I literally don't care what they do in their own country.
Now we've agreed that it is ethical for people to break laws which violate their morals (via the Underground Railroad example), and that this morality is universal--it applies to visitors and citizens/subjects alike.
So how is it immoral for "foreigners to come in and change a country" if the fundamental method of transation (in this case, trade of ideas) is, as we've just established, moral regardless of what the law says?
I didn't say it was ethical to break laws that you don't agree with. There are so many factors that you CANNOT make a generalization. Sharia states that a father must kill his daughter if someone rapes her regardless of what local laws say. The laws of Charlottesville, VA state that a woman cannot drive unless her husband is walking in front of her car waving a red flag. I can in fact believe it's okay to break the Charlottesville law but not okay to kill your own daughter because of a crime someone else committed on her. Absolutes render you unable to make informed decisions.
This is what I am saying, get it right:
If you go to a foreign country, regardless of your ethical standing, you WILL be subject to local laws. If you choose to break them anyway, you WILL be punished by it, and you have NO RIGHT to complain. If a country has laws that you find unethical, DON'T GO THERE.
I didn't say it was ethical to break laws that you don't agree with. There are so many factors that you CANNOT make a generalization.
Laws of the state are either morally subordinate to the natural rights of the people or they aren't. You seem to be trying to confuse this statement with feelings and subjective assessments. If there is an objective contingency to my first sentence, you can make it. But your assertion to the effect of, "reality is too complicated to determine morality," is false.
This is what I am saying, get it right:
Yes, if you break laws, you might suffer terrible violence. We all know this; there's nothing of interest to debate here.
That was an internal thing. You are talking about sending people to a foreign country.
Missionary work is by volunteering. They are mostly regular people w/ altruistic intent, not conscripts tossed to the wolves.
The underground railroad was American project.
Not really. It wasn't a project so much as a series of rescues and extensive subterfugue to subvert Confederate policy (though I thought Missouri was a Union state that had slavery prior to the Emancipation Proclamation).
The Union never officially condoned it or sponsored it really, though I suspect their were sympathizers w/ political clout or actual representatives that had a hand in it.
Americans have the right to change American laws.
They have no right to change law so much as introduce legislature, protest, organize petitions, and the like. You are confusing "right" w/ "privledge" in some aspects but I understand your platform nonetheless.
Americans do NOT have the right to change Chinese laws.
No one is arguing that.
We (our elected leaders) do have the right to apply political and economic pressure though, which often has a way of facilitating change of foreign law at times.
No. I don't give a rat's ass what China does, I don't live there.
Your apathy is disheartening. Not in my back yard, right?
Perhaps you might've cared were a lover/pet/child/etc. poisoned by slapdash Chinese exports as has been clearly illustrated w/in this year alone.
Perhaps you might've cared to know they are trafficing w/ the Sudanese and pumping in a ton of cash to a govt. that "doesn't give a rat's ass" about the ethnic cleansing in Darfor that much world opinion is trying to stop (namely the US).
What of the 75% of all rivers being uninhabbitable now in China? They don't just flow "in China only". Their environmental track record is abyssmal and is serving to undo alot of the green initiatives more "caring" countries are attempting.
I could go on given their litany of wretched humanitarian, worker, and social laws, but I'm guessing you probably don't care about that either, right?
I guess rather than you point out why you don't care, what would make you actually engage and start caring?
Yes. That's common knowledge. You people KNOW the penalty for that action. You go there and face it anyway. That doesn't make me admire you, that just makes me think missionaries are idiots.
I'd hold your tongue if I were you. Your opinion on alleged 3rd party idiocy is noted, but that's not exactly fair to all missionaries, helpful to the debate, or putting you in a credible/diplomatic light (just some free advice).
I would venture traveling to 3rd world Hell holes to stamp out malaria/AIDS/etc., combat illiteracy, provide shelter & agricultural aid isn't idiotic. I'd say that's fairly noble if anything. But those people "care" whether they are evangelizing or not. Had they "not given a rat's ass", alot more people would be dead, stupid, and breeding disease moreso than now.
Yes, you go to another land and subvert their laws, you gotta' face the music. That doesn't necessarilly make you an idiot, it depends entirely on motivation & end result really.
Are the soldiers and humanitarian workers that are providing schooling for Afghani women idiotic for being in defiance of Taliban rule/reign?
What of Mandella and the rest fighting Apartheid back in the day?
It's all relative per your world view and degree of humanity & law...
I didn't feel bad when that American kid got caned in Singapore for vandalism, he KNEW the penalty for breaking the law there, he CHOSE to break it anyway. Don't go to a foreign country and break their laws.
I don't think anyone felt bad for him, save his family. He wasn't a missionary or trying to help anyone though. Quite the contrary. Not a very good comparison.
Although I agree that most Christians are decent people, and I get a long with most of them, a very small minority will follow what they think their non-existent deity regardless of where they are.
And you make mention of idiocy on Christians you "get along with" while openly slandering and insulting them concerning your personal opinion and/or adoption of atheism? Your position is dizzying to say the least...
That thread is just a few doors over and not helpful here unless you're trying to pick a fight or protest the CoC. I mean, you're not, right?
Let sleeping giants lie or at least play nice w/ the other kids.
The most prevalent terrorist groups in America today are pro-life groups. Although they make a small minority, there ARE Christians that have no compunction about murdering doctors and pregnant mothers and destroying medical centers because they don't answer to man, they answer to God.
Firstly, there are no pro-life terrorist groups in this country, at least not according to the FBI, NSA, or CIA. Kinda' their ballpark, not our's, you know? If you should land an intelligence analyst position in their ranks and hear something to the contrary, by all means, that would be something indeed and make for a killer thread.
There ARE, however, some militant individuals that identify themselves as Christians that take up arms or committ acts of violence, not acts of terrorism in this country. And yes, they still answer to man despite grandiose posturing; they gotta' face sentencing, fine, and possibly incarceration. After they die, then perhaps they'll face God for their righteousness, or more likely, their crimes, murder being a big one IMO.
And to make things worse, Christians have the worst persecution complex of anyone.
Again, you reveal your bitterness in no uncertain terms. Not helping you btw or doing anything other than inciting more inflamatory rhetoric and hearsay.
I'd wager the gay community might have the worst persecution complex, but again, that's just an opinion, not a statement made out of malice and inadequacy.
If everyone else's thoughts aren't supressed, they cry "Oppression! Opression!" and make inane posts on gaming message boards.
Seriously, what are you trying to do here? I mean, it's your right to say such abrassive and patently untrue texts as this, but at what cost man? Who/what's it helping besides one's own ego and sense of accomplishment? That is, you can say what you gotta' say, but when you articulate yourself like this, well, you detract from any credible position you might have intiated previously and come off as emotional, not rational.
Just saying you might want to pull back a little, you'll get better results.
Not very helpful, your general attitude here. I am implore you to either get back on topic or open your own thread. Thank you very much. I would be inclined to chime in here on several issues but this is not the thread for it.(see the box below).
Thank you in advance!
Captn M.
Food for thought
1. Opposition of (perceived) unjust laws is the right, if not the duty, of every single human, else you might as well tell "Human Rights" to shut up and sit down.
2. Speaking of human rights, we should discuss the discrepancy between freedom of religion and any given religion's aim to gain influence far beyond the private sphere (where it belongs to, so it can't interfere with another human's freedoms of religion, expression, sexuality,...), an aim that might go as far as demand total(itarian) control of a
government and, in the end, even inviolate said universal rights that granted them freedom to practice their cult...
2.1. Christians & Oppression: Personally, I can agree with Count Aurioch on the impression of Christians being the first to unjustly complain about oppression - in western lands. In these places, Christianity does not come from a small niche nor faces persecution but has quite a large following and/or large influence on society - "So help me god", anyone? Even tho' they have little to complain about, in regards to my 2. statement, they feel themselves hunted, some by evil atheists, liberals or similar constructed threats, when in reality, there is a conservative hegemony. In contrast, gay people have more sufficient grounds to complain about legal prosecution.
2.2. Also, comparing humanitarian aims in a dangerous warzone or developement country, doing something necessary from a general humanitarian viewpoint, to missionary work in an emerging industrial power, doing some necessary from a specific religious standpoint, is a skewed example.
1. Opposition of (perceived) unjust laws is the right, if not the duty, of every single human, else you might as well tell "Human Rights" to shut up and sit down.
2. Speaking of human rights, we should discuss the discrepancy between freedom of religion and any given religion's aim to gain influence far beyond the private sphere (where it belongs to, so it can't interfere with another human's freedoms of religion, expression, sexuality,...), an aim that might go as far as demand total(itarian) control of a
government and, in the end, even inviolate said universal rights that granted them freedom to practice their cult...
2.1. Christians & Oppression: Personally, I can agree with Count Aurioch on the impression of Christians being the first to unjustly complain about oppression - in western lands. In these places, Christianity does not come from a small niche nor faces persecution but has quite a large following and/or large influence on society - "So help me god", anyone? Even tho' they have little to complain about, in regards to my 2. statement, they feel themselves hunted, some by evil atheists, liberals or similar constructed threats, when in reality, there is a conservative hegemony. In contrast, gay people have more sufficient grounds to complain about legal prosecution.
2.2. Also, comparing humanitarian aims in a dangerous warzone or developement country, doing something necessary from a general humanitarian viewpoint, to missionary work in an emerging industrial power, doing some necessary from a specific religious standpoint, is a skewed example.
I just don't like to see falsehoods anywhere, particularly on the net as they spread like the very same viruses that traffic it as well. My fault for enabling. I'll buy you a beer or something...
Continuing: Have there ever been any fascist states that worked out or were at least tolerable/agreeable to the public they would represent?
Continuing: Have there ever been any fascist states that worked out or were at least tolerable/agreeable to the public they would represent?
Short answer: As long as you don't count prosecuted groups to the public (such as e.g. leftwingers in Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy, and of course, all the ethnical, religious and political groups the Nazis tried to wipe out), the public found fascist rule agreeable to a certain extent.
As long you were not the next on the list, could not make a profit from the new regime, could snitch on your neighbours. In short it appeals to humanity's lowest instincts which made it sucessful, but not right in ethical sense.
In Italy I still hear a lot of nostalgia for fascism. You know I'll be in a taxi and the guy'll point at teh building in EUR (a district Mussolini had built in Rome and the world's first motorway) and say, this was a great man, oh why did he have to get invoved with that nut Hitler.
As if we were talking about a schoolkid who fell in with the wrong crowd rather than the absolute ruler of a nation.
Mussolini's tomb is regularly visited and people sign the visitors book with glowing praise to this day.
But to a certain extent the Roman empire was a "fascist" state, or at least that's what the fascists would have us believe. In fact the fascist salute was based on Hollywood historical movies (which were about as accurate then as they are now).
Buy the answer to your question comes down to who you are and what are the alternatives. Iraqi Christisans were protected under Saddam Hussein ofr example and now their being wiped out by militant Muslims - so for them Baathism was probably a more pleasant period (which is not to say that they necessarily liked it).
The persecution of Jews was profitable for some German business people who got to seize their assets. How else would the Nazi''s have found all these people so easily in all the countries they conquered if they weren't told.
Captain Mrgan: I totally agree, it appeals to people's lowest instincts. It reduces random crime (ie non-State sponsored crime) and provides security. There was usually full employment since there is no need to have unemployment (although of course some of this is created by the superinflated military and the fact that persecuted people and disparcedos leave their jobs open).
And you're right, it shares much with Conservatism (though many conservatives who initally supported Hitler later regretted it and some even attempted resistance).
Control of information is vital to a Comu-fascist state, because it allows them to propagate the myth/propaganda and thus keep control of the people.
It's important in a democracy too. Perhaps more so.
The people must have knowledge of who they are voting for, and what what he stands for will do. If information is suppressed, it makes valid decommission making difficult, and can be taken to the point where your vote isn't really your choice.
it shares much with Conservatism (though many conservatives who initally supported Hitler later regretted it and some even attempted resistance)
Regarding resistance against the nazi system, among the diverse bunch of resistance movements, a quite active part were Communist, but 2 well known if not famous resistance groups, the "White Rose" and Stauffenberg's attempt on Hitler's life, had indeed christian (the Scholls) or conservative (Stauffenberg) motivations.
That is to say that we should propably focus on the ideological/political level. Also, in Central European states and their internal politics, I find that the connections between conservatives and (neo)fascist/rightwing extremists are far more important in regards to history and contemporary politics than the commie-fascist axis. In Mussolini's case, I 'd like to point out that his socialist background actually added to the Fascists' opposition to Communism and Socialism, same as his intended opposition to the church. Thus, if there 's any connection, then it is one of opposition and negation rather than an assertion.
I 'd go as far and say that there was little actual cooperation between nazis and socialist/communists on a national level, except that many members of the later might have changed their colours once the Nazis rose to power, but so did the conservatives - speaking of politically more active people such as partymembers, not the average voters, mind. An interesting sidenote: Under the Austrofascist regime, the NSDAP and leftwing parties were both outlawed, which prompted many of the later to root for Nazi Germany. But on the other hand, many members of the Austrofascist militias had no trouble later joining forces with the Nazis and some were even treated favourably. Speaking of politically motivated cooperations, the Hitler-Stalin pact was, among others reasons (buying time for the Nazis), geopolitical in nature and not ideologically motivated.
Regarding Mussolini, contemporary historians have found that it is a common strategy among the Nouvelle Droite (New Right) to distance themselves from Hitler and adopt positions closer to Mussolini and Julius Evola. But they still propagate the same bilge as found in the various listings in this thread, such as a demand for the reduction of participatory, egalitarian, democratic structures (up to the point where the democracy's sole role is to acclaim their leader), elitist rulership and control over the entire population, and a "culturalist" approach to conflicts, i.e. perceiving a culture not only as an ahistorical given but as absolutely defining for its perceived "members", up to a point where culture takes the place of what the fascists used "race" for. Interestingly, they make use of Claude Lévi-Strauss' definition of culture which was anti-racist in its attempts, but, as critics point out, determinist in its approach...
Cheers
Captn M.
The similarities between communism and fascism are in their totalitarian natures. But other aspects they're very different beasts. Still I'd saw modern China has effectively moved from Communism to Fascism (ie they've moved from socialism to controlled capitalism without introducing democracy)