What's so bad about fascism?

Post Reply New Topic

Italy was fascist before Germany ever was. Italy even invented the freaking term! So, you might want to check your historical knowledge. Perhaps I shouldn't have made the terms plural, but that is only a very slight problem.

Slavery? Aren't you defining this view within the context of your own ideology? I would not call the fascists to actually be slaves, certainly not in the same level as the South had.


Well, your claim was empirical. It was also dumb.

How many fascist governments do you even have the right to refer to? 2? And those 2 had the bad result of dying in a war rather than internal collapse?

Proponents have seemed to be nutjobs? Isn't that along the lines of an ad hominem?

A living hell? I still think you exaggerate a lot, after all, what could be better than a sense of community, a sense that is more and more killed in liberal nations. "Probably fail"? That's your great argument? I am somewhat less than impressed.

Under such a circumstance, we would have all of the world's people under one government, so it seems like some measure of unity.


National superiority I can see, but within Italian fascism there were even Jewish Fascists. The issue of destroying other races seems something that German fascism took as greatly important, but it does not seem to be the essence of fascism, but just a common trait in historical fascism. After all, wouldn't a non-racist, but fiercely nationalistic and aggressive interventionist government also be fascist?

In any case, the Marxist dictionary would support the claim that racism is not essential in fascism, but possible/plausible.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/a.htm


Well, it is quite simple. In the long run, the strong nations will win, and the weak nations will fade away. Perhaps somewhat difficult, but a naive internationalism does not seem like a fruitful path to take either, unless you expect nations to ignore their own desires for the sake of other nations, which is even more absurd.

A very perverse use of the term



Agreed, although the real world difference between national superiority and racism is minimal, also most likely the larger racial group within a nation state will perceive itself as superior to the rest





You know full well that I don't, in fact it is this very contradiction of nation states and global capital that has sunk the world into its present problems

I know about Italy, I'm part Italian. There's a reason we had so many Italian immigrants in the early 20th century. And Italy is hardly a good model of fascism; when war broke out, it was all they could do to beat up on a third-world African country.


I'm defining it in the context of fascism making considerably fewer allowances for individual liberty than other systems, and I regard individual liberty as highly important. And Southern plantations isn't really the first thing that springs to mind when I think of slavery anyways, as there are plenty of other examples of slavery in various parts of the world, so to use that as the sole standard doesn't seem quite accurate.


Hm. There's also Franco and Pinochet. I could probably find other examples as well, or else just argue for certain historical or current states having pronounced characteristics of fascism even if they don't openly express that ideology. Right, well, fascist ideologies tend to support the idea of starting wars, so it's not surprising that the fascist countries ended up fighting against a lot of people. And realistically they could not expect to beat all of them.


Yeah. So? If an idea does not have many non-crazy supporters, I tend to regard that idea with a little more suspicion. And it's not as though there's much way to debate the theories of fascism in seriousness when there are no sane, articulate fascists. It's not as though mathematical proofs exist in political science, and in any case I wasn't presenting the lack of sane fascists as an absolute proof that fascism is dumb but rather as a piece of supporting evidence, so I have not committed a logical fallacy.


No, I don't exaggerate. Loss of civil liberties would be a big deal. The stifling of cultural and intellectual development would suck ass. I say "probably fail" because most fascist states managed to get themselves destroyed before we could see many long-term effects of their economic policies, but I would suspect that the elimination of individual liberties would tend to impede the successful operation of free markets.

AG, you have repeatedly denied the existence of communities and also expressed a strong antipathy towards them existing. Not everyone *wants* to have their life dictated to them.

Bah, you are a Marxist, any non-Marxist idea will seem perverse.

The idea is the will. "Not a race, nor a geographically defined region, but a people, historically perpetuating itself; a multitude unified by an idea and imbued with the will to live, the will to power, self-consciousness, personality"-Benito Mussolini


And the Marxian revolution is *still* far from coming. Shall we call it the god that never answered our prayers, or shall we look for other solutions?

Ok, but it is hard to say that the strengths of the German model cannot still be brought forward?


So, basically your counter-attack is that you dislike the trade-offs made by fascism, therefore the system is evil? I mean, honestly, do you think that most people regard freedom as highly important except in a highly abstract sense? And if that is so, then wouldn't a more utilitarian standard favor fascism? Southern plantations come to my mind first because they are the ones that America is most tied to.


These fascist states can still beat a lot of them though, I mean, the war against Germany was not exactly an easy battle. In any case, all we need to do is unify the right nation-groups to fight together and we can take the world and bring the unity that the world desperately needs.


Orwell, I am sane, I am articulate, and I am arguing for fascism at this point in time. Shouldn't I be taken on fair grounds?


Not really. Most people don't like civil liberties *that* much, if they did then there would be no concern about passing amendments about flag burning. Not only that, but honestly there is little reason to think that the cultural and intellectual developments would be meaningful, after all, a lot of the most recent ones that have emerged have just be decadent rejections of reality for a self-satisfying, bourgeois solipsism. The makings of the death of a vital culture and society, to call society and it's goals dying to be development seems questionable if not crazy. Orwell, are free-markets that necessary? The Nordic countries take heavy taxes and still have very successful economic systems.

Orwell, you are arguing with a partisan for fascism at this point in time, we can talk about different ideologies later. To say what people want says nothing about what they need, and people need roots, roots that are being eroded by the excessive individualism in our society. A proper utilitarian must look out for the good of the people even when they do not know what is good.

I think that fascism is bad so long as I am not an authority figure and/or part of the ruling elite. The reason is that I violently detest being submissive and being forced to act in ways that do not cater to MY self-interest. That is why I insist on my freedom; because I alone know what's best for me.

Ah, but can't authorities provide things that you could not get on your own? Like law? Like a stable economic condition? Even if the latter is not what you need, what about for workers who are now suffering from another disastrous lurch of the capitalist system. There is little reason to think that the submissiveness under fascism would be *that* much worse than that of capitalism, as after all, your employer can impose pointless rules upon your behavior, tell you to move for threat of losing financial sustainability, and remove you from sight for violating it's culture even if you do during your off-hours at times. At least fascism carries a kinship that no corporation can ever have.

Not at all. Your employer certainly could do such things in a fascist system because as your superior they have ABSOLUTE POWER over you. That is really the essence of fascism: The raw exercise of power by the state. If I were part of a governing council that controlled who was appointed leader of the ruling party OR I was the actual leader than no, fascism wouldnt be such a bad thing. Democratic Capitalist law places restrictions of what employers can do to their employees and does NOT permit employers to make things like sexual favors and other unsavory acts as a requirement for keeping ones job. In a fascist society someone with authority over you could make you such their cock if they felt like it.

Well, ok, I recognize some part of that. As for "absolute power over you", in all societies there must be some regard for checks and balances, and to say that an intelligent fascism would not have higher authorities seems questionable. To say that these may fail at times is also probably true as well, but no system of regulation is perfect. Democratic capitalist law depends on the enforcers of said law just as much as a fascist society would, and to say that fascism would find good reason to tolerate something as odious as forced sexual favors, something that would undermine the unity of society, seems questionable.

But Why would a fascist society institute checks and balances Except at the very highest levels of society? All societies have hierarchy but fascist societies, like the military, are often Rigidly hierarchical in the sense that those above you have unrestricted power over you AND equality under the law would Officially Not exists. The Bill Of Rights is an important safeguard against such things as well as the constitutional right to legal representation.

Yes, it really is hard to point to the strengths of a system that lasted a little more than a decade. Come on, even the Commies did better than that.


Um... people like having freedom of travel, privacy, freedom of expression, etc. Freedom is cool. People like it. And also, it does work. Countries with more freedom tend to be better-off.


And I don't study American history because it is boring.


All Hitler managed to create was a war machine, and he *still* wasn't able to beat the Communists. Besides that, Germany's successes are more attributable to Hitler's successful use of new technology and new military tactics.


Ignoring any debate as to your at-times-questionable sanity, no, you should not be taken on fair grounds because you are not a proponent of fascism. I argued for Keynesianism against a friend of mine who's a big fan of Austrian economics; this does not make me a Keynesian. I have yet to meet an intelligent person who actually supported fascism, though you are not the first to do devil's-advocate for it.


Yes, free markets are necessary, and you know it. The Nordic countries have a pretty high degree of economic freedom according to the Heritage Foundation. They aren't socialist collectives by any stretch of the imagination.


I have roots. My roots are in my family, and in the general shared culture of the Western world that we are all heirs to. This is not to say I wish for conquest of non-Western societies either, because I am always glad to see new, fresh contributions that we as a culture can make use of. Excessive individualism can't be a serious accusation when most people seem incapable of significant independent thought. And there is no such thing as a proper utilitarian because utilitarianism is an inferior moral framework to deontological views.

Well, you already mentioned the highest levels of society, and in any case, Sparta, the prototypical fascist state was also the first state to implement checks and balances. Not only that, but at the same time, laws exist to be enforced, to deny that laws exist to be enforced would deny the importance of the hierarchy in the first place. Plato, who wrote The Republic, was also very concerned with matters of justice.

It fell due to an external force, and after withstanding this external force to a greater extent then can be expected. I mean, the Commies did worse by succumbing to internal failings.


Right, which is why there is the PATRIOT Act and why flag burning and banned books lists still seem to exist. Orwell, people like their own benefits, which means the freedoms to have a good life, and frankly, fascism exists to give a good, stable life to people.


You mean that he was stopped in the dead of winter, and then beaten by a force that believed in quantity over quality and happened to have a lot of quantity? I find little reason to consider technology to be exogenous, and it certainly takes good military forces to implement good military tactics.


I used to support fascism. Does that help the fairness of my case?


And to say that fascism couldn't implement selective privatizations does not seem problematic. Fascism does not stand with the purely state-run economy nor the purely market-run economy but rather is pragmatic.


Right, and the fascist's roots are in the goodness of his/her society. In any case, the conquest of non-western societies can always come with the idea of taking the best ideas of the external cultures in mind as well, as that is not liberalism so much as pragmatism. As for excessive liberalism, that's the interesting thing, as what is resulting is a people that are both rootless and lacking in significant thought, at least we in fascism would recognize the latter and try to provide roots. As for deontology, that arguably fails as well, to say that an ethical view wins hands down is questionable, and to argue that when taking the welfare of a society in account a social measure of welfare is beneficial seems rather intelligent.

It picked a fight with someone bigger and stronger than it, that's pretty much its own fault. And it was also killing a lot of its citizens; I don't think you can realistically promote the herding up and massacre of various groups to be a positive thing. Especially note that you would likely have been among those disposed of, given your autism. Right, and the Commies never had external forces working against them? They didn't have dozens of enemies the instant they were established and no outside supporters? They weren't the victim of innumerable covert and not-so-covert attempts to crumble them? They didn't come off on the bad side of an arms race in the 80s?


Which is why the PATRIOT Act is so immensely unpopular. IIRC, flag burning is not illegal in most states and most people that I've heard express an opinion on that seem to think that such laws are rather petty. What banned books? Name a book I can't legally get in the US.


No, it hurts it. Knowing your inhuman stubbornness, I know that you must have had a damn compelling reason to become the most anti-fascist person I know of instead of sticking with fascism.


Economic freedom often leads people to demand personal freedom as well. This would be a problem for a fascist state.

No this has nothing to do with my Marxist beliefs, it is quite simply perverse to describe one nation binding the world via its dominance as unity. Technically it is a correct usage taken that unity can mean oneness, but really this not oneness because one group is superior to the rest

And the Marxian revolution is *still* far from coming. Shall we call it the god that never answered our prayers, or shall we look for other solutions?[/quote]

Marxist theory is 160 years old, how long did feudalism take to change into capitalism? Capitalism is presently being shown for what it is, the economic packages are a drop in the ocean for what is needed, workers and social welfare are about to bear the brunt of the collapse to the system. A commentator would be foolish in the extreme to repeat the triumphant declarations in 1989 that capitalism had triumphed over communism, when in fact all that had happened was the inevitable collapse of Stalinist regimes.

You talk about other solutions, like what fascism, the subjugation of the majority of the planet for the betterment of a triumphant nation, or do you really think that responsible anarchy can just spontaneously evolve without a political consciousness.