What is "Fascism"?

Post Reply New Topic

Nope, sorry, that's a ridiculous comparison.

You can't equate dictatorships where anyone in disagreement risks being tortured or killed, with democracies with 'checks and balances' in place. While it's questionable whether the Judiciary is actually politically neutral, nonetheless American federal Government has historically been quite weak, and that was deliberately set out in the Constitution as a reaction to British colonial rule. It hasn't stopped Presidents pushing their luck ever since, of course, but there are still a lot of barriers to them doing as they please. They don't have anywhere near "absolute control" because the other elements of Government can all dig their heels in and say "no" without risk of getting shot by their leader's forces.

That's the whole issue with Trump, of course. He pushed the Republicans in a more extreme direction and there was no resistance to it, right up to the point where people DID start getting shot (though naturally he distanced himself from that). It's really easy to lay all the blame on Trump but the bigger failures from a constitutional perspective were actually everywhere else.

Are we talking about 5 months into his term, or a later time?

From June 2017:


Source: https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politician-steve-scalise-shot-at-republican-baseball-practice-in-alexandria-virginia/news-story/e1bfc4678bb926984d1d8585156d0842

Neither in isolation. His election campaign and his entire period in office.

In terms of that particular event, it doesn't disprove what I'm saying, it adds to it. Extremism begats extremism, that's how it works. Trump got elected on a blame and hate ticket. The fact he managed to stir up both pro-Trump and anti-Trump violence (you could bring BLM into this as well) simply proves he wasn't being sufficiently kept in check by his party. I'm sure many Republicans thought "What have we done here?" but no-one did anything about it.

The question is though, did the problems blamed on him occur because of Mr Trump, or did Mr Trump occur because the underlying issues were already there (which was the cause, and which the effect)?

Considering the speed with which Mr Trump was able to amass the following he did (over "career"\experienced members of his party), it would seem more probable that there was an issue (series of issues?) which he identified and ran on, rather than he having caused the issues (Hence the surprise when he won in 2016 - people weren't aware how strongly many felt about the issues he was running on)... Given that, and the focus on attacking him rather than looking to the underlying cause for his support, it would be likely that the "pressure" which caused his election are likely to continue building up under the surface.

When one side continually attacks\denigrates\belittles\tries to silence the other, rather than seeking to listen to it and understand it, the target of this behavoiur will eventually "erupt" in unpredictable ways...

Unfortunately yes. Trump is a relatively small problem now that he's not in power anymore. His near future is clearly filled with legal trouble more than anything else. Most of it will probably be personal trouble that will be very hard to blame on democrats or immigrants or whatever (like tax evasion charges, defaulted loans and stuff like that). He might have been able to weasel his way out of it before, but, after his final shenanigans before stepping down, I think he's just too radioactive. Not even banks want his money anymore. Because of all that, I think chances are he will stop being the focus of polarization pretty soon. But polarization will continue. And it could get worse, even with the country under more moderate leadership.


Sure, that's true, but I think what that statement fails to capture is the fact that this isn't just happening to "one side". The real problem is ever-increasing polarization, radicalization and generalized intolerance of dissent, with no apparent solution in sight. Everybody is ready to burst in flames.

A lot of it can easily be blamed on social media. That's pretty obvious in my opinion. Blaming it exclusively on social media can be dangerous, because even assuming it was the only original cause of the phenomenon (which it almost certainly wasn't), there would still have been major opportunists and just general complications involved once it was motion. There's always layers of feedback. But still, I think social media has really been (and continues to be) a huge factor, probably the most significant identifiable one. The great catalyst of our time for society's dark side.

This is why I think that the regulation of social media platforms is one of the most important issues the world faces right now. Or at least that it should be facing, and not just ignoring or postponing. I don't know what that regulation process should look like, or how exactly it should be done, but it should be done. It can't go on like this. And... it won't simply go on like this. If it doesn't get regulated, big tech will inevitably go beyond just wanting to sell ads and causing trouble as a side effect. It will inevitably become enmeshed with government (and/or vice-versa), but with the opaqueness of a private entity. Or in other words: China.

Last edited by toadsnail on 09 Feb 2021, 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, and that works both ways round, as you well know. American politics have traditionally been dominated by white, conservative, Christian men, despite America being a multicultural nation (and not exclusively male). That's slowly changing and the original power base don't like it one little bit. It's ironic that those same white, conservative, Christian men now think they're being victimised just because they're having their long term privaledges eroded away. They seem to believe they're suddenly on the receiving end of severe Governmental unfairness, which must be hilarious for minority groups who've coped with much, much worse for centuries. Into that environment we then introduce Trump, who is "old school" white male arrogance and entitlement personified. How well do we think that's going to go?

All he did was pour petrol on the flames for both sides. Every sexist, homophobic, racist, "me first and screw you" douchebag in the States thought he was THEIR President, and anyone likely to suffer as a consequence felt that too. That runs contra to the normal GOP tactics of saying nice things and handing out a few peanuts here and there, to just about keep a lid on social discontent. So, he was a divisive President who polarized an already fragile society.

The absolute blinder in all this was the twisting of the narrative such that every fault in America was suddenly down to the actions of a largely fictional "Democrat elite" ripping off good, hard-working, ordinary Americans. There's no evidence such a thing exists in isolation from the Republican elite, which is equally well-established, and does even less for the common man. There's no such thing as distinct party political elites, the pivotal class division in America boils down to those who are obscenely rich and those who are not. [It just so happens, as well, that most of the rich group are - you guessed it - white, conservative, Christian males]. The political distinction among top earners is purely about how little of your wealth you're prepared to put back into society.

So that's the reason it fell to bits, because Trump persuaded lots of already deeply unhappy working class Americans (who weren't necessarily douchebags) he was their saviour, when he was actually part of the problem. A career wealth extractor, in the pocket of Wall Street, multinationals and billionaires. But no, it wasn't the fault of those groups that ordinary people were (and still are) struggling so much, that was the fault of the evil Democrat cabal that -erm- generally tries harder than the Republicans to redistribute wealth downwards to where it's most needed. That was the trick, shifting the blame for perpetual economic attack onto the people actively trying harder to prevent it, as well as any soft minority target that could be found (Mexicans, for example, or Trans people). And when that didn't work out, and the supposed corrective measures of the Trump administration failed to get him re-elected, things did indeed "erupt" in unpredictable ways. Unsurprising when you consider the amount of smoke and mirrors BS going on, most of the frustration of ordinary people got massively misdirected.

Yes that anger existed well before Trump, but he played with it for his own gain, and that backfired spectacularly. He greatly exacerbated the very problems he claimed to be able to fix. As a consequence, those continually being attacked / denigrated / belittled / silenced either found nothing had changed, or things had indeed changed but for the worse. But because of the trail of previous misdirections the resulting fury didn't necessarily get aimed at the right people.

Calling 75 million American voters fascist is a gross generalisation, binary, dehumanising, pedestrian unethical, deceptive and manipulative.
Don't be "A useful idiot" of either side of the political divide, is my advice.

FASCISM (n): A political philosophy, movement, or regime that exalts nation, cultural identity, and race above the individual; that stands for severe economic and social regimentation, forcible suppression of opposition, and a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader; and that eliminates democracy, while maintaining private ownership of the means of production.

•••

Fascism is also, more often than not, patriarchal; that is, it is a government that is composed of men who rule the state for their own benefit. Women in a fascist state tend to be subjugated as wives, housekeepers, caregivers, and breeding stock for the male "Master Race".

Thus, if the current crop of male white supremacists have their way, women in America would likely be removed from all positions of authority -- i.e., doctors, engineers, lawyers, politicians, professors, scientists, teachers, et cetera -- and kept at home for the pleasure and sufferance of their husbands.

And woe betide any woman who speaks out against a fascist regime; abandonment, abuse, and repeated assault would be her fate -- just ask any burka-clad Muslim woman with whip-scars across her back.

Fascism, Part II
The Basic Principles Of Fascism - 2012-10-03
by Fnord, the Metasyntactic Variable

1) Absolute power of the State: The Fascist state is a glorious, living entity that is more important than any individual. All individuals are part of the State, but the State is greater than the sum of its parts. All individuals must set aside their own needs and supplicate themselves to the needs of the State. There is no law or other power that can limit the authority of the State. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's view on the absolute authority of the state also strongly influenced Fascist thinking. Fascism draws heavily on the revolutionary ideal of nationalism.

2) Survival of the Fittest: A Fascist state is only as glorious and powerful as its ability to wage wars and win them. Peace is viewed as weakness, aggression as strength. Strength is the ultimate good and ensures the survival of the State - "Might makes right". Fascists support a type of hierarchical individualism in the form of Social Darwinism, as they believe it promotes "superior individuals" and weeds out "the weak".

3) Strict Social Order: Social classes are strictly maintained in order to avoid "mob rule" or any hint of chaos. Chaos is a threat to the State. Free Though is suppressed. The State's absolute power and greatness depends on the maintenance of a class system in which every individual has a specific place, and that place cannot be altered.

4) Authoritarian Leadership: To maintain the power and greatness of the State requires a single, charismatic leader with absolute authority. This all-powerful, heroic leader maintains the unity and unquestioning submission required by the Fascist state. The authoritarian leader is often viewed as a symbol of the State, if not a demigod.

5) Pro-Conservatism: Conservatives and Fascists in Europe have held similar positions on many issues, including anti-communism and support of national pride. Conservatives and Fascists both reject the liberal and Marxist emphasis on linear progressive evolution in history. Fascism's emphasis on order, discipline, hierarchy, martial (military) virtues, and preservation of private property appealed to conservatives. Fascists' promotion of "healthy", "uncontaminated" elements of national tradition such as chivalric culture and glorifying a nation's historical golden age have similarities with conservative aims. Fascists also made pragmatic tactical alliances with traditional conservative forces in order to achieve and maintain power.

6) Anti-Liberalism: Fascism is strongly opposed to Liberalism. Fascists accuse Liberalism as being the cause of despiritualization of human beings and transforming them into materialistic beings in which the highest ideal is moneymaking. In particular, Fascism opposes Liberalism for its materialism, rationalism, individualism, and utilitarianism. Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness; however, one issue where Fascism is in accord with Liberalism is in its support of private property rights and the existence of a market economy.

7) Racism: A narrowly-defined phenotype (i.e., tall, thin, blond, blue-eyed, athletic, et cetera) is prescribed as the 'dominant' race, placing all others in an inferior social, economic, and legal status. People who are not of the dominant race serve people of the dominant race and live at their sufferance. "Genetic Impurity" - the blending of the races - is strictly forbidden.

In the '45%', of 'treasonous fascist Republicans', are there any women?

Fascism, Part III
A Summary - 2016-10-03
by Fnord, the Metasyntactic Variable

Fascism (n): A ruling system that exhibits the following features:

The Leader
• A dictator
• Always right / Never Wrong
• Charismatic or otherwise
• Often worshipped (if not deified)

The Ideology
• Elimination of civil rights (i.e. free assembly, free inquiry, free press, free religion, free speech, trial by jury, presumption of innocence, personal privacy, redress of wrongs, et cetera)
• Emphasises nationalism and sacrificial service to the State
• Guides and justifies the actions of the Dictator, the Party, The Plan, and the State
• May be based on religious doctrine
• Socialist / Leftist: The State owns everything, and provides everything to the masses

The Party
• Imposes harsh penalties for all legal infractions
• Members have more privileges than do ordinary citizens
• Monitors and controls every aspect of citizen’s lives
• More concerned with conformity than with innovation
• More concerned with enforcing Ideology than with progress
• More concerned with the 'Status Quo' than with new ideas

The State
• Martial Law is in force
• No civil law; civil infractions result in criminal penalties
• Presumption of criminal guilt arising from accusation, assumption, belief, bigotry, rumor, or suspicion -- evidence is not required
• Regimented breeding, commerce, economy, education, fashion, housing, industry, and scientific research
• Repression (or elimination) of one or more groups, based on ethnicity, gender, ideology, politics, or religion
• Restrictions on communication, information, and travel
• Suppression of criticism, individualism, intellectualism, and all opposition

The Military
• Enforces Party law
• Provides a pool of candidates for Party members and officials
• Uses abduction, intimidation, torture, and violence to maintain civil order

The Plan
• One Master Plan
• One or more secondary plans that support the Master Plan
• Promises to deliver the State into a glorious future
• Delivers repression and stagnation

Censorship
• Artistic expression is controlled to favor the Dictator, the Ideology, the Party, the Plan, the Military, and the State; all else is banned
• Education covers only basic literacy, numeracy, and Party doctrine; all else is banned
• History is revised as needed to favor the Dictator, the Ideology, the Party, the Plan, the Military, and the State; all else is banned
• Journalism edits the news to favor the Dictator, the Ideology, the Party, the Plan, the Military, and the State; all else is banned
• Literature is written to favor the Dictator, the Ideology, the Party, the Plan, the Military, and the State; all else is banned
• Scientific research is performed to favor the Dictator, the Ideology, the Party, the Plan, the Military, and the State; all else is banned

Citizenry
• Based on ethnicity and/or genetics
• Depends entirely upon the State for its daily living
• Careers are pre-determined by the Party
• Education is pre-determined by the Party
• Individuals may 'disappear' for no obvious reason, and are never heard from again
• Military service is mandatory
• Owned by the State (enslaved)
• Ready and willing to denounce each other as Enemies to the State in return for State-issued rewards

Isn't adopting moral superiority unethical also?

Are you trying to defend Fascism?

eric arthur blair saw the fascist GOP/maga phenomenon from quite an interval. i can't help but think it's type is roughly along similar lines of what he described in his novel-

1984 — Part Two Chapter nine; From “The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism” — Chapter one, Ignorance is Strength.
If [the party member] is a person naturally orthodox (in Newspeak a GOODTHINKER), he will in all circumstances know, without taking thought, what is the true belief or the desirable emotion. But in any case an elaborate mental training, undergone in childhood and grouping itself round the Newspeak words CRIMESTOP, BLACKWHITE, and DOUBLETHINK, makes him unwilling and unable to think too deeply on any subject whatever....
CRIMESTOP means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. CRIMESTOP, in short, means protective stupidity. But stupidity is not enough. On the contrary, orthodoxy in the full sense demands a control over one's own mental processes as complete as that of a contortionist over his body. Oceanic society rests ultimately on the belief that Big Brother is omnipotent and that the Party is infallible. But since in reality Big Brother is not omnipotent and the party is not infallible, there is need for an un-wearying, moment-to-moment flexibility in the treatment of facts. The keyword here is BLACKWHITE. Like so many Newspeak words, this word has two mutually contradictory meanings. Applied to an opponent, it means the habit of impudently claiming that black is white, in contradiction of the plain facts. Applied to a Party member, it means a loyal willingness to say that black is white when Party discipline demands this. But it means also the ability to BELIEVE that black is white, and more, to KNOW that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary. This demands a continuous alteration of the past, made possible by the system of thought which really embraces all the rest, and which is known in Newspeak as DOUBLETHINK.

I am pointing out hypocrisy.

Yeah Fnord! The defense of fascism is merely a totally coincidental byproduct! And if defending fascism is the price to pay in the name of pedantic nitpicking and muddying the waters, then so be it!

*plays bongos in foggy dimly lit room*

"What IS fascism, anyways?"

*bongos*

"NOBODY really knows..."

*bongos*

"In fact, trying to define fascism, IS fascism itself"

*single bongo strike*

"Therefore, fascism doesn't exist, except when you say something is fascist!"

*bongo solo*