What's so bad about fascism?

Post Reply New Topic

And the current US sucks on drug law.

I edited my last post a moment ago.

Accountability? Culture. As well as a branch of the government responsible for making sure that other branches are holding up their end of the bargain.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Your mom.

I can't argue against that.

Bullsh*t. Why would the middle class support fascism when they are overwhelmingly LIBERAL?
The working class are drawn to fascism due to its nationalistic and racialist sentiments which is EXACTLY what happened in Nazi Germany.Antisemitism has been a powerful political tool for directing the frustration of the proles away from the oppressive power of the ruling class and onto a prosperous minority group. Jews certainly DID have money but they were NOT part of the ruling elite as they were a religious minority group and were deliberately excluded. Pogroms served as a way for peasants to vent their frustration AND to prevent Jews from accumulating enough money to influence the government. I STILL maintain what I said: GO LIVE in fascist country and see for yourself how much you ACTUALLY like it because you're NOT going to get much support from the rest of us here at WP. I am NOT stupid enough to be fooled into thinking that fascism is beneficial to Me.

In general, absolute power in a government with no mechanism for answering to mistakes, to nepotism, to massive policy failures, to cliques re-enforcing power groups and hiding massive criminal behavior leads to the main objective of government in merely seeing to it that no corrective opposition can be effective. "Culture" is no answer to these obvious abuses that have occurred in many governments throughout history such as in Zimbabwe today. Implacably installed rulers invariably see to their own benefits instead of that of the nation and the only advantage of a democratic government is that bad rulers can usually be tossed out. In an unaware and undereducated population, as demonstrated in the USA, conditions can defeat that democratic advantage but there is still the possibility that some good sense can leak through. That is not possible under a totalitarian government as Orwell (the author) demonstrated in "1984".

Why would the middle class be overwhelmingly liberal? Not only that, but how would fascist movements become popular if there was no appeal to the middle class. I mean, a number of histories I have seen about fascist movements is that they were supported by a middle class afraid of a more radical socialist movement.

Yes, I recognize that the Jews did play that role. I also recognize the place in society of the Jews.

Finally, I do not care about the last 2 sentences. They are wastes of air and nothing more. "Go do X" isn't an argument, no matter what X is, and thus a pointless statement. And frankly, I don't give a damn to know what you are so stupid as to think, I care more to try to test what you think. Was this thread a way to push against some traditional viewpoint? Sure. Do I care to persuade anyone? Why would I? Orwell already stated that I was an anarchist, if I could even be confused with one I am likely not a fascist. I got bored, decided that I wanted to stir up something, and thus decided to advocate a crazy view for a bit of intellectual exercise.

Oops should have stated political Ideology, hows your head

If you are still having a meltdown maybe you should think about what Marxism stands for; in a nutshell - the best uses of resources for the best possible outcome for the whole of humanity, instead of using the majority of resources for the betterment of a tiny elite

Marxism stands for the ideas of Karl Marx, there are multiple other ideologies with the same desired outcomes. But Marx's own ideology carries with it this baggage that I do not see as humanistic at all, he looks at the world as if it were a machine, when I think a respect for humanity would involve looking at the world as if it were human.

Whether you like it or not governments and businesses basically all view the world as a machine. They send their soldiers to murder and conquer in the national interest, they hire and fire workers as to their productive capacities and they secure vital resources for thie own use no matter the misery of the people in the way. In that respect capitalism is no better but Marxism theoretically proposes a different distribution of wealth. They both have their advantages and disadvantages but Marxism in the original sense has never been tried. It always seems to end up with a totalitarian government.

Governments and businesses are not ideologies though, and that is the difference. Historical materialism does not seem like the most humanistic philosophy about the workings of the world. I mean, we can talk about implementation, but Marxism does not have an original plan to implement so much anyway, as there are all sorts of varieties of socialism. I would have to say that the Utopian Socialists would end up being more humanistic than the Marxians though.

Governments and businesses do not make explicit their ideologies but they are undeniably there. If you cannot perceive that you miss almost all that is going on.