Should africans be fascist - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14323341
I have, just not to your rather oddly high standards.


You haven't clarified what you mean by any of these, and I have indicated my source of confusion. The fact that you refuse to clarify what you mean does not mean I have no argument and it is absurd that you claim so. The fact that I have to say this to you is ridiculous, and evidence of your priority to "win" rather than actually discuss. You have already reached a conclusion, and nothing we say can change your mind - and you do not want to be held to a standard where your conclusions can be shown to be false.

Tell me what you mean by no hunger - is the US a failed liberal state because some people die from starvation or because in 1 in 6 American families suffer from food insecurity?

Clarify what you mean by healthcare - by the standards of the time, Mussolini's Italy offered one of the most comprehensive social security programs on the continent. Does this qualify?

What do you mean by "killed their own citizens"? Is the use of the death penalty in Cuba evidence that Cuba is a failed regime?
#14323359
Fasces wrote:You haven't clarified what you mean by any of these, and I have indicated my source of confusion. The fact that you refuse to clarify what you mean does not mean I have no argument and it is absurd that you claim so. The fact that I have to say this to you is ridiculous, and evidence of your priority to "win" rather than actually discuss. You have already reached a conclusion, and nothing we say can change your mind - and you do not want to be held to a standard where your conclusions can be shown to be false.




Tell me what you mean by no hunger - is the US a failed liberal state because some people die from starvation or because in 1 in 6 American families suffer from food insecurity?


I'm setting the bar pretty low here, so let's say that successful means that less than 20% of the population is undernourished.

Clarify what you mean by healthcare - by the standards of the time, Mussolini's Italy offered one of the most comprehensive social security programs on the continent. Does this qualify?


Again, let's set the bar low. Infant mortality rate of 60.

What do you mean by "killed their own citizens"? Is the use of the death penalty in Cuba evidence that Cuba is a failed regime?

How about simply not rounding up large groups of people and sending them off to their deaths?
#14323361
I'm setting the bar pretty low here, so let's say that successful means that less than 20% of the population is undernourished.


In the case of developing countries that adopted a fascist system - what amount of reduction when compared to rate of undernourishment prior to the ascendancy of the regime would be considered acceptable?

Infant mortality rate of 60 [or less].


Was this sufficiently common in Western societies in the 1920s that an absolute metric is useful? I know that it was during WWI that Britain first fell below a rate of 100.
#14323365
Fasces wrote:In the case of developing countries that adopted a fascist system - what amount of reduction when compared to rate of undernourishment prior to the ascendancy of the regime would be considered acceptable?


I'll settle for not getting worse.

Was this sufficiently common in Western societies in the 1920s that an absolute metric is useful?


You seemed to want quantifiable standards. I have no particular inclination for this data point. That one happened to be the average for African nations in 2012. If you have a more reasonable number, feel free to use it, as long as you explain how you arrived at that number.
#14323367
I meant as opposed to reduction in infant mortality rates - for example, Italy in the early 1900s had an infant mortality rate nearly three times that of its counterparts in Northern Europe - and in 1955, Italy still had a rate of 60, while Sweden had 20.
#14323370
Again, I am not wed to a particular number, and if you want to show that a fascist state had the same infant mortality rate before or after becoming fascist, then that will suffice.
#14323376
The regimes of Benito Mussolini, Getulio Vargas, Juan Peron, and Gualberto Villarroel meet your standards.

All improved metrics for hunger/undernourishment in their country. Prominent are Mussolini's Battle for Grain, which improved Italian self-sufficiency in food production. Vargas is, to this day, regarded in Brazil as "father of the poor" and made great strides in establishing programs to help Brazil's poor, including pioneering a few food aid programs, modeled after the American New Deal and Italian fascist programs. Juan Peron expanded agricultural production, and in many urban areas in Buenos Aires, poverty and hunger rates reached their lowest points. Villarroel is famous in Bolivia for his efforts to help the poor, and abolishing slavery - but my biography of him does not mention hunger rates.

Mussolini, Vargas and Peron all improved infant mortality rates under their regimes, whereas there is no data for Villarroel.

None operated death camps for their own citizens. Mussolini operated some internment camps, but these were filled with either Jews (stripped of citizenship) or foreign fighters. Camps which housed former Italian citizens (Jews and political prisoners) were not designed to kill their occupations, unlike similar Italian camps in Yugoslavia.

Citations provided upon request (and later tonight, as I do not have my books on hand, and am going through some old notes I wrote for a class on Latin American fascism.)
#14323419
Fasces wrote:The regimes of Benito Mussolini, Getulio Vargas, Juan Peron, and Gualberto Villarroel meet your standards.

All improved metrics for hunger/undernourishment in their country. Prominent are Mussolini's Battle for Grain, which improved Italian self-sufficiency in food production. Vargas is, to this day, regarded in Brazil as "father of the poor" and made great strides in establishing programs to help Brazil's poor, including pioneering a few food aid programs, modeled after the American New Deal and Italian fascist programs. Juan Peron expanded agricultural production, and in many urban areas in Buenos Aires, poverty and hunger rates reached their lowest points. Villarroel is famous in Bolivia for his efforts to help the poor, and abolishing slavery - but my biography of him does not mention hunger rates.


The Battle for Grain improved that amount of cereals available to Italians, not food in general. In fact, livestock and vine crop production dropped. Also, the fertilizer subsidies were unsustainable during the war.

Vargas' rule was not strictly fascist (he turned against the AIB) and profited greatly from WWII when Brazil did well for itself by helping the Allies, and the Green Revolution.

Villaroel was such a shambles of a leader that his own people killed him 3 years after he took power. He didn't have time to feed people.

Peron did not expand agricultural production. The amount of land under cultivation dropped from nearly 22 million hectares in 1934-38 to just over 17 million in 1955.

Mussolini, Vargas and Peron all improved infant mortality rates under their regimes, whereas there is no data for Villarroel.


According to this PDF, Vargas was unable to significantly improve infant mortality rates despite intense effort.

Peron was simply continuing a program for reducing infant mortality rate that was introduced by socialists in a legislative setting.

At the end of Mussolini's regime, the infant mortality rate was up to 438 per 1,000 live births

None operated death camps for their own citizens. Mussolini operated some internment camps, but these were filled with either Jews (stripped of citizenship) or foreign fighters. Camps which housed former Italian citizens (Jews and political prisoners) were not designed to kill their occupations, unlike similar Italian camps in Yugoslavia.


Yes, Mussolini killed 300,000 people, but they were not citizens. Just people that his gov't was responsible for.

Peron imprisoned and tortured hundreds of people.

Vargas did not kill anyone. This is probably why he lost power in 1945.

Now, since Africa is not going to benefit from a second Green revolution, or be able to side with the Allies in some new world war, how does this help Africa?
#14323705
The Battle for Grain improved that amount of cereals available to Italians, not food in general. In fact, livestock and vine crop production dropped. Also, the fertilizer subsidies were unsustainable during the war.


You don't need vines and livestock to feed the hungry. Rates of hunger and undernourishment under Mussolini decreased.

Vargas' rule was not strictly fascist (he turned against the AIB) and profited greatly from WWII when Brazil did well for itself by helping the Allies, and the Green Revolution.


If you're going to claim this, you will have to define fascist.

Peron did not expand agricultural production. The amount of land under cultivation dropped from nearly 22 million hectares in 1934-38 to just over 17 million in 1955.


You know the difference between total production, in tonnage, and the amount of land being cultivated, correct? Peron mechanized Argentine farming, increasing productivity while reducing land usage.

According to this PDF, Vargas was unable to significantly improve infant mortality rates despite intense effort.


Your metric was "did not get worse". Vargas improved infant mortality rates.

Peron was simply continuing a program for reducing infant mortality rate that was introduced by socialists in a legislative setting.


Your metric was "did not get worse". Infant mortality rate under Peron decreased.

At the end of Mussolini's regime, the infant mortality rate was up to 438 per 1,000 live births


I asked you to define what years you wanted to measure by and you refused. The rise in infant mortality occurred in all of continental Europe due to WWII. In 1938, infant mortality rates, according to OMNI, were (far) below levels in 1922.

Yes, Mussolini killed 300,000 people, but they were not citizens. Just people that his gov't was responsible for.

Peron imprisoned and tortured hundreds of people.

Vargas did not kill anyone. This is probably why he lost power in 1945


I asked you to define citizen and "killed". You refused, or rather, specified "no death camps", and are, again, shifting the metric for success after the fact.

You are not interesting to debate. You refuse to say what you mean, and when others cannot guess, you claim "victory".

If you want a decent answer, ask an honest question.
#14323741
Fasces wrote:You don't need vines and livestock to feed the hungry. Rates of hunger and undernourishment under Mussolini decreased.


If you want to have healthy people who do not suffer from malnutrition, you need a varied diet.

If you're going to claim this, you will have to define fascist.


I am perfectly willing to define Vargas as a fascist for the purposes of this discussion. My point was that Brazil profited greatly from WWII by helping the Allies, and the Green Revolution.

You know the difference between total production, in tonnage, and the amount of land being cultivated, correct? Peron mechanized Argentine farming, increasing productivity while reducing land usage.


How did he do that?

Your metric was "did not get worse". Vargas improved infant mortality rates.


Yes, he satisfied my metric. However, the point was that he was unable to do what many African countries need: coordinate efforts to use existing technology to significantly reduce infant mortality.

Your metric was "did not get worse". Infant mortality rate under Peron decreased.


True, but in terms of what is best for Africa right now, this seems more like evidence that Africa needs more social democracies.

I asked you to define what years you wanted to measure by and you refused. The rise in infant mortality occurred in all of continental Europe due to WWII. In 1938, infant mortality rates, according to OMNI, were (far) below levels in 1922.


It's ONMI. OMNI was an old sci-fi magazine put out by Penthouse,, if I recall correctly.

Assuming the reduction in infant mortality rate is true, how was it accomplished?

I asked you to define citizen and "killed". You refused, or rather, specified "no death camps", and are, again, shifting the metric for success after the fact.

You are not interesting to debate. You refuse to say what you mean, and when others cannot guess, you claim "victory".

If you want a decent answer, ask an honest question.


I was simply clarifying what these three men had done. Do you disagree that they did these things?

Now, I asked an honest question:

Now, since Africa is not going to benefit from a second Green revolution, or be able to side with the Allies in some new world war, how does this help Africa?
#14323745
If you want to have healthy people who do not suffer from malnutrition, you need a varied diet.


You can live a perfectly healthy life with grains, basic vegetables, and fish - all of which were produced in Italy under the autarkatic model.

How did he do that?


The same way every society that transitions from subsistence farming to industrial farming does. He invested in fertilizers, equipment, and centralized canning/distribution facilities.

It's ONMI. OMNI was an old sci-fi magazine put out by Penthouse,, if I recall correctly.


...

OMNI is the Opera Nazionale ed Maternita ed Infanzia, the public health organization created by Mussolini to address issues which faced infants and mothers.

Assuming the reduction in infant mortality rate is true, how was it accomplished


Expanding funding for public health for the stated interest of "improving the vitality and vigor of the Italian race". "Voluntary" conscription was used to provide manpower for new corps of nurses and midwives, which were distributed into under-performing regions, especially in the south, and to staff new child care centers. Mussolini established the country's first mothers day, and would later attempt to begin a "Battle for Births" campaigned centered around the reproductive health of women (though this campaign was less successful).

I was simply clarifying what these three men had done. Do you disagree that they did these things?


It is neither here nor there.

Now, since Africa is not going to benefit from a second Green revolution, or be able to side with the Allies in some new world war, how does this help Africa?


I was discussing the claim that "all fascist states have failed". By the metrics you provided for "success" there are at least four counter-examples. I am not an expert in African or Asian fascism, so there may be more.
#14323762
Fasces wrote:You can live a perfectly healthy life with grains, basic vegetables, and fish - all of which were produced in Italy under the autarkatic model.


Okay, but were they produced at the level

The same way every society that transitions from subsistence farming to industrial farming does. He invested in fertilizers, equipment, and centralized canning/distribution facilities.


In other words, there was a massive subsidisation of agriculture by the state. How many African nations can afford that?

...

OMNI is the Opera Nazionale ed Maternita ed Infanzia, the public health organization created by Mussolini to address issues which faced infants and mothers.


Opera Nazionale ed Maternita ed Infanzia.

Expanding funding for public health for the stated interest of "improving the vitality and vigor of the Italian race". "Voluntary" conscription was used to provide manpower for new corps of nurses and midwives, which were distributed into under-performing regions, especially in the south, and to staff new child care centers. Mussolini established the country's first mothers day, and would later attempt to begin a "Battle for Births" campaigned centered around the reproductive health of women (though this campaign was less successful).


Most of his efforts to increase the population were unsuccessful.

Since his largest impact on infant mortality rates would have been in the rural areas where people were actually having babies, I am assuming that you mean that he expanded funding for public health in these areas.

Now, why do you think that the same strategy would work in African nations?

It is neither here nor there.


I think we can assume that Africans would like to avoid arbitrary detention and death by their own gov'ts.

I was discussing the claim that "all fascist states have failed". By the metrics you provided for "success" there are at least four counter-examples. I am not an expert in African or Asian fascism, so there may be more.


And I am taking this discussion and tying it to my original point: how will this help African nations?
#14323768
In other words, there was a massive subsidisation of agriculture by the state. How many African nations can afford that?


They can't afford to not do it.

Opera Nazionale ed Maternita ed Infanzia.


You're right. ONMI.

Now, why do you think that the same strategy would work in African nations?


Why do I think expanding public health programs in disenfranchised areas will help?

I think we can assume that Africans would like to avoid arbitrary detention and death by their own gov'ts.


Sometimes to cure a cancer one has to cut out the tumor.

And I am taking this discussion and tying it to my original point: how will this help African nations?


No - your original claim was that "fascism shouldn't be practiced in Africa because all fascist states are failures."

I was disproving that claim - specifically that all fascist states are failures - not making one of my own.

I do not believe that ideology should trump practicality. African states should be organized along national lines, and reflect local needs, practices, traditions, and cultures. This can be fascism, but it probably isn't.

The greatest evil in Africa today are the colonial borders that cut nations in half, and unite enemies under one flag. Africa will never improve until ethnic and sectarian tension subsides.

What occurred in Eritrea and South Sudan are the ideal models for Africa to follow to continue its development. When homogeneous states emerge in Africa, sectarian corruption and dysfunctional government will cease.
#14323814
Fasces wrote:They can't afford to not do it.


Ignoring economic reality gets us nowhere.

Why do I think expanding public health programs in disenfranchised areas will help?


Why do you think you will be able to? And even if you do increase health care services, that won't help if the problem is a lack of potable water.

Sometimes to cure a cancer one has to cut out the tumor.


And sometimes you don't. Which is preferable?

No - your original claim was that "fascism shouldn't be practiced in Africa because all fascist states are failures."

I was disproving that claim - specifically that all fascist states are failures - not making one of my own.

I do not believe that ideology should trump practicality. African states should be organized along national lines, and reflect local needs, practices, traditions, and cultures. This can be fascism, but it probably isn't.

The greatest evil in Africa today are the colonial borders that cut nations in half, and unite enemies under one flag. Africa will never improve until ethnic and sectarian tension subsides.

What occurred in Eritrea and South Sudan are the ideal models for Africa to follow to continue its development. When homogeneous states emerge in Africa, sectarian corruption and dysfunctional government will cease.


My very first post in this thread asked the following: Since fascism has never worked anywhere else, why should it work in Africa?

I think it is logical and consistent to take your examples of "success" and apply them to my original question to see if I can answer that very question.

Your examples show that these fascist states were successful in the short term because they were able to massively subsidise certain sectors such as agriculture and infant medical care. There was nothign about national homogeneity in your examples of success.
#14323917
Africa doesn't need fascism anymore than any other Western ideology that is impracticable to Africa, including the current neoliberal agenda that is tearing Africa apart. Africa had heroes like Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara, the latter achieving impressive results for his native Burkina Faso before being assassinated by the French, with the gains during his rule reversed and the country plunged back into poverty.

The borders should be reorganised to reflect tribal and religious identities and the natural resources owned by Africans, the only foreign input being technical expertise to run the mines more efficiently.

The only African country where fascism has even a slight chance is South Africa, where the Afrikaners had a history of fascist movements and the country is much more Westernised compared to other African countries. Given the recent history of Apartheid, it would be hard for a fascist movement to succeed as people associate fascism with racism.

The European nations and states have evolved over millenia to make fascism a viable system. Mussolini referred to the Roman heritage of Italy and Hitler invoked the pre-Christian Germanic culture. How can this work in Africa when many of the states are only a hundred years old and were constructed by Europeans to specifically disadvantage, and where tribes take precedence over nations? This also applies to the failure of liberalism on the African continent and why it will not succeed there.
#14324055
Quantum wrote:Africa doesn't need fascism anymore than any other Western ideology that is impracticable to Africa, including the current neoliberal agenda that is tearing Africa apart. Africa had heroes like Patrice Lumumba and Thomas Sankara, the latter achieving impressive results for his native Burkina Faso before being assassinated by the French, with the gains during his rule reversed and the country plunged back into poverty.

The borders should be reorganised to reflect tribal and religious identities and the natural resources owned by Africans, the only foreign input being technical expertise to run the mines more efficiently.

The only African country where fascism has even a slight chance is South Africa, where the Afrikaners had a history of fascist movements and the country is much more Westernised compared to other African countries. Given the recent history of Apartheid, it would be hard for a fascist movement to succeed as people associate fascism with racism.

The European nations and states have evolved over millenia to make fascism a viable system. Mussolini referred to the Roman heritage of Italy and Hitler invoked the pre-Christian Germanic culture. How can this work in Africa when many of the states are only a hundred years old and were constructed by Europeans to specifically disadvantage, and where tribes take precedence over nations? This also applies to the failure of liberalism on the African continent and why it will not succeed there.

Africa history didn't start hundreds of years ago, are you implying that Africa besides Egypt didn't have much history to based fascism off of until the Scramble of Africa, Africa had many black kingdoms and history as long as Rome and blacks can create fascism based off of that history, especially Ethiopia which history is longer than Rome itself.
#14324086
mikema63 wrote:It's not that Africa doesn't have history, it's that Africa has a different one.

So that doesn't mean fascism can not be developed, Japan had history way different from the Europeans and yet they developed fascism just fine.
#14324258
Ethiopian monarchist wrote:So that doesn't mean fascism can not be developed, Japan had history way different from the Europeans and yet they developed fascism just fine.


And did that work out well for them?

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]