Fascists, I am curious - Page 6 - 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.
#14540286

Or that there were fascist states which also happened to be flawed in some way.


Exactly my point, despite the fact that every State will eventually have to become flawed at some point. But if we can create a less flawed State than liberal ones, why not?
#14540289
Saeko wrote:Or that there were fascist states which also happened to be flawed in some way.


Are not all states flawed in some way?

Human constructions, like humans, are imperfect.

Dystopian Darkness wrote:Exactly my point, despite the fact that every State will eventually have to become flawed at some point. But if we can create a less flawed State than liberal ones, why not?


The trouble with fascism is that it is set up to reward flaws in human nature.
#14540328
Saeko wrote:@Pants-of-dog

Can you define "fascism"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

    Fascism (/fæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. Influenced by national syndicalism, fascism originated in Italy during World War I, combining more typically right-wing positions with elements of left-wing politics, in opposition to liberalism, Marxism, and traditional conservatism.

On a more down-to-earth level, I tend to think of Mussolini's gov't as being the most fascist gov't in history; the gold standard, so to speak.
#14540346
Like I said, I tend to think of Mussolini's gov't as being the one that most fits my definition of fascism.

Thus, fascism is a form of authoritarianism. It has a strong central state led usually by a single charismatic leader, and this state has the power to mobilise all the people and groups in the society. It also deplores diversity, striving for unity. Due to this authoritarianism and drive for unity, it tends towards totalitarianism.

It also seems oddly caught up with esoterica (Serrano) or warrior mythology (a la Wagner), as opposed to leftist materialism.

Is there anything else?

EDIT: Please note that the lack of diversity also extends to policy of ethnic unity, and lack of ethnic diversity within the nation-state.
#14540351
You're providing a narrow definition - Fascism in Portugal, for example, wasn't totalitarian because our leader hated giving public speeches and hated crowds, so it was a more discreet authoritarian regime.

It's almost like the definition that fascism is racialist when Mussolini said in "The Doctrine Of Fascism" that 95% of race is merely a feeling.
User avatar
By Noob
#14540354
That's not a definition of fascism, Pants-of-dog, that's just your personal description. Also, as Zeev Sternhell has pointed out, racism isn't consubstantial to fascism.

The only ingredient that's generally accepted as a constant of fascism in academic circles that you've managed to point out, is authoritarianism.

Was Pinochet's regime "fascist", in your mind, Pants-of-dog?

On a more down-to-earth level, I tend to think of Mussolini's gov't as being the most fascist gov't in history; the gold standard, so to speak.

That's wrong. There are many fascisms, suited to each nation. What's the 'most liberal government in history'? What's the 'most Marxist government in history'?
#14540356
Noob wrote:That's not a definition of fascism, Pants-of-dog, that's just your personal description. Also, as Zeev Sternhell has pointed out, racism isn't consubstantial to fascism.


Exactly.

I provided a definition earlier, and then I was asked to describe it in my own words. The fact that you noticed it was a description seems to indicate that I have done what was asked.

The only ingredient that's generally accepted as a constant of fascism in academic circles that you've managed to point out, is authoritarianism.

Was Pinochet's regime "fascist", in your mind, Pants-of-dog?


I think of it more as authoritarian neolliberal capitalism.

That's wrong. There are many fascisms, suited to each nation. What's the 'most liberal government in history'? What's the 'most Marxist government in history'?


And we can agree that some nations are more fascist than others, in that they fit the definition a bit more perfectly. In my opinion, Mussolini's Italy fit the definition the most perfectly.

Can we please return to the discussion?
User avatar
By Noob
#14540358
As I say, it's not a proper definition.

And we can agree that some nations are more fascist than others, in that they fit the definition a bit more perfectly. In my opinion, Mussolini's Italy fit the definition the most perfectly.

Your "definition" includes only one of three generally accepted ingredients; your definition only includes authoritarianism. By that measure, Pinochet's regime should be fascist, even though it isn't.

Can we please return to the discussion?

The discussion is fascism, if I'm not mistaken.
#14540360
Noob wrote:As I say, it's not a proper definition.


And I agree. The proper definition can be found in a previous post.

Your "definition" includes only one of three generally accepted ingredients; your definition only includes authoritarianism. By that measure, Pinochet's regime should be fascist, even though it isn't.


What are the other two ingredients?

The discussion is fascism, if I'm not mistaken.


Yes. I made the observation that the trouble with fascism is that it is set up to reward flaws in human nature. This is why it tends to fail.
#14540362
Noob wrote:That's wrong. There are many fascisms, suited to each nation.

You are both wrong. Fascism as an ideology is just for the peasants. The actual force of fascism is the defense of private property by any means necessary. That is all.

Noob wrote:What's the 'most liberal government in history'?

The United States.

Noob wrote:What's the 'most Marxist government in history'?

The Soviet Union.
#14540363
Your belief that fascism fails because it rewards the worst in human nature needs a better explanation. First of all, I don't see how liberalism, neo-liberalism and capitalism reward the best in human nature. In my opinion of the best traits humans can have in fascist regimes is the idea of doing what's best for the State and not for your own self, even if that includes sacrifices - This may seem terrible at first but if you think about it the biggest flaw of liberalism is that everyone does what's best for himself and eventually our interests collide and ruin everything.
User avatar
By Noob
#14540366
Pants-of-dog wrote:And I agree. The proper definition can be found in a previous post.

That's just Wikipedia's faulty description.

What are the other two ingredients?

  • Non-democratic socialism (corporatism; opposed to the 'absolute democracy' of communism)
  • Jacobin-type nationalism (unifying and generally levelling all regional differences; fascism was a reorientation of socialism away from internationalism)

Yes. I made the observation that the trouble with fascism is that it is set up to reward flaws in human nature. This is why it tends to fail.

You may like to believe that people are ordained from the heavens as liberals at birth, but you'll have a hard time proving that.

Dagoth Ur wrote:You are both wrong. Fascism as an ideology is just for the peasants. The actual force of fascism is the defense of private property by any means necessary. That is all.

"Fascism is liberalism! Long live Lenin!"

And communism is a bourgeois ideology for bourgeois people. Péguy noted this well:
    The bourgeoisie began to treat the work of man as a security on the stock exchange; so, in his turn, the worker began to treat his own work as a security on the stock exchange. The political socialist party is entirely composed of intellectual bourgeois. It is they who invented the double desertion, desertion from work and desertion from tools.
User avatar
By Saeko
#14540368
Pants-of-dog wrote:Like I said, I tend to think of Mussolini's gov't as being the one that most fits my definition of fascism.

Thus, fascism is a form of authoritarianism. It has a strong central state led usually by a single charismatic leader, and this state has the power to mobilise all the people and groups in the society. It also deplores diversity, striving for unity. Due to this authoritarianism and drive for unity, it tends towards totalitarianism.

It also seems oddly caught up with esoterica (Serrano) or warrior mythology (a la Wagner), as opposed to leftist materialism.

Is there anything else?

EDIT: Please note that the lack of diversity also extends to policy of ethnic unity, and lack of ethnic diversity within the nation-state.


Fair enough. But why? Why do fascists do fascism?
#14540369
Dystopian Darkness wrote:Your belief that fascism fails because it rewards the worst in human nature needs a better explanation.


Again, people in the fascist gov't or their informers can use their power to take whatever they want from civilians in the society with impunity, due to the lack of gov't accountability and the overwhelming gov't power.

Yes, there are checks and balances against this in the form of people getting fed up and attacking gov't officials. This is called "revolution" and should not be considered an effective part of fascism.

First of all, I don't see how liberalism, neo-liberalism and capitalism reward the best in human nature.


I don't think they do. In fact, capitalism also rewards human flaws such as greed.

In my opinion of the best traits humans can have in fascist regimes is the idea of doing what's best for the State and not for your own self, even if that includes sacrifices - This may seem terrible at first but if you think about it the biggest flaw of liberalism is that everyone does what's best for himself and eventually our interests collide and ruin everything.


Yes, the other day, my neighbour wanted to go to church and I did not want to go to church. There was bloody and violent conflict for years. Oh wait, that didn't happen at all.

----------------

Noob wrote:That's just Wikipedia's faulty description.


Okay.

  • Non-democratic socialism (corporatism; opposed to the 'absolute democracy' of communism)


I think most socialists would strongly disagree with this definition of fascist economics, and I think that state capitalism would be a better description of fascist economics than corporatism, but whatever.

  • Jacobin-type nationalism (unifying and generally levelling all regional differences; fascism was a reorientation of socialism away from internationalism)


  • Yes, I believe I mentioned national unity and a lack of diversity.

    You may like to believe that people are ordained from the heavens as liberals at birth, but you'll have a hard time proving that.


    1. I do not believe that.
    2. That has nothing to do with what I said.

    Now, I made the observation that the trouble with fascism is that it is set up to reward flaws in human nature. As I mentioned to DD, I have explained why earlier in the thread.

    -----------------------

    Saeko wrote:Fair enough. But why? Why do fascists do fascism?


    I do not know. I can muse about possible motives, but I feel that might end up being less than polite for our fascist forum members.
    User avatar
    By Noob
    #14540372
    I do not know. I can muse about possible motives, but I feel that might end up being less than polite for our fascist forum members.

    Maybe it's their inherent character flaws that deviate from "human nature". Or something.
    #14540377
    If there's something valuable in this forum is that people are allowed to discuss ideologies and express opinions, even unpopular ones - People shouldn't be afraid to offend others. So just spit it out.

    [I'm actually glad about how free speech works here because I was banned from another internet forum for being Islamophobic ]
    #14540378
    Noob wrote:Maybe it's their inherent character flaws that deviate from "human nature". Or something.


    I doubt it. As I said, I would rather not talk about it.

    Though, such a motive would be consistent with my explanation as to why fascism is not a sustainable social order.

    -----------------

    Dystopian Darkness wrote:If there's something valuable in this forum is that people are allowed to discuss ideologies and express opinions, even unpopular ones - People shouldn't be afraid to offend others. So just spit it out.

    [I'm actually glad about how free speech works here because I was banned from another internet forum for being Islamophobic ]


    I too enjoy the free speech here, but I try to moderate myself and I try to stay polite. I am not always successful.
    • 1
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
    Russia-Ukraine War 2022

    Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

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

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

    I (still) have a dream

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