Fascism debate because I'm bored - 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.
#15027779
Palmyrene wrote:Why are so neddled by me criticizing fascism.

I don't even know what Jacobinism is.

I do not know what "neddled" means but I did say I am just bored of it. For a political fad that has been basically dead for 80 years (excepting Franco who died in 1975) it seems to get too much air time. Same with communism really except the PRC and DPRK are still around so there is some wriggle room for talking about communism using the present tense.

Jacobinism is the ideology or movement associated with carrying out Reign of Terror during the French revolution. See that is ancient history now. You can talk about it of course but it belongs in the history forum not current events.
#15027784
SolarCross wrote:I do not know what "neddled" means but I did say I am just bored of it. For a political fad that has been basically dead for 80 years (excepting Franco who died in 1975) it seems to get too much air time. Same with communism really except the PRC and DPRK are still around so there is some wriggle room for talking about communism using the present tense.


Fascism isn't an ideology, it's a force of nature. And there's plenty of self-described fascists on this forum. Verv, SSDR, etc. are some of them.
#15027787
Palmyrene wrote:Fascism isn't an ideology, it's a force of nature. And there's plenty of self-described fascists on this forum. Verv, SSDR, etc. are some of them.


No its was a fad. And aside from a minority of internet cranks it does not exist anywhere that matters.
#15027794
SolarCross wrote:No its was a fad. And aside from a minority of internet cranks it does not exist anywhere that matters.


You don't know what fascism is. I suggest you read Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism to properly understand what it is.
#15027795
Palmyrene wrote:You don't know what fascism is. I suggest you read Umberto Eco's essay Ur-Fascism to properly understand what it is.


Yes I do. I suggest you stop weeping over imaginary bogeymens under your bed and get with the modern world. The shit happening now is what you should be fretting over.
#15027805
SolarCross wrote:Yes I do. I suggest you stop weeping over imaginary bogeymens under your bed and get with the modern world. The shit happening now is what you should be fretting over.


Yeah. Fascism exists.

Syria and other Baathist states aren't imaginary. Islamists aren't imaginary. Fascists and populist rising the West and Latin America aren't imaginary.

Their real and pretending they aren't gives them power.
#15027816
Palmyrene wrote:Yeah. Fascism exists.

Syria and other Baathist states aren't imaginary. Islamists aren't imaginary. Fascists and populist rising the West and Latin America aren't imaginary.

Their real and pretending they aren't gives them power.


Islamists are their own thing, they are probably worse than fascists if anything. The populism in europe is pro-freedom of speech, individual liberty and democracy because in contrast the political establisment in europe leans against those things being rather technocratic. There is no fascism there. No worship of the state, no dear leaders, no censorship or any of that shit.

What is going on in Europe is a conflict of interests between the democratic national liberalism of the people vs the technocratic liberalism of the EU. Even the EU more liberal than fascist. It is national liberals vs trans-national liberals.

I do not know about Baathism but maybe it is some kind of imitation of european politics from a century ago. I give you that.
#15027818
SolarCross wrote:Islamists are their own thing, they are probably worse than fascists if anything.


They are fascists. They aren't their own thing or worse.

The only reason why you think it's worse is because they're Muslim. If they were Christian you'd be licking their boots in no time.

The populism in europe is pro-freedom of speech, individual liberty and democracy because in contrast the political establisment in europe leans against those things being rather technocratic. There is no fascism there. No worship of the state, no dear leaders, no censorship or any of that shit.


No. It isn't. It's intentionally inflammatory and attempts to sway the population towards racist and ultra-religious ideas. They need an open platform to get the state they want and then shut down free speech. They're pragmatic like that. It's about control for them.

I do not know about Baathism but maybe it is some kind of imitation of european politics from a century ago. I give you that.


It isn't. It's fascism.
#15027823
Palmyrene wrote:They are fascists. They aren't their own thing or worse.

The only reason why you think it's worse is because they're Muslim. If they were Christian you'd be licking their boots in no time.

Well then you are not using the word fascist correctly. Leftists basically never do, so I am not surprised.

Palmyrene wrote:No. It isn't. It's intentionally inflammatory and attempts to sway the population towards racist and ultra-religious ideas. They need an open platform to get the state they want and then shut down free speech. They're pragmatic like that. It's about control for them.

It isn't. It's fascism.


Again you are just not using words correctly.
#15027826
SolarCross wrote:Well then you are not using the word fascist correctly. Leftists basically never do, so I am not surprised.


1. I live in a fascist state.

2. I've read fascist literature.

3. I've read Umbreto Eco's essay on fascism of whom also lived through Mussolini's Italy.

I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

Again you are just not using words correctly.


On the contrary it's you who are in such denial that his little sacred cows are fascists.
#15027852
Palmyrene wrote:The oppressed citizens decide who gets to be killed.


Good ideals, but in practice many of them would lean onto "an eye for an eye", which means it would induce hate.
#15027867
Palmyrene wrote:They should hate government. That's the point.


If I revolve around your point, by possessing power of executing ousted governmental individuals effectively the people are themselves government.

More importantly, I am more concerned on the possible abuse of such an immense power, especially there are always people who are both capable and willing to manipulate things to their favour than others.
#15027871
Patrickov wrote:If I revolve around your point, by possessing power of executing ousted governmental individuals effectively the people are themselves government.


No they aren't. Opposing oppression isn't a government. Is an abused wife fighting against her abusive husband an oppressor? Is that a government?

More importantly, I am more concerned on the possible abuse of such an immense power, especially there are always people who are both capable and willing to manipulate things to their favour than others.


Quite frankly this is already the case. No law can ever prevent people from revolting or killing. In fact, laws don't prevent against anything at all nor do they deter people from committing such acts.
#15027924
Palmyrene wrote:On the contrary it's you who are in such denial that his little sacred cows are fascists.


Who? Nigel Farage? Boris Johnson? Rees-Mogg? Are you so insane that you have no idea how insane that sounds?
#15027929
BigSteve wrote:Twist it any way you want.

Your message was clear...



Yes, the 'message is clear' alright, you are the one that 'twist' or distorts the reality-self explanatory really, buy a pair of 'shades' without filters or 'blinkers' on. :knife:
#15027933
Palmyrene wrote:Is an abused wife fighting against her abusive husband an oppressor? Is that a government?

You keep using that argument point a lot.
this a False equivalence fallacy.

What rules apply to an individual are not the same as those which apply to a collective or a movement in this regard.
#15027986
anasawad wrote:You keep using that argument point a lot.
this a False equivalence fallacy.

What rules apply to an individual are not the same as those which apply to a collective or a movement in this regard.


The argument here is that letting individuals kill whoever they want is a government.

Disregarding how this is already the case (laws don't prevent people from doing things), my example makes perfect sense in this regard.

In every other time I've used this example, it's always been for individuals as well.

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

It is interesting you ignored all the other measu[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]

Indeed. It is strange, but they're all over the in[…]