Everyday Life in Fascist Society - Page 5 - 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.
#14496473
I would say that Fascism as it manifested was parasitic off the existing classes. First it targeted the lower classes for populist reasons (Mussolini in his early rhetoric, Hitler with the SA and Feder's econ theory), then the bourgeoisie for structural reasons (Mussolini's cooperation with existing politics, Hitler's partnerships with big industry), and finally it subverted the interests of even the bourgeoisie by locking them into nationalistic interests that were irrational from a capitalist point of view (Mussolini's IRI resulted in the Italian state being the de facto owner of much of the economy by the end of the 30s, Goerring taking over from Schacht after 1936, in Germany, starting the Four Year Plan, and starting Reichswerke to overrule all the steel barons that brought the party to power), and so they had to engage in expansionist wars to keep the economy afloat. The enacting of the Holocaust in particular involved shipping supplies away from the frontline. National Socialism in Germany exhausted everything else and eventually itself in trying to put its ideological aims above other concerns.

In Spain, "fascism" survived past WWII, specifically because Franco overruled the falange.
#14496510
Technology wrote:I would say that Fascism as it manifested was parasitic off the existing classes. First it targeted the lower classes for populist reasons (Mussolini in his early rhetoric, Hitler with the SA and Feder's econ theory), then the bourgeoisie for structural reasons (Mussolini's cooperation with existing politics, Hitler's partnerships with big industry), and finally it subverted the interests of even the bourgeoisie by locking them into nationalistic interests that were irrational from a capitalist point of view (Mussolini's IRI resulted in the Italian state being the de facto owner of much of the economy by the end of the 30s, Goerring taking over from Schacht after 1936, in Germany, starting the Four Year Plan, and starting Reichswerke to overrule all the steel barons that brought the party to power), and so they had to engage in expansionist wars to keep the economy afloat. The enacting of the Holocaust in particular involved shipping supplies away from the frontline. National Socialism in Germany exhausted everything else and eventually itself in trying to put its ideological aims above other concerns.


INational Socialism put the State above all to pursue the goal of hegemony. You could say it was "parasitic" or it believed everyone should sacrifice for a greater Whole (or a great goal).

In Spain, "fascism" survived past WWII, specifically because Franco overruled the falange.


Franco stayed out of WWII, which was perhaps easy as his "fascism" was a conservative, do nothing type, wedded to the church...
#14497356
The basic fascist society structure is no different from modern society as they are both capitalist.
However Fascism is obviously totalitarian and Nationalistic, and also more socialistic than traditional liberal society.

To be honest OP, it is a hard question to answer, because NSDAP and Italian Fascist policies, both social and political, essentially addressed a specific time period's needs.
Would Nazi Germany have mass conscription in times of peace? Obviously not. The mass militarism was only due to WW2 fighting.

So in essence I would say that it would be same as capitalistic liberal society,
But different in the sense it would be DIRIGISTE.

So certain companies would be allowed to exist and prosper. Others not.
Other than that the citizens would be free to study what they want and work for the companies they want.
As a dictator I would only see to implement military measures if there is a need for it.

However I must say that I admired the NSDAP program of forcing the German youth to participate in "ReichsArbeitsdienst".
So this was cheap labor for the state to build massive projects (autobahn, etc).
I think this was good for young Germans because:
1. It taught them about physical labor and would give them humility for the rest of their lives (even as doctors or lawyers, etc... later)
2. It instilled them a sense of "common class labor for the country" and would thus give them a civic sense of duty.
3. It boosted the economy for cheap costs.
#14497750
ImperialSun wrote:The basic fascist society structure is no different from modern society as they are both capitalist.


But the nazis dominated and controlled business in pursuit of their own goals.

Would Nazi Germany have mass conscription in times of peace? Obviously not.


There was only one way the reich would have peace and that was after establishing hegemony in Europe if not far beyond. That would've required a sizeable standing army, to hold the conquered peoples down and prepare for further wars with the US etc.
#14846295
ImperialSun wrote:The mass militarism was only due to WW2 fighting.


Militarism was a prerequisite for "WW2 fighting" i.e. conquest. Prior to the outbreak of war the nazis noted that, whereas it had taken the old Imperial Army 16 years, from 1898 to 1914, to increase its strength from 38 to 54 divisions, in just 6 years they had gone from practically nothing to 100 divisions.


Other than that the citizens would be free to study what they want and work for the companies they want.


As Shirer noted, the State increasingly decided who could be hired for what and where. The "workbook" was used to "tie the German workman to his bench."
#14974910
Here are some general characteristics of a typical life in a fascist society: Some of these characteristics imply in ultraconservative, or traditionalist societies as well.

- Women were to be raised to be obedient wives. Women were to work a little at a young age, but in general, she is supposed to stay home, have children, raise them, and be obedient to her husband. Women who wanted to be independent, alone, and not have a family were viewed as crazy or unfaithful.

- Children were not to question authority. Children were to follow their families, and the state. National glory, having lots of faith in their nation's past, and not saying curse words were some general characteristics on what was expected from children in fascist like societies.

- Men were to be Very masculine. Men were bossy, controlling, and too involved.

- Masturbation, cursing, drinking a lot for fun, listening to contemporary music such as rock or jazz, casual sex, femdom sex, and going against authority were not allowed. Some even viewed these things as products "created by the Jews to "rule" you."

- Domestic abuse is not recognized. So, if your family abuses you, they can't get in trouble for that. The state also doesn't mention domestic abuse publicly to make society not look bad, and also to not "teach" people that it's abuse, even though it is.

- Women would have to marry their rapists.

- Police officers were the most feared people on the streets. There would be no talking back, any talking back would be a serious crime.

- Using slang in public, around family that supports conservative politics, or in the workplace was strongly not accepted, and was viewed like a mini crime.

- Society would be socially collective. Individualism would very little exist outside one's bedroom.

- Each person has a role in society. Women were child raisers, cooks and cleaners, and were huggers. Children were obedient to everyone above them. Men were bossy and controlling. Employers were strict. Police officers were dominant. And state workers were the ultimate bosses.

- Speaking against the institution would be a serious crime.

- If the fascist society was religious (early fascism was very secular), speaking against religion was a serious crime. Claiming that there is no god would most likely be a death sentence.

- Fascist society is not labour friendly. Workers were viewed as Low lives, while the upper classes were worshiped like celebrities, except that they're not liberal.

- There would be less welfare, depending on what kind of fascism is advocated, and that the family would be welfare. Basically, low income people, disabled people, elders, and the mentally ill were forced to stay with their families, regardless of domestic abuse since it wasn't recognized.

- All of this would make a realist sound alone, since a society like this would use religion to cope with this.
#14975331
SSDR wrote:Here are some general characteristics of a typical life in a fascist society: Some of these characteristics imply in ultraconservative, or traditionalist societies as well.


Or instead of in fascist societies.

- Women would have to marry their rapists.


What fascist society insisted on that?? Rapists were to be shot.

- Police officers were the most feared people on the streets. There would be no talking back, any talking back would be a serious crime.


The most feared people were political police.

- Society would be socially collective. Individualism would very little exist outside one's bedroom.


Right, in theory.


What fascist country executed atheists? At its core fascism was diametrically opposed to christianity.



Those at the top were party bosses not necessarily the rich.



Or in some cases just eliminated. Since what mattered was the State, not the individual, any individual who had nothing to contribute and was just a burden, could be liable to liquidation.


Nationalism or ideology was invoked to justify policies.
#14976112
@starman2003, Yeah in many societies prior to progressivism, many women who were raped had to marry their rapists. It was shameful not to under non socialist words. Yes, early fascism was atheistic, but a lot of newer, post WWII fascist movements are religious. Even the Ustase was religious.
#14976199
SSDR wrote: Yes, early fascism was atheistic, but a lot of newer, post WWII fascist movements are religious.


Franco's system was but it was a backwater. The greatest and most serious fascist systems were secular but are long gone. I very much doubt a future fascism, or something resembling it, will be religious. At least not in a great, modern state.
#14976421
SSDR wrote:@starman2003, What do you think of websites such as Stormfront? Or what are your views on neo-Nazism and strict families?


I don't like racist groups or websites and don't think they're going anywhere. At a time when democracy is showing signs of eventual breakdown, what's needed is a rational alternative, not them.
Some time ago, I checked the "Iron March" website and wasn't very impressed with it either. There were many seemingly intelligent people, but they deny the holocaust and even evolution... Someday, when the failings of the present system become more glaring and intolerable, so many more people seek an alternative, we'll finally see movements with a modicum of brains. I just can't believe current movements (with racist and false ideas) will ever gain enough support to rise to power.
#14976581
A lot of the neo-fascist movements attract crackpots and maniacs. They like these ideas because they're misanthropic, they like the exhibitionism and being able to show off. If they were not neo-nazis they would be some type of sex activists or involved in the far left. It's all just signalling and a type of counter-culture. In another time and place they'd be shaking their arses in the air to get attention. Open racism is nothing but exhibitionism.

They do all this under the banner of traditional values and conservatism, but it is neither. They don't want a stable place to raise families but just want a permanent revolution, just that these people chose a far right revolution.

In other words the neo-fascists of today are extremely dangerous and are not motivated by any type of noble ideals.

All of this is symptomatic of the decline of the West, that there is a large section of people who can embrace such anti-social ideas.
#14976601
Political Interest wrote:A lot of the neo-fascist movements attract crackpots and maniacs. They like these ideas because they're misanthropic.....In other words the neo-fascists of today are extremely dangerous and are not motivated by any type of noble ideals.


I've been in some online fascist groups. While I didn't agree 100% with most of the members, there were quite a few well-intentioned, intelligent people. Among other things they favor environment protection. And some were anti-racist. Once there was a black guy interested in fascism but reluctant to join a group because he usually equated it with racism. In one group at least we all--to a man--welcomed him.

All of this is symptomatic of the decline of the West, that there is a large section of people who can embrace such anti-social ideas.


I would hardly call fascists today a "large section" of people, certainly not relative to total population. And they tend to be anti-present system not anti-social.
#14976644
@starman2003, What online communities are real fascist supporters? Collectively, fascism hasn't been a movement since the 1940's (besides Juan Peron of the 1950's-1970's).

I am not very hostile towards fascism. Fascism is not my biggest enemy. Capitalism is. I am very hostile towards capitalism.
#14976735
SSDR wrote:@starman2003, What online communities are real fascist supporters? Collectively, fascism hasn't been a movement since the 1940's (besides Juan Peron of the 1950's-1970's).


Well, frankly, I've been put of the loop for some time. Over a decade ago, Seth Thyrssen had his American Fascist Party but it was a joke IMO. He insisted on using the fascist title but favored keeping the constitution and personal freedom. That's exactly the opposite of a true fascist approach--an outward democratic facade and a real fascist core. :)


I am not very hostile towards fascism. Fascism is not my biggest enemy. Capitalism is. I am very hostile towards capitalism.


Since the end of the Cold War, capitalism has won out, but I have serious misgivings about it and don't believe it'll last indefinitely. I favor a great activist State, striving toward great common goals, like global unification and expansion into space. Capitalism just doesn't mesh well with Statism. Capitalism is about personal aggrandizement, not a greater whole.
#14976808
starman2003 wrote:
I've been in some online fascist groups. While I didn't agree 100% with most of the members, there were quite a few well-intentioned, intelligent people. Among other things they favor environment protection. And some were anti-racist. Once there was a black guy interested in fascism but reluctant to join a group because he usually equated it with racism. In one group at least we all--to a man--welcomed him.


There is a massive problem in right wing movements in that they attract these type of psychotics. A lot of these people have mental problems, they're full of anger. None of them want to live a stable life. And the right is full of them.

If I am going to get involved in politics I would want to be around nice and cool headed people. I'd not want to be around angry racist psychos who might be a threat to my safety.

I mean in all honesty they could not organise themselves out of a paper bag, how could they create any real change? More importantly, they would fail to create a sustainable future state or one where people would want to live.
#14976917
Political Interest wrote:If I am going to get involved in politics I would want to be around nice and cool headed people. I'd not want to be around angry racist psychos who might be a threat to my safety.

I mean in all honesty they could not organise themselves out of a paper bag, how could they create any real change? More importantly, they would fail to create a sustainable future state or one where people would want to live.


I think the crux of the problem is, the present system is still outwardly doing OK, so the appeal of "far right" groups is still very limited. Indeed many of the current members have mental issues, or are terribly misguided. The key to better alternative (to democracy) movements is a serious failure of the present system. That would broaden the appeal of alternative movements, to the point where they'll attract a lot more intelligent people, instead of just a tiny "lunatic fringe" minority (largely).
#14977325
starman2003 wrote:I think the crux of the problem is, the present system is still outwardly doing OK, so the appeal of "far right" groups is still very limited. Indeed many of the current members have mental issues, or are terribly misguided. The key to better alternative (to democracy) movements is a serious failure of the present system. That would broaden the appeal of alternative movements, to the point where they'll attract a lot more intelligent people, instead of just a tiny "lunatic fringe" minority (largely).


All of what we associate with the far right is in actual fact problematic. People need systems that do not result in them being morally compromised or supporting something that is reprehensible. Normal people with girlfriends and families are not going to support this. Hatred is not an ideology or sustainable, nor is fanaticism that we saw in National Socialism. Racism is terrible as well.

Ideology must be a system. Any alternative to democracy must not ask people to morally compromise themselves. Most normal people are not going to support state sanctioned racism or genocides, and nor should they. Yet right wing alternative ideas continue to be filled with this type of lunacy.

The Anglo-American Alt-Right despite apparently being called a better class of 'white nationalism' is also disgusting.

Their far left counterparts are also mad as well.

Any critique of democracy from a right wing point of view cannot have a racial basis.
#14977434
Political Interest wrote:All of what we associate with the far right is in actual fact problematic.


Sure, as matters now stand.

Hatred is not an ideology or sustainable....


Right, while any ideology favors some things and hates others (any decent person hates environmental degradation for example) an ideology, to be sustainable, must have a positive message, an inspiring vision, like global unity, perpetual peace in a high tech paradise, and space expansion. :)

Ideology must be a system.....Most normal people are not going to support state sanctioned racism or genocides, and nor should they. Yet right wing alternative ideas continue to be filled with this type of lunacy.


Well like I said, as long as the present system is still outwardly doing OK, few people oppose it, and those that do tend to do so just for the sake of notoreity (neo-nazis etc). Indeed lunacy can't win out, but when the present system finally begins to seriously fail, far more intelligent people (dissatisfied with current "alternatives") will devise a better one.

Any critique of democracy from a right wing point of view cannot have a racial basis.


Right that's symptomatic of the present, sorry state of affairs...
The Trump Shut Down

BOycey. I agree with you entirely. Sadly you ar[…]

Co-equality? Well, ...

Sir, thank you for your response. With regard to y[…]

Democrats SHOULD build the wall

Try something new. Post your evidence. There's […]

@noemon , You wrote: "Steve wrote: Also, th[…]