[ThereBeDragons]

Fascists, communists, and revolutionaries of all stripes all unashamedly support the violent suppression of dissenting opinions. Such things are necessary to retain power when the existing social order is violently overthrown. This is why when you mention either, people think of jackboots, secret police, and death squads, even if it is the case that a kinder, gentler fascism may not need to resort to such brutal methods to maintain control of the masses.

Liberal democratic capitalists have done such things, but such actions are at least nominally unacceptable in systems which are based on individual rights and freedom of association. Even when the system is responsible for such things as famine and death, people are (or at least they should be) free to express dissent without being suppressed. This worldview only endorses violence when such violence is aimed at overthrowing an illegitimate (non-democratic) authority, or in the defense of property.

Fascists will break your fingers and cheer all the while; when liberals do it there will be a lot of hand-wringing about it, and despite the fact that broken fingers are broken fingers people feel better about endorsing a system that nominally condemns such things.

Neither you nor Rei nor Fasces have ever lived in authoritarian nations,. You folks are the only ones supporting it, therefore no one who has ever lived in one is supporting it.

This is highly questionable logic.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is highly questionable logic.

It's not the best, but it suffices for my point: no one on PoFo who has ever lived in an authoritarian nation has championed such gov'ts.

[ThereBeDragons]

It's not the best, but it suffices for my point: no one on PoFo who has ever lived in an authoritarian nation has championed such gov'ts.

And there are what, ten of them? Hardly a sample size to draw conclusions from. And almost all of them ex-Soviet citizens, I think.

[Pants-of-dog]

And there are what, ten of them?

Ten of who?

Hardly a sample size to draw conclusions from. And almost all of them ex-Soviet citizens, I think.

Feel free to point out one poster who has lived in an authoritarian nation who would like to do so again.

[ThereBeDragons]

Ten of who?

Ten active posters who have lived in authoritarian nations.

Feel free to point out one poster who has lived in an authoritarian nation who would like to do so again.

I don't know how old Andropov is, but his family lived under the Soviet Union and supported the system.

[Pants-of-dog]

Ten active posters who have lived in authoritarian nations.

...that you know of. There may be more.

I don't know how old Andropov is, but his family lived under the Soviet Union and supported the system.

Andropov would have to be (minimally) in his mid-thirties to have any real appreciation of living in an authoritarian USSR. This is somewhat higher than the average age of PoFo users.

[Rei Murasame]

Everyone is too young and can only ask their parents and grandparents if the sky fell in without western-style liberal democracy. I can only speak for myself and say that no one from the generations above me have ever complained to me about the sky falling in because of a lack of liberalism. Most of the complaints I heard were about completely different things.

[Far-Right Sage]

Fascism is an authoritarian gov't. That is a basic fact. Are you really pretending otherwise?

Fascism (pron.: /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in mid-20th century Europe. Fascists seek to unify their nation through a totalitarian state that seeks the mass mobilization of the national community,[3][4] relying on a vanguard party to initiate a revolution to organize the nation on fascist principles.[5]

I was referring to your rant about jackboots, not the definition of authoritarianism, clearly.

The evidence is right in front of you. Neither you nor Rei nor Fasces have ever lived in authoritarian nations,. You folks are the only ones supporting it, therefore no one who has ever lived in one is supporting it.

To begin with, before I address the ignorance and utter irrationality beyond your comment here, I wish to point out that this is a classic changing of the goal posts which seems to be your signature debate tactic around here. The sentence you wrote, which I was responding to, was this: "No one who has ever lived in an authoritarian gov't wants to do it again", not the latter silliness you are bringing out now that the unverifiable nonsense claim you originally stated which was and is absolutely ridiculous was identified as such. You would be the first to demand access to the statements of three billion people alive and deceased had anyone else made such a sweeping and unscientific ludicrous statement such as that in a discussion with you.

Now, you have also chosen to take an unfortunate line here, as it simply isn't true. Regardless of the circumstances of my birth which I have discussed privately with those I place a greater deal of trust in here, my mother in what was up to that point a significant chunk of her life lived in the typification of this so-called authoritarian regime, in reality totalitarian - and before this, experienced society in cultural upheaval which also laid the basis for her later views and opinions. I have spoken of this on a dozen occasions. Apologies, but I will not discount her position in this as I must "bear the flame", so to speak. In addition, I am somewhat murky on the details, but I believe Fasces, who is quite young yet originally emigrated from Spain, had close relatives who were enthusiastic Falangists under yet another government you would no doubt demonize.

This is highly questionable logic

This is not what I would refer to as questionable logic, but a complete and utter mockery of logic.

Fascists will break your fingers and cheer all the while; when liberals do it there will be a lot of hand-wringing about it, and despite the fact that broken fingers are broken fingers people feel better about endorsing a system that nominally condemns such things.

No, fascists acknowledge their violence and seek to both explain and justify it before the people. Liberals hide from their own violence, fudge the evidence, and lie about why it was carried out.

[ThereBeDragons]

...that you know of. There may be more.

I don't think I even know of four. Ten was an estimate. Your estimate? Or count, if you pay attention to posters better than I do.

No, fascists acknowledge their violence and seek to both explain and justify it before the people. Liberals hide from their own violence, fudge the evidence, and lie about why it was carried out.

That they do. Still, principle is an enticing thing. It will never be ideologically "correct" to have the government declare you can't say this, or buy that, or teach your children so-and-so, or marry who you like - yes, there are rampant exceptions to all of the above, but in general liberal governments are permissive regarding their citizens, and that's something people don't fear.

Still, liberal governments will frequently trample people down, and then claim that such things were necessary in the pursuit of some higher cause. I suppose that fascists can claim exactly the same.

[Rei Murasame]

They really did manage to find a golden selling point in the claim that "you can do whatever you want". Basically no one else has that, and so there's no point trying to beat liberalism at being liberalism, since we can't - and don't want to - be better than them at claiming something that we don't even see as a priority.

[Pants-of-dog]

I was referring to your rant about jackboots, not the definition of authoritarianism, clearly.

Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability.

Therefore, by definition, there is nothing stopping them from sending over jack-booted thugs to disappear you.

Again, this is fact that can be observed throughout human history.

To begin with, before I address the ignorance and utter irrationality beyond your comment here, I wish to point out that this is a classic changing of the goal posts which seems to be your signature debate tactic around here. The sentence you wrote, which I was responding to, was this: "No one who has ever lived in an authoritarian gov't wants to do it again", not the latter silliness you are bringing out now that the unverifiable nonsense claim you originally stated which was and is absolutely ridiculous was identified as such. You would be the first to demand access to the statements of three billion people alive and deceased had anyone else made such a sweeping and unscientific ludicrous statement such as that in a discussion with you.

Feel free to point out a single person who loves being under the yoke of an oppressive gov't.

Now, you have also chosen to take an unfortunate line here, as it simply isn't true. Regardless of the circumstances of my birth which I have discussed privately with those I place a greater deal of trust in here, my mother in what was up to that point a significant chunk of her life lived in the typification of this so-called authoritarian regime, in reality totalitarian - and before this, experienced society in cultural upheaval which also laid the basis for her later views and opinions. I have spoken of this on a dozen occasions. Apologies, but I will not discount her position in this as I must "bear the flame", so to speak. In addition, I am somewhat murky on the details, but I believe Fasces, who is quite young yet originally emigrated from Spain, had close relatives who were enthusiastic Falangists under yet another government you would no doubt demonize.

In other words, no one here can claim for themselves that they want to live in an authoritarian gov't.

All your flowery rhetoric cannot change the simple fact that people don't like to be oppressed.

[ThereBeDragons]

Feel free to point out a single person who loves being under the yoke of an oppressive gov't.

By "person", do you mean "human being" or "PoFo poster"?

In other words, no one here can claim for themselves that they want to live in an authoritarian gov't.

How many posters here who have lived under authoritarian governments do you think there are in total?

[Pants-of-dog]

By "person", do you mean "human being" or "PoFo poster"?

At this point, I don't care which. It should be a lot easier to find the former.

How many people here who have lived under authoritarian governments do you think there are in total?

That I am absolutely certain of?

One. (if you mean Pofo)

[Rei Murasame]

Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability.

This is probably the weakest argument I've ever seen you make, it practically verges upon being libertarian. Are you going to claim that only liberal democracies adhere to rule of law?

Feel free to point out a single person who loves being under the yoke of an oppressive gov't.

Sensational lanaguage aside, that task is easy:

The election result exposes a generation gap: Older voters remember the country’s poverty before Park Chung-hee took power in a 1961 military coup. They lived through South Korea’s rags-to-riches transition; they still revere the former president. Some of their children and grandchildren feel the same way. Every year, I have my students write a letter to a past or present head of state, and occasionally students pen valentines to Park Chung-hee.

Most of their classmates, like most South Koreans under 40, see Park Chung-hee differently. They never knew the poverty their elders escaped. For them, Park Chung-hee and the two military men who followed him as president in the 1980s were scoundrels who ordered imprisonment, torture and, in some cases, death sentences for people they saw as threats to their authority.

I could do Iraq next.

[Pants-of-dog]

This is probably the weakest argument I've ever seen you make, it practically verges upon being libertarian. Are you going to claim that only liberal democracies adhere to rule of law?

Some ideologies have systems that actually try to keep gov't accountable to the rule of law. Fascism does not.

Sensational lanaguage aside, that task is easy:
...
I could do Iraq next.

Right. Thanks for providing evidence that the vast majority of people do not support fascism or authoritarianism, and those who do only do so because they are impelled by extreme economic conditions.

[Fasces]

Authoritarian gov'ts, by definition, do not have systems of accountability.

What definition might that be, eh?

Some ideologies have systems that actually try to keep gov't accountable to the rule of law. Fascism does not.

Mussolini was peacefully removed through constitutional procedures.

Feel free to point out a single person who loves being under the yoke of an oppressive gov't.

My extended family was and remains fond of Franco. The Iron Cross my great-uncle recieved for valor at Leningrad remains in a proud position at the center of the household. They cheered on 23-F.

Regardless, this position is nonsensical. No government rules alone, but depends on coalitions of political support. There are plenty of men and women throughout history that have enjoyed living in authoritarian regimes.

Right. Thanks for providing evidence that the vast majority of people do not support fascism or authoritarianism, and those who do only do so because they are impelled by extreme economic conditions.

1774: Thanks for providing evidence that the vast majority of people do not support liberal democracy, and those who do only do so because they are impelled by extreme economic conditions.

Systemic shift occurs in response to a catalyst. Human beings are most content to support whatever system they were born into, unless you mean to argue that the peasant in 13th century Venice yearned for the days of watching Congressional Committee members yak at one another.

[Pants-of-dog]

What definition might that be, eh?

Pretty much any standard and accepted definition.

Mussolini was peacefully removed through constitutional procedures.

Yes, as Italy fell to pieces around Mussolini and the Grand Council (way to go Fascism!), other faction used this as an opportunity to seize power. The new gov't then lied to the rest of the Axis, surrendered to foreigners, plunged the nation into civil war, was forced to flee Italy, were unable to stop Mussolini from being freed, and dissolved the Fascist party. Well done.

[Fasces]

Pretty much any standard and accepted definition.

Such as?

Yes, as Italy fell to pieces around Mussolini and the Grand Council (way to go Fascism!), other faction used this as an opportunity to seize power.

I don't think it is very common, even in the most democratic systems, for leaders to relinquish power when things are going perfectly according to plan and all is well in the land.

Your argument was that fascist leaders are not subject to the rule of law, which is demonstrably false. Are you shifting the goal-posts again?

He's not the only one. Off the top of my head, other authoritarian leaders that subjected themselves to the rule of law:

Juan Carlos of Spain.
Pinochet.

[Pants-of-dog]

Such as?

Any Poli. Sci. text.

I don't think it is very common, even in the most democratic systems, for leaders to relinquish power when things are going perfectly according to plan and all is well in the land.

I have no idea what comparison you are trying to make. Mussolini was forced to resign because everything was going down the drain.

Your argument was that fascist leaders are not subject to the rule of law, which is demonstrably false. Are you shifting the goal-posts again?

What law did Mussolini follow? He ignored the Grand Council's order to step down. To me that looks like a refusal to follow the law.

[Fasces]

Any Poli. Sci. text.

Name one. Come now, you do love to ask others to provide evidence - you may as well hold yourself to your own standards.

I have no idea what comparison you are trying to make. Mussolini was forced to resign because everything was going down the drain.

In accordance with the legal code of the system he oversaw. He was subject to the rule of law. Wasn't that your initial claim? That this did not occur?

What law did Mussolini follow? He ignored the Grand Council's order to step down. To me that looks like a refusal to follow the law.

And he was arrested for it - the triumph of rule of law.