Irony.... erm, at least I hope it is! — 0 thru 9

I rather think it isn't (irony). That's the joy of an extreme ideology: every perceived problem is solved with an application of authoritarian brutality. [N.B. My use of "joy" was ironic. :wink:] If you disagree with me, you will be hurt or killed. That's the underlying philosophy of all extreme political viewpoints, I think. :chin: :worry:

fascism is national socialism — Posty McPostface

I don't think their choice of name reflected their ideology as well as we might hope. Perhaps they intended to disguise their true aspirations? :chin: :wink:

I don't think their choice of name reflected their ideology as well as we might hope. Perhaps they intended to disguise their true aspirations? — Pattern-chaser

Well, if you eliminate the warmongering, the idolatry or cult of the leader, and all those nasty things that Nazism was associated with, you're left with a fairly liberal and likable ideology. Yes?

Well, if you eliminate the warmongering, the idolatry or cult of the leader, and all those nasty things that Nazism was associated with, you're left with a fairly liberal and likable ideology. Yes? — Posty McPostface

Only the teachers pet could get away with that one! If that were to come offa my keyboard the hounds would be yelping already!

M

Well, if you eliminate the warmongering, the idolatry or cult of the leader, and all those nasty things that Nazism was associated with, you're left with a fairly liberal and likable ideology. Yes? — Posty McPostface

Yes. If you remove all the authoritarian aspects of an authoritarian political position, what's left (next to nothing?) is more or less acceptable. Your joke is in dubious taste, I suggest? :wink:

Only the teachers pet could get away with that one! If that were to come offa my keyboard the hounds would be yelping already! — Marcus de Brun

Well, I am a Piglet. So, maybe that helps. :blush:

Yes. If you remove all the authoritarian aspects of an authoritarian political position, what's left (next to nothing?) is more or less acceptable. Your joke is in dubious taste, I suggest? — Pattern-chaser

It was a bad attempt at summarizing a book I bought a while ago, called Liberal Fascism. Haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

Well, I am a Piglet. So, maybe that helps. :blush: — Posty McPostface

Yes we will have to wait until you grow up into a fully fledged fascist pig (like myself).

Then, the bacon loving hounds will find you.

M

Yes we will have to wait until you grow up into a fully fledged fascist pig (like myself).

Then, the bacon loving hounds will find you. — Marcus de Brun

:scream: :fear:

*Piglet runs away*

The Amazon write-up implies that socialism seeks to "insert the authority of the state into every nook and cranny of daily life", which I believe to be incorrect. An extreme left-wing position might well do such a thing, just as an extreme right-wing position might do the same. But socialism is society-ism; that's what it means, and it can be seen and followed as a moderate political position, as well as an extreme one. A similar argument can be put forward for right-wing positions too, of course.

Socialism can also be seen as very similar to christianity (small "c"), in terms of care and concern for others less fortunate than ourselves, and so on. I think the bad press that socialism still gets is down to the 'reds under the bed' McCarthy-ist approach in 1950s America. They were referring to Soviet communism anyway, and just wanted to be sure that all left-wingers were tarred with the same brush, whether extreme or moderate. The intention, I think, was to make it so that only right-wing ideologies could even be considered for general acceptance. America is still a very (very, very) right-wing nation.

It appears to me that the left right divide is an illusion. It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree.

The fascist and or the democrat seem to get it right when both insist that there is no need and or philosophical basis for its 'private or personal accumulation'.

Philosophy is the only wealth that counts, at least thats what all the wise men and women have told us, again and again and again and again......

People are stupid and materialism seems the most sensible way to accommodate them/us.

M

It appears to me that the left right divide is an illusion. It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree. — Marcus de Brun

And I think it is anything but illusory, because (as you say) "It is simply a line that separates those who think that wealth should be shared to a greater degree, from those who think it should be shared to a lesser degree". :smile: :up: There is also the social/individual balance, where the left give a little more emphasis to society while the right concentrate more on individual freedom. [N.B. Only the extreme (authoritarian) ideologies favour only society (left) or only individual freedom (right).]

So, what's wrong with fascism? — Posty McPostface

There is also the social/individual balance, where the left give a little more emphasis to society while the right concentrate more on individual freedom. — Pattern-chaser

Yes indeed, however for every dollar invested into 'socialism' another dollar will be required to ameliorate the 'dependence-effect' caused by the preceding dollar.

Social welfare is essential but it creates wasters and dependents. Medical care is essential, but increased availability creates more need for it. (read Ivan Ilyich: Medical Nemesis)

Socialism is essential and is the best solution to social problems (compare Ireland or New Zealand's social function to that in the US), However I still believe in the 'American Dream'; the only problem with that dream is the fact that Henry David Thoreau was the only man in America who had a sound knowledge of what that dream actually is.

M

for every dollar invested into 'socialism' another dollar will be required to ameliorate the 'dependence-effect' caused by the preceding dollar — Marcus de Brun

I know this view is prevalent in America, a country that has never had, or even aspired to, a socialist government. Some countries who have actually tried it have had better, if not perfect, results. :wink:

Agreed Socialism is the best state. However the beauty that is America is that it preserves and attempts to foster the attributes of freedom before those of dependence.

If it is still around in 100 years, the best society will be 'American' or at least the perfect society will be dreamed up, or invented in America, but probably manufactured somewhere else, more cheaply.

M

Some countries who have actually tried it have had better, if not perfect, results. — Pattern-chaser

There are too many decrepits in America for it NOT to eventually evolve into a socialist state.

Freedom is wasted on Americans, like youth is wasted on the young.

M

Well, yes. But, fascism is national socialism. So, logical conclusion? Maybe, maybe not. — Posty McPostface

Fascism = national socialism in Germany, but not in France, Italy, Ireland, the US, etc.

How can fascism not be the same thing in different countries?

Fascism isn't an ideology, it's a method first. The fascism of the US (embodied in the KKK) was quite different than it's manifestation in Italy or Spain, Ireland or France. "Uniforms" (brown shirts, black shirts, blue shirts, white robes...), antagonisms highlighted by deteriorating conditions (extreme social upheaval, for instance, pauperization (during the Great Depression), and the like; a search for a strong leader (Grand Imperial Wizard, Fuhrer, Emperor, some "Maximum Leader" etc.). Intense (usually fatherland) nationalism is usually a part of it. Prioritizing anti-semitism isn't essential (the KKK was against blacks, Catholics, and Jews, among others) but sometimes is. Fascism usually requires disorder to come into existence -- before it can even use the disorder.

The Nazi's were "national socialists" because the small weak party that Hitler took over in 1922 was the "National Socialists" and by that, the previous founders didn't mean "fascist". The Nazis weren't very good socialists -- a matter of internal dissent. Unlike Communists, fascists don't have a clear ideology. Whether steel was produced by Krupp and Thyssen or The People's Steel Plant #10 didn't make any difference to the Nazis. It did to the communists--they expropriated the expropriators.

The Nazis, like most of the fascist groups, were not really "mass movements" either. The only vote the Nazis won was in Schlesweg-Holstein, just south of Denmark. They won because the Nazis promised stable price supported prices during the agricultural depression in the 20s (caused by a glut of world-wide production). They won by something like 51% to 49%. The Nazis put on huge mass rallies in Nuremberg and elsewhere, to which they charged admission -- gate receipts were an important piece of party income before they gained state power. But those were staged--not ground-up demonstrations.

Fascism could happen here, but it is highly unlikely that it will look like German, Italian, or Japanese fascism. It will be "our fascism". Philip Roth's novel The Plot Against America. pub. 2004 imagines American fascism.

Does anyone know how fascism looked like in Japan? Was it anything similar to Nazism? I haven't seen much analysis on that aspect of fascism in the past apart from the fixation on German Nazism...

All hail Posty,mc postface.... fascist dictator of an evolved socio-philosophical republic!
Where do we sign up?
Do we bring our own doughnuts and espresso, or will these be provided?

:cool:

Do we bring our own doughnuts and espresso, or will these be provided? — Marcus de Brun

For a small fee of your civil liberties, everything vill vee provided.

So, what's wrong with fascism? I've been told it's the most efficient form of government and most productive of all possible. Most people who lived under fascism (without the idolatry of a raving meth addict, racism, discrimination, and outright genocide) seemed to benefit from that form of government in the past dramatically. — Posty McPostface

Safety valves that you find in a justice state/democracy that starts from the individual don't exist or aren't as important.

Government being close to industry creates a fertile ground for corruption.

The authoritarianism creates a fertile ground for dictators and a dysfunctional police state.

Present example of a fascist state would be China in my view.

Would a fascist really refer to themselves as fascist?

Present example of a fascist state would be China in my view. — ssu

That seems to be the case. Interesting.

I don't think China might be considered as Fascist. For starters it is too big to be considered in any single context.

The Chinese government must manage one seventh of the worlds entire population. If the entire world were 'free' to live as we whiteys do in the west... there would not be a tree left in the Amazon.

White westerners can 'thrive' BECAUSE of the fascism and oppression that exists in someone else' backyard.

Fans of democracy should be careful what they wish for.

M

America [...] preserves and attempts to foster the attributes of freedom before those of dependence. — Marcus de Brun

The vocabulary mandated (by all Americans) for discussions of this type requires that you call it "dependence", I know. But "support" would do as well, without picturing the recipient as a scrounger and a drain on the resources of decent people. Welfare concerns are like an insurance policy. We all take part, not knowing which of us will need help, and which will not. But those of us who need a helping hand, get it. From each according to their means; to each according to their needs. Can such a common sense statement really be opposed? :chin: :smile: :up:

Support first (and for all); freedom later. :up: [The freedom's for all, too. :wink:]

The vocabulary mandated (by all Americans) for discussions of this type requires that you call it "dependence", I know. But "support" would do as well, without picturing the recipient as a scrounger and a drain on the resources of decent people. — Pattern-chaser

The problem is however, that many abuse the 'support' and become dependent upon it rather than independent of the state and truly free. The 'support' ultimately creates both scroungers and dependents.

'Don't give the man 'free' fish; give him a rod and teach him to fish.' This (I think) is the logic of most fair minded republicans, and in fairness to the fair-minded America has an abundance of rivers and an abundance of fish.

M

I don't think China might be considered as Fascist. — Marcus de Brun

It's approach to economics is very much close to fascism. The socialist planned economy has morphed into a more capitalist planned economy, hence it can be argued that China is fascist. The Communist Party and the state claim the sole right to represent the “universal interest" of the people. Furthermore, Xi Jinping looks more and more like a leader for life (as with the removal of term limits for the President).
Nationalism has a very important role in China while Communism is only basically left to speeches. All these look very much like fascism, even if fascism is a derogatory word reserved for the enemy in China.

If the entire world were 'free' to live as we whiteys do in the west... there would not be a tree left in the Amazon. — Marcus de Brun

I disagree with the idea that if the Chinese would live as wealthily as we in the West, there wouldn't be any trees in the Amazon. Global povetry has dramatically been reduced in our lifetime (a thing we forget in the West). Actually middle-class people are environmentally friendly: they can think about the environment, they are not trying to get their daily food in order to survive. Rich countries can take care of the environment, if they want to. Besides, never forget the impact of technology. For example, the productivity of agriculture is going up. And one can imagine if the majority of countries, China included, would be as technologically advanced and productive as the Netherlands is now in agriculture, feeding the World would be possible even with higher living standards.

Umberto Eco's analysis stands out.