Topic: Fascism as an ideology. (Read 2066 times)
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 500
Hero VIP ultra official trusted super staff puppet
This thread is weird. Not because of the topic, but in the topic, Atlas actually argues with himself across two different sock puppets.
I think all the nations around the world will be the enemy of Fascism.
And yet FDR was one of the greatest corporatist fascists in the history of the Western world. And he pulled the plug on the gold standard so he could rob the savings accounts of the poorest to fund the 'Great Society'. Stand-up gent, that one...
FDR literally divided the economy into monopoly sectors and centrally-managed each one of them to produce materiel for a war that turned the US into the global hegemon to such an extent that we still have a military 6 times larger than the nearest competitor, 70 years later. He was a bigger fascist than Hitler and Mussolini could have ever hoped to have been.
++
Isn't there a place in the world for a nation with strong leadership, a united culture and community? Should people be able to participate in fascism if they choose to do so?
A lot of international militarists seem to think that shouldn't be the case and foreign countries should be obligated to intervene in culturally-rigid, authoritarian nations.
A lot of international militarists seem to think that shouldn't be the case and foreign countries should be obligated to intervene in culturally-rigid, authoritarian nations.
Isn't it contradictory for fascists to want tolerance?
Should people be able to participate in fascism if they choose to do so?
That would be impossible. By definition Fascism does not allow individual choice about whether to be ruled by a government. Thus, your question is nonsensical.
One-World Government Fascism is the end-goal of the world's elite. Their dream is fast becoming a reality.
Fortunately, the internet is allowing people to educate others about the irrationality and immorality of the collectivist philosophies upon which Fascism depends.
And yet FDR was one of the greatest corporatist fascists in the history of the Western world. And he pulled the plug on the gold standard so he could rob the savings accounts of the poorest to fund the 'Great Society'. Stand-up gent, that one...
FDR literally divided the economy into monopoly sectors and centrally-managed each one of them to produce materiel for a war that turned the US into the global hegemon to such an extent that we still have a military 6 times larger than the nearest competitor, 70 years later. He was a bigger fascist than Hitler and Mussolini could have ever hoped to have been.
And we'd still be doing that Bellamy salute if Hitler hadn't made it so famous.
And yet FDR was one of the greatest corporatist fascists in the history of the Western world. And he pulled the plug on the gold standard so he could rob the savings accounts of the poorest to fund the 'Great Society'. Stand-up gent, that one...
FDR literally divided the economy into monopoly sectors and centrally-managed each one of them to produce materiel for a war that turned the US into the global hegemon to such an extent that we still have a military 6 times larger than the nearest competitor, 70 years later. He was a bigger fascist than Hitler and Mussolini could have ever hoped to have been.
Fascism can mean many things, there is no generally accepted definition.
FWIW, I like how Umberto Eco's characterizes ur-fascism. Read the below list of properties, and then think how many of them apply to your current society. It might be more "fascist" than you thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
Another definition is this by Franklin D Roosevelt:
FWIW, I like how Umberto Eco's characterizes ur-fascism. Read the below list of properties, and then think how many of them apply to your current society. It might be more "fascist" than you thought:
Quote
"The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
"Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
"Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
Another definition is this by Franklin D Roosevelt:
Quote
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power
And yet FDR was one of the greatest corporatist fascists in the history of the Western world. And he pulled the plug on the gold standard so he could rob the savings accounts of the poorest to fund the 'Great Society'. Stand-up gent, that one...
I think fascism means what Italy had during and before second world war: a tiranny, a dictatorship, something that ruined the nation.
Fascism can mean many things, there is no generally accepted definition.
FWIW, I like how Umberto Eco's characterizes ur-fascism. Read the below list of properties, and then think how many of them apply to your current society. It might be more "fascist" than you thought:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
Another definition is this by Franklin D Roosevelt:
FWIW, I like how Umberto Eco's characterizes ur-fascism. Read the below list of properties, and then think how many of them apply to your current society. It might be more "fascist" than you thought:
Quote
"The Cult of Tradition", combining cultural syncretism with a rejection of modernism (often disguised as a rejection of capitalism).
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
"Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
"The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
"Disagreement Is Treason" - fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action.
"Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
"Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
"Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often involves an appeal to xenophobia or the identification of an internal security threat. He cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
"Pacifism Is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" - there must always be an enemy to fight.
"Contempt for the Weak" - although a fascist society is elitist, everybody in the society is educated to become a hero.
"Selective Populism" - the People have a common will, which is not delegated but interpreted by a leader. This may involve doubt being cast upon a democratic institution, because "it no longer represents the Voice of the People".
"Newspeak" - fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism#Umberto_Eco
Another definition is this by Franklin D Roosevelt:
Quote
The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power
Fascism sucks. Are you really trying to justify it? It's dictatorship and tiranny, nothing more.
Morality can only be moral if it can be applied equally to any person living under it.
i.e. I claim full ownership of my body, which does not inhibit your claim to the exact same right.
I can say what I want to, because it does not inhibit your right to do the exact same thing (same as above).
I claim the full fruits of my labors, which I can do without inhibiting your right to do the same
etc. etc.
This is morality. It universally applies to all humans by nature of the fact that they are human. Anything outside of a negative-right morality must be granted to one at the expense of another, which means it cannot be called a "right" (i.e. the "right" to the internet, the "right" to a cheque in the mail every month, the "right" to food and shelter, etc.) All of positive-"right" things must come at the expense of the productive efforts of someone else, and they must come via involuntary obligation. In other words, they must come through some form of slavery, where some must produce for others, with some sort of arbitrarily imposed consequence, usually violence, for not conforming to this imposed obligation.
Now comes the real question - given the insane civilian body-count, who in their right mind would want fascism? A reasoning mind with all of its faculties intact could never justify it on a moral basis. (And if you're thinking of the authoritarian-enabler/parasites over at RedState.com as you read this, it is not morality that they use to justify the atrocity...)
i.e. I claim full ownership of my body, which does not inhibit your claim to the exact same right.
I can say what I want to, because it does not inhibit your right to do the exact same thing (same as above).
I claim the full fruits of my labors, which I can do without inhibiting your right to do the same
etc. etc.
This is morality. It universally applies to all humans by nature of the fact that they are human. Anything outside of a negative-right morality must be granted to one at the expense of another, which means it cannot be called a "right" (i.e. the "right" to the internet, the "right" to a cheque in the mail every month, the "right" to food and shelter, etc.) All of positive-"right" things must come at the expense of the productive efforts of someone else, and they must come via involuntary obligation. In other words, they must come through some form of slavery, where some must produce for others, with some sort of arbitrarily imposed consequence, usually violence, for not conforming to this imposed obligation.
Now comes the real question - given the insane civilian body-count, who in their right mind would want fascism? A reasoning mind with all of its faculties intact could never justify it on a moral basis. (And if you're thinking of the authoritarian-enabler/parasites over at RedState.com as you read this, it is not morality that they use to justify the atrocity...)
what do you do as far as morality is concerned then? Shouldn't morality be a foundation that is equally applied to all human beings?
Say you aren't a consensus post-modernist gray area guy, please... I have a Nazi culture not-so-many decades back to refer you to, if you are...
Say you aren't a consensus post-modernist gray area guy, please... I have a Nazi culture not-so-many decades back to refer you to, if you are...
Ideologies of absolutes sucks.
You are talking about political fascism and not moral fascism, right?
One is scary, the other is downright terrifying (and we are already living it), respectively.
One is scary, the other is downright terrifying (and we are already living it), respectively.
What was that quote about not being able to clearly see a situation from within that situation?
There are a few ring forts near where I live, I always wondered what it would be like when a small group of maybe 20 to 50 people had to build huge earthworks to protect themselves. If we could go back and ask them if they would give up some of their freedom for law and order I wonder what they would say.
There are a few ring forts near where I live, I always wondered what it would be like when a small group of maybe 20 to 50 people had to build huge earthworks to protect themselves. If we could go back and ask them if they would give up some of their freedom for law and order I wonder what they would say.
Probably that they are free. But that is the way of things.
No, they shouldnt. Because this wouldn't be only choosing their own freedom, but also cutting in the rights of other people who live in this country (all minoritys).
Personal freedom end when ist cuts into the personal freedom of others.
Personal freedom end when ist cuts into the personal freedom of others.
Isn't there a place in the world for a nation with strong leadership, a united culture and community? Should people be able to participate in fascism if they choose to do so?
If they choose to. History has not shown many fascist nations letting their citizenry do much in the way of choosing.
Isn't there a place in the world for a nation with strong leadership, a united culture and community? Should people be able to participate in fascism if they choose to do so?
A lot of international militarists seem to think that shouldn't be the case and foreign countries should be obligated to intervene in culturally-rigid, authoritarian nations.
A lot of international militarists seem to think that shouldn't be the case and foreign countries should be obligated to intervene in culturally-rigid, authoritarian nations.
Jump to: