Topic: In search of Fascism (Read 359 times)

I define the research of fascism as the lacking of self-responsibility, people want someone in charge to think and act for themselves. Politics are the reflection of the family environment, societies where fathers play a huge authority tend to be more fascist than others.

Then there are those countries where the majority of the people would like to rebel to the authority but fear the power of the hegemony, this is not fascism in the strict sense but an enabled oligarchy, one example I could make is China. Chinese government makes a different class from the rest of its citizens, despite having one ruler the power is held by the commisarians and the generals, Russia is a mixture of both things.

I look towards direct democracy but I know for a fact that it will never happen in my country, every town should decide for its own affairs.
May suggest you to read O’Donnell’s research about this: Democracy, Agency, and the State (2010) most of the times a flawed democracy is still better than no democracy at all as practical tolerance is still better than theological tolerance.

Competition and cooperation are complementary and needed; you cooperate with your team and compete with the other teams, by competition your team have a reason to achieve more and better.
In sum, cooperation is needed, but competition is the fuel of invention and effort. Don't fall into snowflake ideologies.

All derivatives of communism are flawed, just by reading common people comments on Facebook... I really don't think that direct democracy or stateless communism are good ideas, probably you would end up with death penalty for nothing and everything down that road...

@coin8coin8 ; I'm not looking for fascism to implement it, but to give it a strict definition.
Lousy definitions provides a lot of misunderstanding. Currently the "trend keyword" is populism, because most people doesn't know what this word means, all you see is a lot of populist politicians talking against populism.

I know you were being facetious but cooperation means you work together and does not mean you get the same pay.  Look at any worker cooperative or commune if you want to see what cooperation looks like.  

"you work, I eat" is literally what happens on the opposite end of the spectrum (the right)


State socialism, or state communism.

I don't like these names because they are contradictory.  Communism requires statelessness (bottom of the political compass) so "state communism" is not communism, its just tyranny. 

I actually have different views on communism.
The communism put forward by Marx was indeed a perfect society. Everyone was distributed according to work, there was no exploitation, and the distribution of social wealth was more fair.
It seems perfect, but in fact, this is a utopia and never achieve.

Marx proposed a near-perfect system from the perspective of economics, but our society is not entirely composed of the economy, it also includes people.
And Marx also lacks practical steps on how to achieve communism. Therefore, communism has gradually evolved into the totalitarianism we have seen, and this is not true communism.
Just because communism is practiced by someone (a party), it will eventually lead to a high concentration of power, and once power is highly concentrated, the masters of power will inevitably breed greed and corruption, and forget their original goals. When you control infinite power, everything that power masters do has only one purpose, using power to serve selves.
This is a little different from fascism. After all, fascism is still serving the economy, but communism（Stalinism / Maoism） is only serving selves, without considering anything else.
So under fascism, although you have lost your freedom, at least you life will not be so bad. And under communism（Stalinism / Maoism）, you not only lose your freedom, but your quality of life will also drop dramatically.

The so-called socialist countries you see now, such as China, Vietnam and other countries, are a combination of political totalitarianism + economic capitalism, not pure socialism.
I don't know how to name their current system. If you look at the definition of socialism, you will find that their current system is different from socialism, maybe they can be named by semi-socialist semi-capitalistism.
These countries are the products of improvement after the failure of the communist line. They are somewhat similar to the constitutional monarchy that was reformed after the failure of the Republican system. At present, North Korea seems to have this trend, but the products of this improvement still have major flaws. In fact, in these countries. You will find that the contradiction between the state enterprise and the private enterprise can never be reconciled. state enterprises are always trying to annex well-developed private companies.
And the fascism you are searching will be possible to resurrect in these countries. When large state-owned enterprises control the absolute lifeline of the national economy and try to promote their economic hegemony globally, fascism will be resurrected.

You're moving towards nowhere in defense of Communism, Communism is considered by all means an Utopia - never worked and, most likely, never will.
At the same time you seam to be having some difficulties on understand the reasons, not an insult.
Just your ideal system doesn't work, sorry for that.

When you say something like "but your system also have leaders", assuming you know my political position. Yes it does, but my system doesn't aim to make everyone equal.
Likewise, you can be far right and a speculator, but not far left and a speculator. It's about coherence.

Insults will get you nowhere... anyone reading it will lose confidence in you if begin your post with an Ad-Hominem attack


Who said anything about utopia?

Stop attacking a Straw-Man... that's an obvious logical fallacy buddy... do some research man

You are a bit slow, aren't you?

For your utopia to work your system has to have no leader, otherwise your utopia is flawed as at least one has more rights than the other...

It doesn't mean Communism can't have leaders, it means it just doesn't work.

So... you think communism means a society has to be 100% democratic, with no leader?  Because this is what you keep describing...  you are describing an absolute democracy not communism... then you try to call it fascism on top of being fully democratic with no leader (confusing as fuck when you don't understand what these words mean)

Then you want to accuse me of nonsense like "tu quoque"... I never made any such claim... you are the one who made a claim that communism isn't supposed to have a leader... I simply disagree with your bogus claim

Stop trolling with contradictory nonsense

By "economic cooperation", you mean "you work I eat and we call it cooperation"... 

Its very important to get this part right.

The X axis is economic cooperation (left) vs economic competition (right).


When you say state control, you are talking about the y axis.  

This is how so many people conflate the bottom left with the top left.  They are extremely different.  Top left is state-forced collectivism while the bottom left is voluntary cooperation (communes).  Keep in mind that the very bottom has no state regardless of whether or not you are on the right or the left. 

Yes, that's the more common one.

In the 1st one however, 17, 19 and 20 and 10, 13 and 11 are paradoxes.
This due to the relative weight of economic to personal freedoms, on the first group you can do whatever you want with your money but you can't do anything without prior state authorization, to the opposite end you can do anything with your personal life but you can't control your money.
One is like giving you money to go to Disneyland, but close its gates, the other is like keep Disneyland open but don't let you've money for the entry ticket.

x is economic control; left is state control, right is individual control.

State control makes a lot of sense in the modern age, as we should be able to automate most means of production, so it makes sense that all people own part of the automation infrastructure. Not to mention, because state control, place's like China have been able to make actual headway against climate change.

The y axis is individual / personal freedom.

Curious compass.
What are the X axis based on?
Usually they are the economic freedom, but that one sounds a bit of.

So, normally, you get fascism with authoritarianism.



It looks like national communism and totalitarianism are about the same with fascism in terms of authoritarian.

National socialism is as bad as traditionalism are nearly as bad as fascism, but some how slightly better? I'm pretty sure Russia is a semi-implementation of national socialism.

Socialism and ultra-capitalism are again; I can't think of any implementations of ultra-capitalism? Maybe Saudi Arabia or somewhere where rights are limited and money buys everything. Socialism has a few states, like Cuba, I think.

--

In reality, it just depends on how free you think individuals should be and how resources are planned and distributed. Chaotic distribution under capitalism made sense because humans were the best calculators a hundred years ago. Now-a-days, computers are pretty clever. However, with state control comes great powers for abuse, which is why there needs to accountability and lots of liberties.

I personally favor anarcho-syndicalism in the future (assuming post-scarcity).

This keeps derailing to off-topic...

You became obsessed when I said communism and fascism overlaps on so many ways, that came to defend communism with your "-0 is not 0" meaningless chart and now keep trying to defend your utopia.

Even if it's not, per definition, wrong for communism to have leaders, not even they're bad or good, it however means the end for your "egalitarian society" as that one is over the others. All you can use is the "tu quoque" (you too) argument, but what's the point of that argument? I'm not against leadership, but I'm not also talking about "power to the people" then sit a guy over them all and pretend it's indeed "power to the people", am I?

Back on topic, here's what I believe (and don't come again with the "fascism has a definition", because it doesn't and this discussion has going around for ages, there's no "Fascist Mein Kampf" describing it), are core parts of Fascism:

• Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism, obvious points
• Centralization of everything on the State (All with the state, all on the state, nothing out of the state, nothing against the state)
• Lack of awareness of the limits of law; means the fascist assumes it can legislate about everything on everyone's life, this includes even how he must wipe himself.
• No space for relativism, everything is absolutely right or wrong, as the law covers or aim to cover everything, no grey area and no safezone to anyone.
• Unlike Nazism or Communism, Fascism is diffuse, it can bend and twist to fit the context or humor of its dictator - this is due to have no Manifesto or Mein Kampf

The other components, such as state police, removal of opponents and so on are already included on Authoritarianism.

I'll assume you mean "primus inter pares", first among equals; the senior or representative member of a group

Are you trying to say that's its bad for communism to have someone in charge?  How is this any different from any other form of government?

I really don't even understand what you are trying to say here... communist leaders are bad, but it's ok for any other country to have a leader?

Here comes again the meaningless chart... 

As long as you have a communist leader you've a "primum inter pares", one whose decisions count more than the others... Or none of your utopian communism if you will.

As for the other entry, again is "fascism is all bad I can think of", or in other words, a mere insult.

Good thing it doesn't matter what you "think" Fascism should mean... fascism has a definition, and it is not what you "think" it is


I don't understand how you can say an elected communist leader is fascist, but an elected republic/democratic leader is not... that makes no sense at all... you are assuming that an elected communist leader will become a dictator, but that couldn't happen with a 'democracy'?  Germany is a democracy and they gave us Hitler... Italy gave us Mussolini... these are not communist countries, quite the opposite

And again... fascism is NOT "red flavor" (assuming you meant red as in Russian/communist, not red as in right-wing/republican)... fascism is extreme right-wing, not left... quit trying to change the definition of words to suit your opinion/bigotry

Hitler wasn't elected, his party had a minority winning, which he turned into an absolute winning. But himself, running to President, lost the elections.
Mussolini was indeed elected, and looking at Italy today, he would probably win the elections again, at least the elected parties doesn't fall too much apart of him.

But this isn't the question, the question is about defining an ideology. Have a specific and strict sense of what we can call Fascism (ideology) or fascism (insult).

Democracy has its weaknesses - candidate suppression, vote suppression, plain and old rig and so on - , actually, like sir Winston Churchill, I don't like it, I accept it because I can't think of nothing better. If you put a bunch of burglars voting the only thing they would be voting about will be on ways to rob their victims.

I think of Fascism more as the opposition of Liberalism (European Liberalism, not be confused with US flavor), rather than communism. The only way to have communism as you portrait it is by direct democracy, otherwise as long as you've a communist leader, you no longer have any communism, but a red flavor of Fascism.

Hitler was elected, Mussolini was elected, Mao Zedong was elected... most fascist dictators are elected

Some of them rig the elections by murdering their opponent, throwing them in jail, banning them from being listed on the ballot, etc

Putin didn't win with 77% of the vote because people love him that much... he rigged the election