First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Google & Bing Changing the definiton of Fascism
43272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Houston, Texas
Offline
Posted 5/3/17
The only two people I'm trying to "take up for" in this thread about being flagged
I don't even agree with most the time.

More speech, not less people. If you open a topic and want others to talk about it
then why turn around and flag people you "wanted" to talk too. I don't get it.
15236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17
But facism is generally considered to be the extreme right version of authoritarianism while communism is considered the extreme left version of authoritarianism.

Whats the issue here?
43272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Houston, Texas
Offline
Posted 5/3/17
"What even is this thread?"

That's the way I feel about most of these threads here sundin13
15236 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/17

ssjwes1980 wrote:

"What even is this thread?"

That's the way I feel about most of these threads here sundin13


Thats why I made it my status message. So the lunacy of this place would just be implied wherever I went xD
43272 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
37 / M / Houston, Texas
Offline
Posted 5/3/17

octorockandroll wrote:


if you really hate it that much just leave.


That works for me most the time, makes for a happier day.
Thanks for the advice.
21963 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

ssjwes1980 wrote:




That's not what I'm talking about...
I'm talking about all the babies on this site reporting each other for expressing themselves ...
This flagging I'm talking about you are also being subject to so why are you trying to start an
argument with me?

It's a given this site can mod who ever it wants stop trying to pick at low hanging fruit. Just
for arguments sake.

Try to keep up with me, I'm not commenting about the site but the users..


At one point every thread/post I made was being flagged by someone to try to see what minor thing they could get me banned with, it stopped all of a sudden. Heck someone dug through my posts and got me banned for some minor thing I said a month before the ban. I seen it happening to others as well. Some people started using mass reporting as a means of silencing those they disagreed with. Well they then got reported for the very same things they reported others of and now we got this.
runec 
36311 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

outontheop wrote:
I mean, I seem to recall a few other political ideologies which call for economic and social regimentation, the forcible suppression of opposition, and (as in Italian Fascisti fascism, IE ACTUAL fascism) holds as a central tenet the belief that the government should hold sole control of the means of all production and distribution of goods.

Man, what was it called? Something about communities...? Or communes or something? It *certainly* couldn't have been on the "left" end of the political spectrum, I'm sure.


That is quite literally the opposite of Communism. Communism, as the name implies, is common ownership of the means of production by the people. It is ideologically opposed to Fascism. But hey, don't listen to me, lets ask Mussolini of Italian Fascisti fame that you so wisely referenced:


Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'Right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual ( liberalism implies individualism ) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

- Benito Mussolini



Fascism is definitely and absolutely opposed to the doctrines of liberalism, both in the political and economic sphere.

- The Doctrine of Fascism ( Mussolini, Gentile )



runec 
36311 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/3/17

Rujikin wrote:
Well they then got reported for the very same things they reported others of and now we got this.


This being:



30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

runec wrote:


outontheop wrote:
I mean, I seem to recall a few other political ideologies which call for economic and social regimentation, the forcible suppression of opposition, and (as in Italian Fascisti fascism, IE ACTUAL fascism) holds as a central tenet the belief that the government should hold sole control of the means of all production and distribution of goods.

Man, what was it called? Something about communities...? Or communes or something? It *certainly* couldn't have been on the "left" end of the political spectrum, I'm sure.


That is quite literally the opposite of Communism. Communism, as the name implies, is common ownership of the means of production by the people. It is ideologically opposed to Fascism. But hey, don't listen to me, lets ask Mussolini of Italian Fascisti fame that you so wisely referenced:


No, fascism is the opposite of "communism". It is quite perfectly identical to "Communism".

In other words, the ideal of communism may say one thing; the reality is that they are indistinguishable.

You will never, EVER have a human population, which has sufficient production to surpass mere survival requirements, which will *ever* be able to uniformly agree on how to share "communally owned" property. So the reality is that communism will always eventually develop an overseer political class that becomes the arbiter of how the "communally owned" property is "fairly" doled out, and *bam* you have Communism. Which is practically indistinguishable from Mussolini-style Fascism.
runec 
36311 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Online
Posted 5/3/17

outontheop wrote:
No, it is the opposite of "communism". It is quite perfectly identical to "Communism".

In other words, the ideal of communism may say one thing; the reality is that they are indistinguishable.


If that is our benchmark we can literally say anything about any ideology to fit any argument we want by simply finding one example that fits our opinion and ignoring everything else. An exercise that renders both your argument and this entire discussion in general utterly moot. If we are simply going to ignore political science and, you know, what words mean then nothing you or I say would hold any credibility whatsoever.




595 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17
This is from an article that has a fourteen point summary of commonalities of various political ideologies that can be called fascist. The author spent his youth in Mussolini's Italy, when he, the author, was proudly fascist. Here is a summarized version of the list.

You can read the whole thing here. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1995/06/22/ur-fascism/

1. Veneration of tradition in syncretic form. This tradition is seen as the absolute truth. "As a consequence, there can be no advancement of learning. Truth has been already spelled out once and for all, and we can only keep interpreting its obscure message."

2. Rejection of modernity. "Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism. [...] The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism"

3. Emphasis on action over thinking. "Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake. Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation. Therefore culture is suspect insofar as it is identified with critical attitudes."

4. Intolerance of criticism. "For Ur-Fascism, disagreement is treason."

5. Intolerance of cultural or racial difference. "Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference. The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders."

6. An appeal to feelings of humiliation in a frustrated middle class. "Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration. That is why one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups."

7. Nationalist fervor driving xenophobia. "To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country. This is the origin of nationalism. Besides, the only ones who can provide an identity to the nation are its enemies. Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot, possibly an international one. The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia."

[...]

10. Mass elitism. "Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak. Ur-Fascism can only advocate a popular elitism. Every citizen belongs to the best people of the world, the members of the party are the best among the citizens, every citizen can (or ought to) become a member of the party."

11. Obsession with hero worship and death. "In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero. In every mythology the hero is an exceptional being, but in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death."

12. Sexual philistinism. "Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters. This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality)."

13. Qualified populism. "Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say. In a democracy, the citizens have individual rights, but the citizens in their entirety have a political impact only from a quantitative point of view—one follows the decisions of the majority. For Ur-Fascism, however, individuals as individuals have no rights, and the People is conceived as a quality, a monolithic entity expressing the Common Will. [...] Because of its qualitative populism Ur-Fascism must be against “rotten” parliamentary governments."

14. Encouraging impoverished forms of verbal expression. "All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning."
30264 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

runec wrote:


outontheop wrote:
No, it is the opposite of "communism". It is quite perfectly identical to "Communism".

In other words, the ideal of communism may say one thing; the reality is that they are indistinguishable.


If that is our benchmark we can literally say anything about any ideology to fit any argument we want by simply finding one example that fits our opinion and ignoring everything else. An exercise that renders both your argument and this entire discussion in general utterly moot. If we are simply going to ignore political science and, you know, what words mean then nothing you or I say would hold any credibility whatsoever.




Hmm. And the point of the originating post of this entire thread is that that is EXACTLY what certain elements of the media and pop culture are trying to do: reduce political ideology to a sufficiently universal standard that the label can then be rebranded onto their political opponents.

They are trying to massage language to weaponize a word. Trying to make "right wing" and "fascism" synonyms.

But the reality is that Fascism, the Italian Fascism from which the word derives, held government control of the means of production and distribution as a central tenet. The modern American Right is directly opposed to that. You yourself have already admitted that the right is not itself fascism, therefore why would you support the re-definition of the word "fascist" to be explicitly linked to "the right", in a time when "fascist" is a widely-used perjorative DIRECTLY INVOKED to justify the use of political violence?

Do you really not think it's a really bad idea to weaponize language to empower the violent fringe of the left right now?
534 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

runec wrote:
Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'Right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual ( liberalism implies individualism ) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

- Benito Mussolini



Mussolini refers to classical liberalism as opposed to modern liberalism.

Classical liberalism was committed to limited government, individual liberties, and free markets.

Conversely, modern liberalism is committed to an expanded government to be used as a blunt instrument for social change, and the regulation of markets. It’s not so much in what modern liberalism seeks to accomplish that is the problem; it's the constant blundering to make those changes. Modern liberals seem to believe that the ends justify the means.
534 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 5/3/17 , edited 5/3/17

runec wrote:
Granted that the 19th century was the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy, this does not mean that the 20th century must also be the century of socialism, liberalism, democracy. Political doctrines pass; nations remain. We are free to believe that this is the century of authority, a century tending to the 'Right', a Fascist century. If the 19th century was the century of the individual ( liberalism implies individualism ) we are free to believe that this is the 'collective' century, and therefore the century of the State.

- Benito Mussolini



Mussolini refers to classical liberalism as opposed to modern liberalism.

Classical liberalism was committed to limited government, individual liberties, and free markets.

Conversely, modern liberalism is committed to an expanded government to be used as a blunt instrument for social change, and the regulation of markets. It’s not so much in what modern liberalism seeks to accomplish that is the problem; it's the constant blundering to make those changes. Modern liberals seem to believe that the ends justify the means.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.