Fascist Discussion Thread.

[Conscentia]

I'm not a fascist, in fact, i'm an anarchist and an anti-fascist.
However, I'm an Estonian nationalist.
Basically, Estonia is my mother land and the USA is my homeland, however, I pledge allegiance to the international struggle against capitalism.

So... thy post is basically irrelevant to the thread topic then.

[Jumalariik]

I'm not a fascist, in fact, i'm an anarchist and an anti-fascist.
However, I'm an Estonian nationalist.
Basically, Estonia is my mother land and the USA is my homeland, however, I pledge allegiance to the international struggle against capitalism.

So... thy post is basically irrelevant to the thread topic then.

No, there was talk of nationalism, my point was that nationalism is completely independent of fascism.

[Seaxeland]

How exactly do you know my name? I don't even know you, nor have I ever even seen you.

Oh, I spent some time in the AoD. I saw many an argument of yours, as well as those of others. I just noticed, while doing so, that you seem to really like the "tu quoque" logical fallacy.

Are you calling me a hypocrite?

Many leaders, however, prefer to submit themselves to materialistic greed, and seek only to roll about in the pool of power, while their nations and people suffer in decadence.

That kind of thing happens all the time in a dictatorship. How can a nation suffer from 'decadence', I presume that you think gulag-esque conditions are much healthier.

Do not presume anything about me, because in many cases, most presumptions about me are slightly, if not entirely, false.

And you're right, it does happens to dictatorships, and that's why when it does, the people and the military must together right such wrongs, and install a new leader.

I'm not a fascist, in fact, i'm an anarchist and an anti-fascist.
However, I'm an Estonian nationalist.
Basically, Estonia is my mother land and the USA is my homeland, however, I pledge allegiance to the international struggle against capitalism.

I'd much prefer to pledge allegiance to the international struggle against Communism, as it's a far greater threat. Capitalists just want to make a quick buck, but Commies want to destroy all of society, all because they think their ideology is still relevant. The thing is, Fascism is far more relevant than Communism or Socialism will ever be. Working conditions aren't the same as they were in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Communism and Socialism stick to ideals that would've helped fix things that were actually problems in the last century, and the one before that. Thing is, said things aren't problems anymore, at least not in civilized countries. Modern Capitalism has evolved to suite the modern world, while Communism, Socialism, and (sadly) Fascism have not. Fascism, however, can adapt. Communism and Socialism cannot, because these very ideologies are stuck with the exact same mindset, and to rid themselves of these mindsets would result in the destruction of the ideology.

There is no need for an ideology that supports the working class, when the working class do not need support.

So... thy post is basically irrelevant to the thread topic then.

No, there was talk of nationalism, my point was that nationalism is completely independent of fascism.

True, but Nationalism is an integral part of Fascism. All Fascists are Nationalists, but not all Nationalists are Fascists.

[Jumalariik]

Oh, I spent some time in the AoD. I saw many an argument of yours, as well as those of others. I just noticed, while doing so, that you seem to really like the "tu quoque" logical fallacy.

Are you calling me a hypocrite?

That kind of thing happens all the time in a dictatorship. How can a nation suffer from 'decadence', I presume that you think gulag-esque conditions are much healthier.

Do not presume anything about me, because in many cases, most presumptions about me are slightly, if not entirely, false.

And you're right, it does happens to dictatorships, and that's why when it does, the people and the military must together right such wrongs, and install a new leader.

I'm not a fascist, in fact, i'm an anarchist and an anti-fascist.
However, I'm an Estonian nationalist.
Basically, Estonia is my mother land and the USA is my homeland, however, I pledge allegiance to the international struggle against capitalism.

1. I'd much prefer to pledge allegiance to the international struggle against Communism, as it's a far greater threat. 2. Capitalists just want to make a quick buck, but Commies want to destroy all of society, all because they think their ideology is still relevant. 3. The thing is, Fascism is far more relevant than Communism or Socialism will ever be. 4. Working conditions aren't the same as they were in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Communism and Socialism stick to ideals that would've helped fix things that were actually problems in the last century, and the one before that. 5. Thing is, said things aren't problems anymore, at least not in civilized countries. 6. Modern Capitalism has evolved to suite the modern world, while Communism, Socialism, and (sadly) Fascism have not. Fascism, however, can adapt. 7. Communism and Socialism cannot, because these very ideologies are stuck with the exact same mindset, and to rid themselves of these mindsets would result in the destruction of the ideology.

8. There is no need for an ideology that supports the working class, when the working class do not need support.

No, there was talk of nationalism, my point was that nationalism is completely independent of fascism.

9 .True, but Nationalism is an integral part of Fascism. All Fascists are Nationalists, but not all Nationalists are Fascists.

1. Communism does not keep millions of people in starvation. Communism does not keep the worker down and exploit him. Capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of workers, because it is the system in power, it is a greater threat.
2. You said that it's a greater threat than capitalism, it must be relevant then.
3. Fascism is a right wing-anti-worker ideology, it is anti-Christian, thus it must be abolished.
4. In many countries they are.
Also, capitalism is the same in one way;
Workers are paid less than the value they produce, in fact, they are often payed a 10th of the value that they produce.
5. All nations are linked and workers in all countries have the same interests.
6. The modern world is corrupt and sinful, the way that all other times in history have been, we need to go beyond modernity.
7. Explain.
8. Until all workers own the places that they work, they will always need support.
9. Can't argue with that.

[Aushanit]

I personally am not a fascist and find the ideology horrid (practicly on the same level as Maoism and Stalinism) but found the ideas interesting and I fact my nation RP wise is a Clerical Fascist state. Although I've never really understood their economic leanings with only "they're corporatist" but with little understanding of what Corporatism is in still pretty bamboozled.

[Kchielsovo]

Are you calling me a hypocrite?

Er, no. Are you a hypocrite? I ain't really sure. All I was saying was that you seem partial to a form of logical fallacy.

[Wind in the Willows]

I'm not a fascist, in fact, i'm an anarchist and an anti-fascist.
However, I'm an Estonian nationalist.
Basically, Estonia is my mother land and the USA is my homeland, however, I pledge allegiance to the international struggle against capitalism.

And that is relevant to Fascism..how?

[The Greater Aryan Race]

It's either Populist or Socialist, but it sure isn't Fascist, I can tell you that.

Why not? The Ba'ath ideogy calls mainly for an Arab revolution of sorts, not necessarily just economically but also psychologically, in terms of creating a New Arab Man in a breakaway from the traditional reactionary and Islamic character of Arabs, something similar to what Fascism espouses.

And then there are the multiple similarities with Ba'athism and Fascism: the creation of a mixed Socialist economy, the creation of an authoritarian state, opposition to Communism and Liberalism etc.

[Seaxeland]

Are you calling me a hypocrite?



Do not presume anything about me, because in many cases, most presumptions about me are slightly, if not entirely, false.

And you're right, it does happens to dictatorships, and that's why when it does, the people and the military must together right such wrongs, and install a new leader.



1. I'd much prefer to pledge allegiance to the international struggle against Communism, as it's a far greater threat. 2. Capitalists just want to make a quick buck, but Commies want to destroy all of society, all because they think their ideology is still relevant. 3. The thing is, Fascism is far more relevant than Communism or Socialism will ever be. 4. Working conditions aren't the same as they were in the late 1800's and early 1900's, Communism and Socialism stick to ideals that would've helped fix things that were actually problems in the last century, and the one before that. 5. Thing is, said things aren't problems anymore, at least not in civilized countries. 6. Modern Capitalism has evolved to suite the modern world, while Communism, Socialism, and (sadly) Fascism have not. Fascism, however, can adapt. 7. Communism and Socialism cannot, because these very ideologies are stuck with the exact same mindset, and to rid themselves of these mindsets would result in the destruction of the ideology.

8. There is no need for an ideology that supports the working class, when the working class do not need support.



9 .True, but Nationalism is an integral part of Fascism. All Fascists are Nationalists, but not all Nationalists are Fascists.

1. Communism does not keep millions of people in starvation. Communism does not keep the worker down and exploit him. Capitalism is a system based on the exploitation of workers, because it is the system in power, it is a greater threat.
2. You said that it's a greater threat than capitalism, it must be relevant then.
3. Fascism is a right wing-anti-worker ideology, it is anti-Christian, thus it must be abolished.
4. In many countries they are.
Also, capitalism is the same in one way;
Workers are paid less than the value they produce, in fact, they are often payed a 10th of the value that they produce.
5. All nations are linked and workers in all countries have the same interests.
6. The modern world is corrupt and sinful, the way that all other times in history have been, we need to go beyond modernity.
7. Explain.
8. Until all workers own the places that they work, they will always need support.
9. Can't argue with that.

Except workers aren't being exploited.

Just because it's a threat, doesn't make it relevant. Islamism isn't relevant, yet it's a threat.

Fascism isn't "anti-worker", and it's not anti-Christian. I should know, since I am both a Fascist and a Christian.

In many countries in the Third and Second Worlds, maybe. And that's not true about Capitalism at all. Capitalism doesn't tell you to pay people less than the value of what they produce.

That's also not true. Contrary to what you Reds like to believe, you can't speak for every worker.

The modern world is corrupt and sinful, and this is the fault of Liberalism.

What is there to explain? The way workers are treated is different than it was back when Socialism and Communism were conceived. They're out-of-touch.

Workers don't NEED to own the places they work, and I highly doubt they all want to. Some of them just want jobs, so they can earn their pay and live their life. They're not all struggling and oppressed, contrary to your belief

[Seaxeland]

I personally am not a fascist and find the ideology horrid (practicly on the same level as Maoism and Stalinism) but found the ideas interesting and I fact my nation RP wise is a Clerical Fascist state. Although I've never really understood their economic leanings with only "they're corporatist" but with little understanding of what Corporatism is in still pretty bamboozled.

Basically, Fascism's economics are a Third Alternative mixed economy. They contain attributes of many other types of economic systems, but ultimately, don't classify as any of them.

It's either Populist or Socialist, but it sure isn't Fascist, I can tell you that.

Why not? The Ba'ath ideogy calls mainly for an Arab revolution of sorts, not necessarily just economically but also psychologically, in terms of creating a New Arab Man in a breakaway from the traditional reactionary and Islamic character of Arabs, something similar to what Fascism espouses.

And then there are the multiple similarities with Ba'athism and Fascism: the creation of a mixed Socialist economy, the creation of an authoritarian state, opposition to Communism and Liberalism etc.

I wouldn't call it Fascist though, it's quite similar yes, but it's not truly Fascist. Besides, the founders of Ba'athism were Anti-Fascist.

And Fascism doesn't have a "mixed Socialist economy", it has a mixed Third Alternative economy.

[The Greater Aryan Race]

I wouldn't call it Fascist though, it's quite similar yes, but it's not truly Fascist. Besides, the founders of Ba'athism were Anti-Fascist.

And yet Zaki al-Arsuzi, who founded the Arab Ba'ath Party, strongly believed in the cult of one supreme leader as well as the racial purity of the Arabs. He and numerous party members read Nazi literature such as The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Michel Aflaq, another spiritual head of Ba'athism, owned a copy of The Myth of The Twentieth Century. Not exactly anti-fascist credentials I suspect.

And Fascism doesn't have a "mixed Socialist economy", it has a mixed Third Alternative economy.

No one quite knows what a Fascist economy is supposed to look like. The general consensus is that it ought to resemble Corporatism, or rather, nationalisation of key industries, autarky, the disciplining of labour and respect for some private property. By that definition, Mixed Socialist and Mixed Third Alternative tend to become mere issues of semantics.

[Conscentia]

Basically, Fascism's economics are a Third Alternative mixed economy. [...]

There is no third alternative. That's nonsense made up by fascist types to avoid having their movement being associated with socialism or unregulated capitalism.

[Seaxeland]

I wouldn't call it Fascist though, it's quite similar yes, but it's not truly Fascist. Besides, the founders of Ba'athism were Anti-Fascist.

And yet Zaki al-Arsuzi, who founded the Arab Ba'ath Party, strongly believed in the cult of one supreme leader as well as the racial purity of the Arabs. He and numerous party members read Nazi literature such as The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century. Michel Aflaq, another spiritual head of Ba'athism, owned a copy of The Myth of The Twentieth Century. Not exactly anti-fascist credentials I suspect.

And Fascism doesn't have a "mixed Socialist economy", it has a mixed Third Alternative economy.

No one quite knows what a Fascist economy is supposed to look like. The general consensus is that it ought to resemble Corporatism, or rather, nationalisation of key industries, autarky, the disciplining of labour and respect for some private property. By that definition, Mixed Socialist and Mixed Third Alternative tend to become mere issues of semantics.

Just because they were racists and had a cult of personality doesn't mean they were Fascist, especially since both of those things aren't necessary for a Fascist state. And they were still opposed to Fascism, even if they read Nazi literature.

[The Scientific States]

It's either Populist or Socialist, but it sure isn't Fascist, I can tell you that.

Why not? The Ba'ath ideogy calls mainly for an Arab revolution of sorts, not necessarily just economically but also psychologically, in terms of creating a New Arab Man in a breakaway from the traditional reactionary and Islamic character of Arabs, something similar to what Fascism espouses.

And then there are the multiple similarities with Ba'athism and Fascism: the creation of a mixed Socialist economy, the creation of an authoritarian state, opposition to Communism and Liberalism etc.

Ba'athism is a crappy ideology, but it's not fascist. It's simply state socialist and authoritarian.

[Seaxeland]

Why not? The Ba'ath ideogy calls mainly for an Arab revolution of sorts, not necessarily just economically but also psychologically, in terms of creating a New Arab Man in a breakaway from the traditional reactionary and Islamic character of Arabs, something similar to what Fascism espouses.

And then there are the multiple similarities with Ba'athism and Fascism: the creation of a mixed Socialist economy, the creation of an authoritarian state, opposition to Communism and Liberalism etc.

Ba'athism is a crappy ideology, but it's not fascist. It's simply state socialist and authoritarian.

Exactly.

[Viinborg]

I do believe that a leader can serve the will of the people. Leaders are supposed to lead the country and the people to prosperity, no matter what the cost. Many leaders, however, prefer to submit themselves to materialistic greed, and seek only to roll about in the pool of power, while their nations and people suffer in decadence.

- I do believe that a leader can serve the will of the people.
So do I. That is to say, I believe it is possible. However, if you want the will of the people to be done, aren't there better ways - that is to say, less corruptible, more efficient, less prone to an authoritarian or totalitarian leader making up his own mind from time to time or in the long run - than to focus executive power in one individual? Your ideal form of government could be "the will of the people should be done"; it could also be "the will of one leader should be done"; both are completely valid and everyone is of course welcome to argue in favour of them. However, I am left wondering whether the most secure way to ensure the people's will is done, is to take the executive power away from them, and invest it in one leader?

What if this plan goes awry at some stage? I presume the people should take back the power and find a new leader? This, at the cost of a coup d'etat presumably? I am sure you already see where I am going with this, and I am very interested in how you feel about these scenarios. I am also wondering about why you seem to argue (and I am presuming here again, I know you hate that, so please disabuse me if you feel I'm wrong - I know you dislike presumptions) that a coup d'etat is somehow a better instrument in righting the wrongs of leaders when you could also leave the power with people - through the means of some system, there are an almost infinite number to chose from - and organise elections or sortition or some other scheme.

- Leaders are supposed to lead the country and the people to prosperity, no matter what the cost.
Of course different people will define prosperity somewhat differently, but that is not very interesting in this discussion. What is interesting however, is the phrase "no matter what the cost", could you elaborate on that please? Do you mean for instance, "if a desired goal comes at the cost of, say, certain people's lives, than so be it." - a sort of ends justify the means kind of deal? I am wondering about the scope of the means as it were: some means, all means, et cetera.

- Many leaders, however, prefer to submit themselves to materialistic greed, and seek only to roll about in the pool of power, while their nations and people suffer in decadence.
Indeed, I mentioned this in the first paragraph of my reply, and I share your concern. Like I said, how to remedy this? Or better yet, how to prevent this?

PS Again you use the word decadence without having specified it. I know this question must be rather tedious by now, but since you use this term so often, and since you think it is a major concern, I would love to know what you mean by it. That is to say, I would like to know what you are on about exactly because it sounds jolly interesting. Who knows, we might even agree on some things.

The modern world is corrupt and sinful, and this is the fault of Liberalism.

- Corruption is the fault of liberalism.
I have had a number of discussions about this and I am always interested to hear in what way - according to some - liberalism corrupts people. How and in what way exactly? On top of that, what political course of action sees to remedy this and how should these corruptions be remedied?

[Britannic Realms]

That kind of thing happens all the time in a dictatorship. How can a nation suffer from 'decadence', I presume that you think gulag-esque conditions are much healthier.

Do not presume anything about me, because in many cases, most presumptions about me are slightly, if not entirely, false.

And you're right, it does happens to dictatorships, and that's why when it does, the people and the military must together right such wrongs, and install a new leader.

But would you prefer that people lived in shitty houses to try and get rid of 'decadence'?

In a totalitarian society, the people cannot remove a leader. That's the whole of the point of having a totalitarian society. So now you're contradicting yourself. Furthermore, having a coup, or bloody revolution, whenever the leader of the country becomes 'bad' creates a lot of instability which threatens the regime.

[Distruzio]

Basically, Fascism's economics are a Third Alternative mixed economy. [...]

There is no third alternative. That's nonsense made up by fascist types to avoid having their movement being associated with socialism or unregulated capitalism.

The head of the nail, you hit it.