Does Fascism Always Have to be Racist?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Why? This thread has already mentioned Nazism.

Godwin's law is seriously overdone.
Surely, the point of invoking Godwin's Law is that the argument is lost not because the Nazis were mentioned at all or even used in comparison, but that the comparison is openly trollish, wholly incorrect or displaying a complete irreverence.

Playing Godwin every time the words Nazi or Hitler are typed is like declaring you've won Monopoly because you passed Go.

But that's how you win at Monopoly.

In a biological sense. He was very much of the opinion that Italian culture was superior and often violently forced it on minorities in places under Italian control. This too is racist.

Cultural superiority =/= racial superiority. Blacks and Jews could be part of Italian culture.

God, I don't want to fucking defend Fascism.

Then don't. Go make an Anarchism thread instead.

You're a Nazi. Happy now?

Godwin's Law has already been fulfilled two pages ago.

Godwin's Law doesn't apply to discussions about Fascism or Nazism.

You could say it's redundant.

[Bolnoa]

Add racism and ya got Nazism.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Then don't. Go make an Anarchism thread instead.

No. I like arguing for truth and accuracy, despite disagreeing with sentiments of something I may be defending.

[Laerod]

You could say it's redundant.

Godwin's Law predicts that the longer a conversation goes, someone will eventually compare things to Hitler or Nazis. Differentiating between Nazism and Fascism and the racist components of both ideologies is the thread topic, so it's pretty much started off with the comparison.

[New Babylonia]

The idea of Fascism isn't bad, of course. The original idea is pretty brilliant. But, hey, Marx's original idea was actually pretty good too.

Fascism is inherently bad. Because violent and vitriolic nationalism, coupled with constant war and brutal authoritarianism, are bad things.

Marx's ideas are still good. They just got hijacked by smart guys who didn't give a fuck about achieving communism.

I mean, the very absolute basic intention of it. To make the country better. That is not a bad thing. Fascism being the way to do it? There are definitely better solutions. Alot of them. The reason of course, is the things you've stated. The Nationalism is the key, it is the enabler. It allows all the other things to be possible on the scale that we've seen.

[Hollorous]

The idea of Fascism isn't bad, of course. The original idea is pretty brilliant. But, hey, Marx's original idea was actually pretty good too.

Execution of it, has, unfortunately, proven that great ides are sometimes not truly possible. Loving your nation isn't a bad thing. The problem is that it always causes discrimination, it always causes racism of some sort. It just does. If i walk around my city, i will have an extremely hard time pointing to an American citizen who is not myself, that is not racist towards Russians, for example. It would be almost impossible. Hell, pointing to anyone who isn't racist at all would be nearly as impossible.

Love your nation? Fine. Rebuild it better than ever? Go for it. Having that love and extreme nationalism transformed as it always does into hate and racism? Very, very, very bad. Sadly, that is what Nationalism does.

Does it do it to everyone? Well of course not, obviously. It does it too enough people though, that a major issue becomes of it.

Well for the first time in this thread I somewhat agree with you. Huh.

Here's my theory as to why that is: both fascism and racism can be considered idealistic ideas (as opposed to Marx's materialistic ideas).

Basically your nation/race is awesome. You think of it in terms of some perfection that's aloof from, if not detached from, reality. So all the problems of your race/nation are naturally assumed to be inflicted by outsiders (i.e. dissidents, the culture of other races "corrupting" yours). Therefore, the response is to continually purge these "problem makers" until society recovers its purity. Because these assumptions already predispose a person toward thinking in stark black and white terms, violence is okay, even encouraged, because we humans often don't think that violence is wrong if it's used by "good people" to fight against "bad people" for a "good reason". Angels and demons basically.

So slightly different names on the letterhead, but the same self-serving bullshit. Obviously, there's more to the idea of fascism than that, but that's more or less why I reject it. I don't think its assumptions reflect reality.

[Imperializt Russia]

Godwin's law is seriously overdone.
Surely, the point of invoking Godwin's Law is that the argument is lost not because the Nazis were mentioned at all or even used in comparison, but that the comparison is openly trollish, wholly incorrect or displaying a complete irreverence.

Playing Godwin every time the words Nazi or Hitler are typed is like declaring you've won Monopoly because you passed Go.

But that's how you win at Monopoly.

You win at Monopoly by bankrupting everyone else. As a nifty side effect, this involves you passing go, but that is not the winning move.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

You could say it's redundant.

Godwin's Law predicts that the longer a conversation goes, someone will eventually compare things to Hitler or Nazis. Differentiating between Nazism and Fascism and the racist components of both ideologies is the thread topic, so it's pretty much started off with the comparison.

Indeed.

[United Marxist Nations]

Add racism and ya got Nazism.

Nazism is not vague racism, it is a very specific ideology with very specific beliefs (e.g. Drang nach Osten).

[Imperializt Russia]

You could say it's redundant.

Godwin's Law predicts that the longer a conversation goes, someone will eventually compare things to Hitler or Nazis. Differentiating between Nazism and Fascism and the racist components of both ideologies is the thread topic, so it's pretty much started off with the comparison.

Isn't the point that it is a fatuous comparison to the Nazis or Hitler, rather than an outright mention regardless?

[Laerod]

Godwin's Law predicts that the longer a conversation goes, someone will eventually compare things to Hitler or Nazis. Differentiating between Nazism and Fascism and the racist components of both ideologies is the thread topic, so it's pretty much started off with the comparison.

Isn't the point that it is a fatuous comparison to the Nazis or Hitler, rather than an outright mention regardless?

Not in its original form, as far as I know. It merely stated that a comparison or so would be made at some point. It didn't actually rule on how valid it was and decried that too often, the comparisons weren't.

[United Marxist Nations]

The idea of Fascism isn't bad, of course. The original idea is pretty brilliant. But, hey, Marx's original idea was actually pretty good too.

Fascism is inherently bad. Because violent and vitriolic nationalism, coupled with constant war and brutal authoritarianism, are bad things.

Marx's ideas are still good. They just got hijacked by smart guys who didn't give a fuck about achieving communism.

On the second part, I think that it is incorrect, and that analysis such as that will not lead socialists down a correct path. We must carefully examine the material conditions that led to the degeneracy of the revolution in the developing countries. Simply saying "the ideas were betrayed" is too simplistic and does not address these problems.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Fascism is inherently bad. Because violent and vitriolic nationalism, coupled with constant war and brutal authoritarianism, are bad things.

Marx's ideas are still good. They just got hijacked by smart guys who didn't give a fuck about achieving communism.

On the second part, I think that it is incorrect, and that analysis such as that will not lead socialists down a correct path. We must carefully examine the material conditions that led to the degeneracy of the revolution in the developing countries. Simply saying "the ideas were betrayed" is too simplistic and does not address these problems.

Well I wasn't exactly trying to provide a detailed discussion.

I prefer Bakunin anyway.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

But that's how you win at Monopoly.

You win at Monopoly by bankrupting everyone else. As a nifty side effect, this involves you passing go, but that is not the winning move.

Do you WANT to lose all your friends in a drawn-out conflict? I play where you buy all the rail lines to win; quicker and less violent for all parties.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You win at Monopoly by bankrupting everyone else. As a nifty side effect, this involves you passing go, but that is not the winning move.

Do you WANT to lose all your friends in a drawn-out conflict? I play where you buy all the rail lines to win; quicker and less violent for all parties.

Did you know Monopoly was invented to make fun of capitalism?

buthisisofftopicweshouldstop

[Laerod]

Do you WANT to lose all your friends in a drawn-out conflict? I play where you buy all the rail lines to win; quicker and less violent for all parties.

Did you know Monopoly was invented to make fun of capitalism?

buthisisofftopicweshouldstop

To bring it back within range of the topic, the reason that the German version uses generic street names is because the Nazis that were all living on the wealthier streets of Berlin that were featured in the game protested heavily. So it got changed.

[Imperializt Russia]

You win at Monopoly by bankrupting everyone else. As a nifty side effect, this involves you passing go, but that is not the winning move.

Do you WANT to lose all your friends in a drawn-out conflict? I play where you buy all the rail lines to win; quicker and less violent for all parties.

The privatisation of the railways is a touchy subject in my friendship circles. It's a surefire way to get lynched.

[New Babylonia]

Do you WANT to lose all your friends in a drawn-out conflict? I play where you buy all the rail lines to win; quicker and less violent for all parties.

Did you know Monopoly was invented to make fun of capitalism?

buthisisofftopicweshouldstop

Can't blame it for doing that. Libertarian Socialism all the way!

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Did you know Monopoly was invented to make fun of capitalism?

buthisisofftopicweshouldstop

To bring it back within range of the topic, the reason that the German version uses generic street names is because the Nazis that were all living on the wealthier streets of Berlin that were featured in the game protested heavily. So it got changed.

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

To bring it back within range of the topic, the reason that the German version uses generic street names is because the Nazis that were all living on the wealthier streets of Berlin that were featured in the game protested heavily. So it got changed.

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

That actually isn't true.

[Saiwania]

The privatisation of the railways is a touchy subject in my friendship circles. It's a surefire way to get lynched.

Amtrak might do better under private ownership, at least then it might turn a profit, which it has never.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

That actually isn't true.

Communist lies!

[McNernia]

It is possible to be proud of what you are and not be outright racist. For some the line is incredibly thin.

[Planita]

Nope. Fascism can exist without the racism, but its accompanying nationalism can cause racism.

[Old Tyrannia]

No, not necessarily. In fact the original Italian Fascists were fairly relaxed about race- many prominent fascists in the National Fascist Party were Jewish, for instance. Mussolini flip-flopped a lot on race, depending on whether he was trying to improve relations with Hitler's Germany or was opposing the Nazis, as in Austria under Dollfuß. It is hard to maintain a distinction between nationalism and racialism in countries historically dominated by a single ethnicity, though, especially in the modern world where national boundaries are largely drawn up along ethnic lines. With or without racism though, fascism is a fairly horrible political philosophy to subscribe to.