Fascism: Good or Bad?

[Mussoliniopoli]

Well Goering repeatedly claimed he was the architect of the incident on multiple occasions so more than likely.

Source?

Nuremburg Trials it was admitted as evidence against Goering by General Halder.

[Yankeesse]

i loved that movie

i hate to have to be the one to tell you this but the movie actually exists solely to take the piss out of you and your ideology

The movie was a piece of shit piss poor attempt to mock "Fascism" in the book.

By having some representation of bullheaded brutes that just love shooting machine guns.

I would say Starship Troopers (the book) is Fascist.

Because it says that people should have to offer something to society before that have the privleges of certain "rights" and voting.

It thoroughly explains that their are people in that society that think anyone who wants to become a soldier is just a idiot tricked by the gubment to get recruits.

The diffeance in mentality between a civilian and a soldier.

It explains how freedom loses value when people expect to just be entitled to it ,it makes it worthless. And that the best things in life aren't free but demand maintenance and sacrifice.

But apparently all this is evil Nazi talk.

[Yankeesse]

Source?

Nuremburg Trials it was admitted as evidence against Goering by General Halder.

Yes because no on in that trial could of possibly admitted false evidence to get lighter sentences.

[Surfistan]

i hate to have to be the one to tell you this but the movie actually exists solely to take the piss out of you and your ideology

By having some representation of bullheaded brutes that just love shooting machine guns.

Indeed, like fascism.

[Filthy Ginger Bastards]

The "bugs" in the book represented the dehumanized Asiatic hordes, whom it was perfectly acceptable to exterminate for the good of the nation, and civilization in general. Great morals.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

The "bugs" in the book represented the dehumanized Asiatic hordes, whom it was perfectly acceptable to exterminate for the good of the nation, and civilization in general. Great morals.

The book was based on Switzerland so bag on them not us.

[Ponyfornia]

Nuremburg Trials it was admitted as evidence against Goering by General Halder.

Yes because no on in that trial could of possibly admitted false evidence to get lighter sentences.

How would admitting it give him a lighter sentence?

You sound desperate.

[The imperial canadian dutchy]

By having some representation of bullheaded brutes that just love shooting machine guns.

Indeed, like fascism.

Yeah have fun with you Gulags Josef

[Asteriapoli]

Fascism is ultimately oppressive and authoritarian, and will always lead to lives being lost. I completely disagree with their nationalism, xenophobia and hatred in general. That being said, I have to admit that certain aspects of their economic policies are not that bad. They reject class struggle and instead support a cross-class form of consensual pragmatism. That is, in theory at least - in practice I guess it just ends up being totalitarian and centralised in the hands of one man anyway. So I consider it to be maybe 85% bad.

[Filthy Ginger Bastards]

Indeed, like fascism.

Yeah have fun with you Gulags Josef

I'm sorry, but now we're relying upon logical fallacies instead of actual arguments. Emotion and will indeed.

[Blasveck]

i hate to have to be the one to tell you this but the movie actually exists solely to take the piss out of you and your ideology

The movie was a piece of shit piss poor attempt to mock "Fascism" in the book.

By having some representation of bullheaded brutes that just love shooting machine guns.

I would say Starship Troopers (the book) is Fascist.

Because it says that people should have to offer something to society before that have the privleges of certain "rights" and voting.

It thoroughly explains that their are people in that society that think anyone who wants to become a soldier is just a idiot tricked by the gubment to get recruits.

The diffeance in mentality between a civilian and a soldier.

It explains how freedom loses value when people expect to just be entitled to it ,it makes it worthless. And that the best things in life aren't free but demand maintenance and sacrifice.

But apparently all this is evil Nazi talk.

Its not Nazi, but it is certainly brash.

Society is not entitled to a man's work, and in return he gets his rights.
Society is not deserving or entitled to anything. It is a byproduct of the actions of individuals, not a "thing" that people are subservient to.

People get those rights regardless.

[Yankeesse]

What?

Marxism acknowledges individual agency and emotion, but realistically does not lose sight of the objective constraints upon the individual will. Fascism, much like religion, exploits the power of emotion, spectacle and shallow analysis. It attacks migrant workers, instead of the system which demands their presence. It attacks groups of "others" in order to divide and conquer, making solidarity impossible. It subsumes the individual will. It subsumes the individual to a collective whole that serves an exclusionary collectivism at the expense of all reasonable outside obstacles. Hence, National Socialist. The Nazis promised land and rising living standards to the German Volk at the expense of their Eastern European neighbors, whom they pillaged and used for slave labor in order to seize Lebensraum.

Emotion is fine, but delusion is another thing entirely.

Marxism obsesses over economic issues to the neglect of Social and Cultural ones.
Fascism understands and utilizes the powere of emotion as a driving creative and uniting force of the people and doesn't see it as something to be ignored or "moved past".
That doesn't mean it does it blindly, it never does it always had a purpose and a goal.

Whether Fascists attack migrants depends on if Migrants are having a negative impact on society, such as taking jobs from the folk commiting crimes etc. And it does goes after the employers as well but that takes more time and planning.

It doesn't incite near the amount of internal Strife and chaos that Communism does and it only attacks the politcal opponents which attack them.

Germanys foreign policy in WWII is not an inevitable route of Fascism it was based on a very unique set of circumstances in Germany, the Threat of Communsim invading Europe and the apparent weakness of the Soviet union at the time along with apparent collaborationist atitiude exhibited by the western soviet States as well as Finland.

[Yankeesse]

Its not Nazi, but it is certainly brash.

Society is not entitled to a man's work, and in return he gets his rights.
Society is not deserving or entitled to anything. It is a byproduct of the actions of individuals, not a "thing" that people are subservient to.

People get those rights regardless.

Why?

Society which a Man is dependent on isn't entitled to his worked in exchange for it's benefits?

Yes it is made up of individuals but you look at it collectively because that is what the individuals make up.

Why should other individuals, society at large, give a man rights when he offers nothing to society?

Why is he entitled to rights and society is not entitled to his service, when it is society that bestows these rights and privleges upon him?

[Yankeesse]

Fascism is ultimately oppressive and authoritarian, and will always lead to lives being lost. I completely disagree with their nationalism, xenophobia and hatred in general. That being said, I have to admit that certain aspects of their economic policies are not that bad. They reject class struggle and instead support a cross-class form of consensual pragmatism. That is, in theory at least - in practice I guess it just ends up being totalitarian and centralised in the hands of one man anyway. So I consider it to be maybe 85% bad.

Your understanding of Fascism is where mine was 2 years ago, in others words very poor.

[Blasveck]

Its not Nazi, but it is certainly brash.

Society is not entitled to a man's work, and in return he gets his rights.
Society is not deserving or entitled to anything. It is a byproduct of the actions of individuals, not a "thing" that people are subservient to.

People get those rights regardless.

Why?

Society which a Man is dependent on isn't entitled to his worked in exchange for it's benefits?

Yes it is made up of individuals but you look at it collectively because that is what the individuals make up.

Why should other individuals, society at large, give a man rights when he offers nothing to society?

Why is he entitled to rights and society is not entitled to his service, when it is society that bestows these rights and privleges?

Society does no such thing.

You seem to be wanting to link Society = Government, and they don't.

Man is entitled to such rights on the simple basis that he exists.

He, and every woman, child, brother, and sister, is entitled to free speech, association, due process, fair trial, etc.

Society is a byproduct of individuals acting and using their rights.

[Filthy Ginger Bastards]

Marxism acknowledges individual agency and emotion, but realistically does not lose sight of the objective constraints upon the individual will. Fascism, much like religion, exploits the power of emotion, spectacle and shallow analysis. It attacks migrant workers, instead of the system which demands their presence. It attacks groups of "others" in order to divide and conquer, making solidarity impossible. It subsumes the individual will. It subsumes the individual to a collective whole that serves an exclusionary collectivism at the expense of all reasonable outside obstacles. Hence, National Socialist. The Nazis promised land and rising living standards to the German Volk at the expense of their Eastern European neighbors, whom they pillaged and used for slave labor in order to seize Lebensraum.

Emotion is fine, but delusion is another thing entirely.

Marxism obsesses over economic issues to the neglect of Social and Cultural ones.
Fascism understands and utilizes the powere of emotion as a driving creative and uniting force of the people and doesn't see it as something to be ignored or "moved past".
That doesn't mean it does it blindly, it never does it always had a purpose and a goal.

Whether Fascists attack migrants depends on if Migrants are having a negative impact on society, such as taking jobs from the folk commiting crimes etc. And it does goes after the employers as well but that takes more time and planning.

It doesn't incite near the amount of internal Strife and chaos that Communism does and it only attacks the politcal opponents which attack them.

Germanys foreign policy in WWII is not an inevitable route of Fascism it was based on a very unique set of circumstances in Germany, the Threat of Communsim invading Europe and the apparent weakness of the Soviet union at the time along with apparent collaborationist atitiude exhibited by the western soviet States as well as Finland.

1) I didn't say that emotion is something to be "moved past."

2) In terms of migrants, I have repeatedly stated that the "negative impacts" that they display to shallow analysis are dependent upon a globalized international system which uses them against domestic labor, with the intent of causing the aforementioned negative impacts, in order to prevent solidarity and divide and conquer... the individual people, some of whom I know personally and who are wonderful people, are used by larger forces and who cannot be held personally responsible... they are wooed into improving their own lives by larger institutions as anyone would do for their family

3) Why do you think they commit crime? They are not genetically predisposed. They have limited options and have to put up with a great deal of BS from people who blame them for things that they are not responsible for. Their crimes are also publicized more and cause more public discontent from people who fail to do the necessary analysis, while they are also disproportionately targeted by law enforcement.

4) Fascism does not only attack political opponents, unless unremarkable brown people are political foes

5) I did not say that Nazi policy was inevitable. But was genocide, slave labor and reducing their neighbors to uneducated servant classes not a tad much?

[Yankeesse]

Why?

Society which a Man is dependent on isn't entitled to his worked in exchange for it's benefits?

Yes it is made up of individuals but you look at it collectively because that is what the individuals make up.

Why should other individuals, society at large, give a man rights when he offers nothing to society?

Why is he entitled to rights and society is not entitled to his service, when it is society that bestows these rights and privleges?

Society does no such thing.

You seem to be wanting to link Society = Government, and they don't.

The State is a part of society, are you seriously denying this?

Man is entitled to such rights on the simple basis that he exists.

Why? This I think in the long run is an extremely disgusting idea.

What rights does he have?
Why does he have them?
Because he exists?

Thats our standard for human freedom and dignity?

Explain to me how anyone is entitled to anything?

If a man is said to have a right to life if he's dying of thirst in the desert, does the universe owe him water and offer it up to him?

No he dies in the desert because he didn't take the necessary measures in relation to the dangers of the desert.

Society is a byproduct of individuals acting and using their rights.

No, Society in the term we use to label the cultural and social atmoshpere in which a collection of indviduals live within.

Individuals don't exist in a vaccuum they all have an effect on each other either directly or indirectly.

And can you explain to me Rational what a right is and why everyone is unconditionally entitled to it?

[Avenio]

It's probably a close second in terms of 'worst ideologies ever', if only because Stalinism managed to edge it out in terms of industrialized production of human suffering and misery.

[Blasveck]

Society does no such thing.

You seem to be wanting to link Society = Government, and they don't.

The State is a part of society, are you seriously denying this?

Man is entitled to such rights on the simple basis that he exists.

Why? This I think in the long run is an extremely disgusting idea.

What rights does he have?
Why does he have them?
Because he exists?

Thats our standard for human freedom and dignity?

Explain to me how anyone is entitled to anything?

If a man is said to have a right to life if he's dying of thirst in the desert, does the universe owe him water and offer it up to him?

No he dies in the desert because he didn't take the necessary measures in relation to the dangers of the desert.

Society is a byproduct of individuals acting and using their rights.

No, Society in the term we use to label the cultural and social atmoshpere in which a collection of indviduals live within.

Individuals don't exist in a vaccuum they all have an effect on each other either directly or indirectly.

And can you explain to me Rational what a right is and why everyone is unconditionally entitled to it?

1. I'm denying the fact that the State is Society, which most Fascists, and perhaps you, though I'm not entirely sure, seem to be claiming.
2. He has whatever rights he has. Free speech, freedom of religion, etc. One of the ways those rights are threatened is by the State.
3. I never claimed individuals existed within a vacuum. Society is the collection of the actions of individuals. It is made by the actions of individuals.
4. Rights, ultimately, are what we say they are. Nothing can be simpler.

[Yankeesse]

Marxism obsesses over economic issues to the neglect of Social and Cultural ones.
Fascism understands and utilizes the powere of emotion as a driving creative and uniting force of the people and doesn't see it as something to be ignored or "moved past".
That doesn't mean it does it blindly, it never does it always had a purpose and a goal.

Whether Fascists attack migrants depends on if Migrants are having a negative impact on society, such as taking jobs from the folk commiting crimes etc. And it does goes after the employers as well but that takes more time and planning.

It doesn't incite near the amount of internal Strife and chaos that Communism does and it only attacks the politcal opponents which attack them.

Germanys foreign policy in WWII is not an inevitable route of Fascism it was based on a very unique set of circumstances in Germany, the Threat of Communsim invading Europe and the apparent weakness of the Soviet union at the time along with apparent collaborationist atitiude exhibited by the western soviet States as well as Finland.

1) I didn't say that emotion is something to be "moved past."

2) In terms of migrants, I have repeatedly stated that the "negative impacts" that they display to shallow analysis are dependent upon a globalized international system which uses them against domestic labor, with the intent of causing the aforementioned negative impacts, in order to prevent solidarity and divide and conquer... the individual people, some of whom I know personally and who are wonderful people, are used by larger forces and who cannot be held personally responsible... they are wooed into improving their own lives by larger institutions as anyone would do for their family

3) Why do you think they commit crime? They are not genetically predisposed. They have limited options and have to put up with a great deal of BS from people who blame them for things that they are not responsible for.

4) Fascism does not only attack political opponents, unless unremarkable brown people are political foes

5) I did not say that Nazi policy was inevitable. But was genocide, slave labor and reducing their neighbors to uneducated servant classes not a tad much?

1)No you didn't but a lot of these intellectualists and "Rationalists" constantly speak such nonsense.

2)True, but when one doesn't have the power to change the practices of a big business what can you do? You make the atmosphere undesirable for would be migrants so that they don't want to migrate their anymore.
And one good individual doesn't make up for a signifcant foreign criminal population.
And even the ones in legitimate work are a problem because they compete for the native population for work and when therw is already unemployment they inevitably raise it because they compete for jobs and are often cheaper to employ (that is the whole point Capitalists love immigration).

3)So the Native population should have to put up with it? It is their land that their ancestors bestowed to them, not the migrants and if the migrants find in necessary to take part in crimes to support themselves that make their life miserable and at the expense of them (robbery/thievery) then they have every right to react with violence when met by violent crime.

4)What are you talking about?

5)One must understand the scale of the war on the eastern front (the Largest Campaign the worldhas ever known) to understand many acts of policies by germany at the time.
Not saying that makes them right, just makes them easier to understand.

[Yankeesse]

It's probably a close second in terms of 'worst ideologies ever', if only because Stalinism managed to edge it out in terms of industrialized production of human suffering and misery.

Look another expert on Fascism and Stalinism.

1. I'm denying the fact that the State is Society, which most Fascists, and perhaps you, though I'm not entirely sure, seem to be claiming.

No it's not, but it is part of Society and the Goal of Fascism is to bring link it closer to the National Consciousness.
To be rid of the Bloated Bureaucratic system and replace it with a more organic Totalitarian system, as the state permeates throughout societ the desires of society influence the state.

All the while guided by a set of virtues and principles.

2. He has whatever rights he has. Free speech, freedom of religion, etc. One of the ways those rights are threatened is by the State.

He has them because he has them? This is circular logic.
You're not explaining anything.
Why does he have them? What is a Right in itself?

3. I never claimed individuals existed within a vacuum. Society is the collection of the actions of individuals. It is made by the actions of individuals.

And in order for it to work harmoniously you don't think that they should have obligation to one another to better cooperate and cooexist without internal strive?

4. Rights, ultimately, are what we say they are. Nothing can be simpler.

Apparently Rights are just a sentiment of privleges that you beleive everyone has just by the act of being born because that's all you've shown in your words so far.

[Filthy Ginger Bastards]

1) I didn't say that emotion is something to be "moved past."

2) In terms of migrants, I have repeatedly stated that the "negative impacts" that they display to shallow analysis are dependent upon a globalized international system which uses them against domestic labor, with the intent of causing the aforementioned negative impacts, in order to prevent solidarity and divide and conquer... the individual people, some of whom I know personally and who are wonderful people, are used by larger forces and who cannot be held personally responsible... they are wooed into improving their own lives by larger institutions as anyone would do for their family

3) Why do you think they commit crime? They are not genetically predisposed. They have limited options and have to put up with a great deal of BS from people who blame them for things that they are not responsible for.

4) Fascism does not only attack political opponents, unless unremarkable brown people are political foes

5) I did not say that Nazi policy was inevitable. But was genocide, slave labor and reducing their neighbors to uneducated servant classes not a tad much?

1)No you didn't but a lot of these intellectualists and "Rationalists" constantly speak such nonsense.

2)True, but when one doesn't have the power to change the practices of a big business what can you do? You make the atmosphere undesirable for would be migrants so that they don't want to migrate their anymore.
And one good individual doesn't make up for a signifcant foreign criminal population.
And even the ones in legitimate work are a problem because they compete for the native population for work and when therw is already unemployment they inevitably raise it because they compete for jobs and are often cheaper to employ (that is the whole point Capitalists love immigration).

3)So the Native population should have to put up with it? It is their land that their ancestors bestowed to them, not the migrants and if the migrants find in necessary to take part in crimes to support themselves that make their life miserable and at the expense of them (robbery/thievery) then they have every right to react with violence when met by violent crime.

4)What are you talking about?

5)One must understand the scale of the war on the eastern front (the Largest Campaign the worldhas ever known) to understand many acts of policies by germany at the time.
Not saying that makes them right, just makes them easier to understand.

1)Then don't argue against a Straw Man. I don't care what idiots who claim to be Socialists say. I care what I say.

2) That only reinforced my symptom vs. system argument.

Making it an undesirable climate for migrants will not fix the problem. Believe me, a few blockheads in a first world economy have nothing on the destitution wrought upon countries subject to centuries of imperialism and neo-imperialism (which Fascists promote anyways.)

On the flip side, a few bad apples do not make an entire population of migrants criminal.

I have been telling YOU that capitalists love immigration for those very reasons. It requires governmental and capitalistic regulations and policies in order to even admit these workers, unless they are illegals (who are also wooed to live in a legal grey area BY INDUSTRY in order to bypass governmental regulations due to their cheaper costs!) Beating up poor immigrants who have few other options is not a rational substitute for opposing the avowed policies of capital. It will fix nothing. It will only become a statistic, and they will be replaced. Beating your little sister because your father is abusive will not fix anything. That is the essence of lateral violence, it is the oppressed oppressing the oppressed. You are playing into their hands. You are doing their dirty work for them.

3) Your ancestors do not "bestow" upon you land and rights. Have you researched your own familial line and conducted blood tests? Furthermore, in many countries, your ancestors WERE immigrants. And you still have not addressed the systemic factors that lead some to crime. You champion emotion and will, but entirely scorn any objective factors. I admit that will has a place, but there are logical and material limits to its influence.

4) In your rant against Communism, you claimed that Fascism "only attacks the political opponents that attack them." Absolute rubbish.

5) Sure, but they were a result of the reductionist thinking of Fascist ideology. I am not saying that they are a necessary result of Fascism, but it is not hard to see where their root was laid by that form of thinking.

[Blasveck]

It's probably a close second in terms of 'worst ideologies ever', if only because Stalinism managed to edge it out in terms of industrialized production of human suffering and misery.

Look another expert on Fascism and Stalinism.

1. I'm denying the fact that the State is Society, which most Fascists, and perhaps you, though I'm not entirely sure, seem to be claiming.

No it's not, but it is part of Society and the Goal of Fascism is to bring link it closer to the National Consciousness.
To be rid of the Bloated Bureaucratic system and replace it with a more organic Totalitarian system, as the state permeates throughout societ the desires of society influence the state.

All the while guided by a set of virtues and principles.

2. He has whatever rights he has. Free speech, freedom of religion, etc. One of the ways those rights are threatened is by the State.

He has them because he has them? This is circular logic.
You're not explaining anything.
Why does he have them? What is a Right in itself?

3. I never claimed individuals existed within a vacuum. Society is the collection of the actions of individuals. It is made by the actions of individuals.

And in order for it to work harmoniously you don't think that they should have obligation to one another to better cooperate and cooexist without internal strive?

4. Rights, ultimately, are what we say they are. Nothing can be simpler.

Apparently Rights are just a sentiment of privleges that you beleive everyone has just by the act of being born because that's all you've shown in your words so far.

I should have been more concise. Apologies.

Rights are, essentially, liberties and actions that are afforded to individuals, and to an extent perhaps, groups.

Rights are literally what individuals and society as a whole determines what they are. Unless you subscribe to the theory of natural rights, rights literally exist because we say they do. That's a fact.

[Tyriece]

Is bad, Democracy all the way.

[The Grey Wolf]

If you Belive the Communists would Torch the Reichstäg than you Must be high. It was obviously a de facto version of the Gestapo

Well Goering repeatedly claimed he was the architect of the incident on multiple occasions so more than likely.

Multiple occasions? Do tell. I was under the impression that Goering denied the incident and he only "claimed it" once. The source of the tale doesn't appear too reliable either.