Fascism: Good or Bad?

[Yankeesse]

1. Such as?



2. Explain.

3. Also this is your "Fascism is wrong therefore anyone who argues for Fascism is wrong, because Fascism is wrong" Circular argument again.

1. Violence, hatred, xenophobia, repression, etc., and shitty justifications of such things based on irrelevancies like race, national origin, different religious beliefs, appeals to tradition, etc.

2. Suppression of individuality, and forced subservience to the state is inherently dehumanization.

3. No, its more "Fascism is wrong, and self-evidently so, and its adherents are severely misguided".

1. Violence is a neccessity for National survival, always has been always will be.
Hatred when born out of defence for something you love is not an evil thing.

Xenophobia? What are you talking about?

All socieites have systems of Reppression, ask an anarchist. Some are just more honest about it then others.

Race is not an irrelevency
Neither is National origin when it's tied in with Ethnicity
It only acts against Religous groups which impede National Cohesion.

And i don't even know what you mean by appeals to Tradition.

2. When that indivduality is harmful to the Community through sloth or greed then yes, when "forced subserviance/" means something as simple as "you don't work you don't eat" then yes.

3. Same nonsense circular argument you've stated the last three times.

"Fascism is wrong becuase Fascism is wrong."

And you say Fascists don't have critical thinking?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Which doesn't at all justify the suppression of other parties.

Don't you know? A regime of Yes Men surrounding a singular dictator never results in the propagation and continuation of faulty and destructive ideas. It's all sunshine ant rainbows and jackboots, all the time.

[Blasveck]

Why do you not welcome opposition?

What is wrong with opposition, exactly
(I know I ignored the rest of your post. I just wanted to address that specific part.)

Criticism is saying you have an issue/differant opinion to certain policies.

Opposition is saying your going to actively work against the State and seek it's dissolution.

What if you seek to become the dominant party?

Lets say you have Fascist Party X and Republican Party Y.

If Party Y wants to run, is that opposition?

What determines the difference between open criticism an opposition?
If the state has the power to silence opposition, wouldn't it have enough power to silence criticism as well?

[Yankeesse]

Criticism is saying you have an issue/differant opinion to certain policies.

Opposition is saying your going to actively work against the State and seek it's dissolution.

Which doesn't at all justify the suppression of other parties.

Every government suppresses people that it beleives have the intention and perhaps ability to overthrow their system.

Why do you think so many liberals/leftists in the EU constantly call on "Far-Right" parties to be banned?

If they truly trusted in the voters and there system of democracy and freedom of choice then why should they need to take these measures?

i need to wonder

will he have a one party state but with several huge differing wings in the party, ironically becoming much like the chinese communist party?

Honestly were a Fascist State to come to power this is likely to happen in time.

The single party system isn't very differant from a constitional government when you come down to it, they have guidlines restrictions, polcies etc. that need to be followed but other then that people can do as they please.

The differance is rather than having overt and divisive party loyalties you would simply have indivudual statesmen who agree on certain policies and work together toward that goal. And then in this there is much criticism and debate etc.

[Grenartia]

Which doesn't at all justify the suppression of other parties.

i need to wonder

will he have a one party state but with several huge differing wings in the party, ironically becoming much like the chinese communist party?

What's the point in having only one party but with vastly different wings? Isn't that basically like having different parties?

1. Violence, hatred, xenophobia, repression, etc., and shitty justifications of such things based on irrelevancies like race, national origin, different religious beliefs, appeals to tradition, etc.

2. Suppression of individuality, and forced subservience to the state is inherently dehumanization.

3. No, its more "Fascism is wrong, and self-evidently so, and its adherents are severely misguided".

1. Violence is a neccessity for National survival, always has been always will be.
Hatred when born out of defence for something you love is not an evil thing.

Xenophobia? What are you talking about?

All socieites have systems of Reppression, ask an anarchist. Some are just more honest about it then others.

Race is not an irrelevency
Neither is National origin when it's tied in with Ethnicity
It only acts against Religous groups which impede National Cohesion.

And i don't even know what you mean by appeals to Tradition.

2. When that indivduality is harmful to the Community through sloth or greed then yes, when "forced subserviance/" means something as simple as "you don't work you don't eat" then yes.

3. Same nonsense circular argument you've stated the last three times.

"Fascism is wrong becuase Fascism is wrong."

And you say Fascists don't have critical thinking?

1. I do not deny that sometimes violence is necessary to preserve the state. However, constant violence against percieved threats that pose no real danger, is not good. Neither is violence utilized by paramilitary thugs, who are little more than state-sanctioned street gangs.

Hatred of ideas and concepts isn't inherently bad. Hatred of people because of those ideas or concepts, however, is always a shitty thing.

Xenophobia: the hatred of outsiders

Fascism has too much repression, compared to other systems.

Race and ethnicity are irrelevant. The color of one's skin/where they or their ancestors were born has no effect on their quality as a person. This has been repeatedly been proven by science. Same with religion. None of those things inherently hinder national cohesion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

2. Except fascism goes much, much farther than that.

3. Not at all what I've been saying.

Which doesn't at all justify the suppression of other parties.

Don't you know? A regime of Yes Men surrounding a singular dictator never results in the propagation and continuation of faulty and destructive ideas. It's all sunshine ant rainbows and jackboots, all the time.

Explains why North Korea is Best Korea.

[Lord Tothe]

Bad. No redeeming features whatsoever.

"This term immediately brings to mind images of jack-booted storm troopers, Chicago's late Mayor Daley and militarism. These things are only accidental (albeit usual) political ramifications of the system - which is purely economic in itself. Fascism may be defined as an economic system where although the 'means of production' and 'consumer goods' are owned by individuals, they are essentially controlled by the state. Hitler's Germany is, of course, the classic example. Krupp, I.G. Farben, Messerschmidt - all were privately owned, but the government told them what to produce, how much to charge, what to pay their laborers, how much profit they might make, and regulated every other aspect of their existence. Just so, are General Motors, Lockheed, Westinghouse and most other U.S. corporations privately owned; but the government dictates maximum prices, quality ('safety') standards, minimum wages and every other detail directly through the various regulatory agencies (CAB, FTC, ICC, OSHA, etc) in addition to profit margins through its monetary, taxing and, increasingly direct 'bailout' policies."

~ The International Man, by Douglas R. Casey, 2nd ed. (c) 1979, p. 77-78

[The National Socialist Philippines]

a Fascist government is the best government if the implementation is good same goes as communism

[Yankeesse]

Criticism is saying you have an issue/differant opinion to certain policies.

Opposition is saying your going to actively work against the State and seek it's dissolution.

What if you seek to become the dominant party?

Lets say you have Fascist Party X and Republican Party Y.

If Party Y wants to run, is that opposition?

What determines the difference between open criticism an opposition?

I already explained this, Crticism is debate/disagreement on certain policies and opposition is the desire to work against the State in hopes of seeing it replaced.

For the same Reason Democracies make Becoming Dictator an illegal action.

And Fascism desires and end to Party Politics, so their are no opposing parties only individuals within the state.

If the state has the power to silence opposition, wouldn't it have enough power to silence criticism as well?

How could you ever silence criticism really?
I mean you could try but what would that get you? Other than an unkown angered element in society which is Nationally divisive.

[Atvania]

Fascism is the worst thing that happened to society other than [insert really awful thing here]

[Grenartia]

Which doesn't at all justify the suppression of other parties.

Every government suppresses people that it beleives have the intention and perhaps ability to overthrow their system.

Why do you think so many liberals/leftists in the EU constantly call on "Far-Right" parties to be banned?

If they truly trusted in the voters and there system of democracy and freedom of choice then why should they need to take these measures?

Yes, however, legitimate political parties (i.e., those that aren't fronts for groups that are little more than terrorist fronts) are only banned in repressive authoritarian regiemes that wish to destory the democratic process.

Because more often than not, they're little more than fronts for terrorist groups (paramilitary street thugs and the like).

To prevent crimes against humanity like what happened in Nazi Germany, the USSR, and their respective puppet states. The first two of which obtained power through use of terrorism.

[Blasveck]

What if you seek to become the dominant party?

Lets say you have Fascist Party X and Republican Party Y.

If Party Y wants to run, is that opposition?

What determines the difference between open criticism an opposition?

I already explained this, Crticism is debate/disagreement on certain policies and opposition is the desire to work against the State in hopes of seeing it replaced.

For the same Reason Democracies make Becoming Dictator an illegal action.

And Fascism desires and end to Party Politics, so their are no opposing parties only individuals within the state.

If the state has the power to silence opposition, wouldn't it have enough power to silence criticism as well?

How could you ever silence criticism really?
I mean you could try but what would that get you? Other than an unkown angered element in society which is Nationally divisive.

Why is the State important? Why the obsession with the exaltation of the State?

[Minarchist States]

Fascism's incompatibility with the NAP rates it poorly imo.

[Blasveck]

Fascism's incompatibility with the NAP rates it poorly imo.

You sure do adhere to that principle, don't ya?

Ah. Libertarianism.....

*stares off into the distance*

[Jamjai]

like living inside a prison or almost

[Minarchist States]

Fascism's incompatibility with the NAP rates it poorly imo.

You sure do adhere to that principle, don't ya?

Ah. Libertarianism.....

*stares off into the distance*

Better principle than being trampled over and over if you were born poor in a fascist state. What sort of principle is that? Delusion of grandeur whilst the individual suffers.

[Grenartia]

You sure do adhere to that principle, don't ya?

Ah. Libertarianism.....

*stares off into the distance*

Better principle than being trampled over and over if you were born poor in a fascist state. What sort of principle is that? Delusion of grandeur whilst the individual suffers.

There's not much difference between Fascistopia and AynRandland. In both, the individual is enslaved, with individuality suppressed, the worker's rights crushed, etc. The only real difference is that in Fascistopia, the state does it via force of a gun. In AynRandland, megacorporations do it via wage enslavement. I fail to see much of a difference. Of course, in AynRandland, each megacorporation is effectively a state unto itself.

[Yankeesse]

You sure do adhere to that principle, don't ya?

Ah. Libertarianism.....

*stares off into the distance*

Better principle than being trampled over and over if you were born poor in a fascist state. What sort of principle is that? Delusion of grandeur whilst the individual suffers.

What the hell are you talking about?

Trample the poor?
Fascism uplifts the poor so long as they are willing to work, libertarianism gives the plutocrats the freedom to outsource all the jobs for cheaper cost and then tells the working man he's lazy when the reason he can't get a job is because the're literally aren't any available that he can support his family on.

There's not much difference between Fascistopia and AynRandland. In both, the individual is enslaved, with individuality suppressed, the worker's rights crushed, etc. The only real difference is that in Fascistopia, the state does it via force of a gun. In AynRandland, megacorporations do it via wage enslavement. I fail to see much of a difference. Of course, in AynRandland, each megacorporation is effectively a state unto itself.

Ok now i am certain you have little to know clue what you are talking about seeing as how you're saying Ayn Rand Objectivism and Fascism are the same.

Except for not Being Egalitarian there are virtually no similarities between the two

[Grenartia]

There's not much difference between Fascistopia and AynRandland. In both, the individual is enslaved, with individuality suppressed, the worker's rights crushed, etc. The only real difference is that in Fascistopia, the state does it via force of a gun. In AynRandland, megacorporations do it via wage enslavement. I fail to see much of a difference. Of course, in AynRandland, each megacorporation is effectively a state unto itself.

Ok now i am certain you have little to know clue what you are talking about seeing as how you're saying Ayn Rand Objectivism and Fascism are the same.

Except for not Being Egalitarian there are virtually no similarities between the two

I pretty much pointed out that despite that last part being true, the outcomes for the average person are effectively the same. Note that this does not mean I said they're the same. The outcomes are the same, but the means by which the outcomes are achieved are different.

[Yankeesse]

They are not the same and their outcomes are not the same.

One is base on weakening the State to the point where privite centers of wealth an power will inevitably gain supremacy over the state.

And one is Based on Strengthening the ties of Folk and State, and empowering it to guard against the forces of privite power, greed and corruption.

[Grenartia]

1. They are not the same and their outcomes are not the same.

2. One is base on weakening the State to the point where privite centers of wealth an power will inevitably gain supremacy over the state.

3. And one is Based on Strengthening the ties of Folk and State, and empowering it to guard against the forces of privite power, greed and corruption.

1. Effectively, they are. The only differences are the rationale behind the suppressment of individuality and dehumanization, and the manner in which the results are achieved.

2. At which point, the megacorporations become States unto themselves, and individuality is suppressed, and individuals dehumanized.

3. In so doing, individuality is suppressed, and individuals dehumanized.

[Naiveria]

Merriam Webster defines Fascism as:

A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

I'm going to go with bad, if you don't mind.

[Hatsunejima]

Fascism... it's kinda bad for me. But too much of the other way around is bad too.

[Yankeesse]

1. They are not the same and their outcomes are not the same.

2. One is base on weakening the State to the point where privite centers of wealth an power will inevitably gain supremacy over the state.

3. And one is Based on Strengthening the ties of Folk and State, and empowering it to guard against the forces of privite power, greed and corruption.

1. Effectively, they are. The only differences are the rationale behind the suppressment of individuality and dehumanization, and the manner in which the results are achieved.

2. At which point, the megacorporations become States unto themselves, and individuality is suppressed, and individuals dehumanized.

3. In so doing, individuality is suppressed, and individuals dehumanized.

1. No they are not, do you actually have a basis for this assertion other than just saying it?

Libertarianism doesn't suppress individuality at all, it Glorifies it to the neglect of the community, Ayn Rand objectivism is completely based on Egoism and Selfishness. It is the pinnacle and logical conclusion of Individualist thought.

2.True, it is essentially Plutocratic Neo-Feudalism with industrial/financier wealth replacing (usually) Agrarian wealth.

3. Nobody is fucking dehumanized because they are not told to be a unique little snowflake and that it's good to be differant and all that other public service gradeschool crap.

Individuality is ONLY suppressed when it interferes with the good of the community.

i.e. you are not free to do things if they are corrosive to the Nation.

But other then that yes, you are completely free to be whatever individual you want to be in a Fascist state.

Mosely Said it best that Fascism is Obligation in Public life and Freedom in privite life.

[Yankeesse]

Merriam Webster defines Fascism as:

A way of organizing a society in which a government ruled by a dictator controls the lives of the people and in which people are not allowed to disagree with the government

I'm going to go with bad, if you don't mind.

What a BS Definition. I wonder who was on the board that considered that an objective and honest definition.

[Grenartia]

1. Effectively, they are. The only differences are the rationale behind the suppressment of individuality and dehumanization, and the manner in which the results are achieved.

2. At which point, the megacorporations become States unto themselves, and individuality is suppressed, and individuals dehumanized.

3. In so doing, individuality is suppressed, and individuals dehumanized.

1. No they are not, do you actually have a basis for this assertion other than just saying it?

Libertarianism doesn't suppress individuality at all, it Glorifies it to the neglect of the community, Ayn Rand objectivism is completely based on Egoism and Selfishness. It is the pinnacle and logical conclusion of Individualist thought.

2.True, it is essentially Plutocratic Neo-Feudalism with industrial/financier wealth replacing (usually) Agrarian wealth.

3. Nobody is fucking dehumanized because they are not told to be a unique little snowflake and that it's good to be differant and all that other public service gradeschool crap.

Individuality is ONLY suppressed when it interferes with the good of the community.

i.e. you are not free to do things if they are corrosive to the Nation.

But other then that yes, you are completely free to be whatever individual you want to be in a Fascist state.

Mosely Said it best that Fascism is Obligation in Public life and Freedom in privite life.

1. Yes. Its called history. And I'm aware of Libertarianism and Objectivism.

3. Ah, but literally anything (even blinking in a certain way) can be arbitrary labelled by the state to be "corrosive to the Nation" or "interfering with the good of the community", and there's jack shit anybody can do about it (just like there's jack shit one can do about being a corporate slave in point 2). Individuality is suppressed, and individuals dehumanized.