Fascism: Good or Bad?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

1. National Socialism is not Fascism. It is such a bastardised form it is unrecognisable.

2. Good for the Romanians and Japanese. I don't know how that is supposed to facilitate national solidarity.

1. It has all its calling cards.

2. I'm guessing: "BECUZ MAH TRAHDISHONAL CULTERAL VALYOUS".

1. Authoritarianism? Militarism? They're seen in various non-fascist countries.

2. It still isn't going to bring the industrial workers into a great national fold, devoid of class conflict. Fascism wouldn't advocate the denigration of a certain native, potentially loyal and strong group within the nation.

[Leningrad Union]

Just as bad as any other extreme right or left ideology. Communism is a bit better because it has the people's ideals at heart when Fascism is about the elite ruling.

[Grenartia]

1. It has all its calling cards.

2. I'm guessing: "BECUZ MAH TRAHDISHONAL CULTERAL VALYOUS".

1. Authoritarianism? Militarism? They're seen in various non-fascist countries.

2. It still isn't going to bring the industrial workers into a great national fold, devoid of class conflict. Fascism wouldn't advocate the denigration of a certain native, potentially loyal and strong group within the nation.

1. Yes, but it still fits all of fascism's calling cards.

2. I'm aware.

[The Nuclear Fist]

2. It still isn't going to bring the industrial workers into a great national fold, devoid of class conflict. Fascism wouldn't advocate the denigration of a certain native, potentially loyal and strong group within the nation.

I feel like this brushes up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. 'No True Fascist', perhaps. Assuming the Party and the like held the industrial workers as scapegoats, blaming them for some sort of perceived (real or not) societal problem, I see no reason why they would hold the peasant above them.

[Socialist Shadow Republic]

Now look here when I made my first post on this. I wans't stating my pollitical views in full. I was saying what I like and dislike about Fascism.

As for my pollitical ideology I am an Egoist, Anarcho Capatlist with Anarcho Transhumanist leanings.

Ah, ok. Sorry, the fault is on my behalf. I made a mistake when reading your post.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

2. It still isn't going to bring the industrial workers into a great national fold, devoid of class conflict. Fascism wouldn't advocate the denigration of a certain native, potentially loyal and strong group within the nation.

I feel like this brushes up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. 'No True Fascist', perhaps. Assuming the Party and the like held the industrial workers as scapegoats, blaming them for some sort of perceived (real or not) societal problem, I see no reason why they would hold the peasant above them.

Exactly. I've heard people say fascism is anti-gun-control before (entirely false), but this is pretty new (and seems rather illogical) to me.

[The Nuclear Fist]

I feel like this brushes up on the No True Scotsman fallacy. 'No True Fascist', perhaps. Assuming the Party and the like held the industrial workers as scapegoats, blaming them for some sort of perceived (real or not) societal problem, I see no reason why they would hold the peasant above them.

Exactly. I've heard people say fascism is anti-gun-control before (entirely false), but this is pretty new (and seems rather illogical) to me.

Perhaps you and I are confused with each other. I was under the impression that your post was implying that no truly Fascist state would hold one group over the other, and I responded that such sounded like No True Scotsman and that if that particular Fascist regime held one group as responsible for one or more perceived societal problems then it would make sense for them to hold other groups over it. Especially considering one nation's fascist regime isn't guaranteed to look like another (although they could very well be similar, especially if one has made the other its puppet as Iron Guard Romania was to Nazi Germany).

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Perhaps you and I are confused with each other. I was under the impression that your post was implying that no truly Fascist state would hold one group over the other, and I responded that such sounded like No True Scotsman and that if that particular Fascist regime held one group as responsible for one or more perceived societal problems then it would make sense for them to hold other groups over it. Especially considering one nation's fascist regime isn't guaranteed to look like another (although they could very well be similar, especially if one has made the other its puppet as Iron Guard Romania was to Nazi Germany).

Ah, I see. The way you stated it was rather confusing.

I'm using this in the same way one would say "no true democratic state would have a non-elected dictator." Fascism has at its core the idea that the nation must be united. Fully united; no distinct class divisions, ethnic divisions, religious divisions, things that tear it into partisan groups. A Fascist state couldn't put down a massive group that upholds the urban economy, or else it would be deliberately dividing the nation.

I can see how this is interpreted as that particular fallacy. But I don't think it is. Romania, as you said, was a Nazi puppet state, and the Nazis were National Socialists. National Socialists aren't Fascists; that's why they call themselves National Socialists.

We aren't going to get very far in this discussion, as I can only state that putting down industrial workers and uplifting peasants doesn't seem very Fascist to me.

[XY Inc]

Personally when it comes to Facism I like some aspects of it and disklike others.

Like
#Hatred of Marxists of striptes.
#Opposition to parliamentary democracy.
#Conservative economic programs.
#Imperialism.
#Militarism.
#Social Darwinism.
#Patriotism.
#Mass mobilization.
#Extremism.
#Glorification of youth.
#Educational System that emphazies character building over intellectual growth.
#Violence.
#Glorification of war and violence.
#The “new man” Philosophy.
#Propaganda.
#Really Nice Uniforms.
#Revolutionary image.
#Genocide of opposition.
#Extreme nationalism (like that the nation acts independently rather than collectively, emphasizing international goals.
#Antiurbanism.
#Liberal gun laws.

Disklike
#Opposition to political and cultural liberalism.
#Sexism and misogyny.
#Hostile racism (when applicable).
#Antisemitism (when appilicable).
#Identification with Christianity. (I'm an Atheist).
#Subordination to the State.
#Struggle against “decadence.

>Genocide of the opposition?
You mean the crushing of dissent, all revolutions do this but interesting that you place it as a virtue.

>Mysogyny
How is Fascism Mysogynist?
Most Fascist regimes were Sexist and Mysgonist in that they restricted women to traditional gender roles as wives and mothers and to bear many children for the nation. They also often instituted policies severely restricting women’s access to jobs outside the home and orbade female party members from giving orders to male members.
>Antisemitism bad
Jews tend to be a majority/high in number with the Plutocratic system and Comunist cells, which means they more ften then not oppose Nationalist Causes.
Prosecuting the Jews who are a part of Plutocratic system and Comunist cells, makes perfect sence. I however don't think it is nesseary to prosecute someone just because they are Jewish.
The Only Fascist state where antisemitism would be bad, would be if Israel became a Fascist state.

>Opposing liberal degenracy and cultural marxism bad
Huh?
I'm all for liberal degenracy (unlike marxism)
>Identification with Christianity
If the Nation is Culturally Christian yeah it maintains culture, and Movements like the "Legion of the Archangel Michael"(Iron Guard) were openly clerical.

But hell Mussolini was an Atheist much of his life, Fascism is quite Religouly tolerant so long as it doesn't interfere with National Cohesion.
True dat and the Nazis were Neo-Pagans.
>Struggle against “decadence" bad
How is this bad, combating waste and excess in the burgouise is main tenant of Fascism
I'm a Hedonist, thus I'm all for some good old decadence.
>Subordination to the State bad
When the populace takes role in the State and the state works with the community, then subserviance to the state is dedication to the community, this doesn't mean you don't have freedom to what you like, it has no caste system.

I'm a firm supporter of Egoism.

[XY Inc]

Now look here when I made my first post on this. I wans't stating my pollitical views in full. I was saying what I like and dislike about Fascism.

As for my pollitical ideology I am an Egoist, Anarcho Capatlist with Anarcho Transhumanist leanings.

What's an egoist?

Egoism is the believe that each person has but one ultimate aim: their own welfare. This allows for action that fails to maximize perceived self-interest, but rules out the sort of behavior psychological egoists like to target — such as altruistic behavior or motivation by thoughts of duty alone. It allows for weakness of will, since in weakness of will cases I am still aiming at my own welfare; I am weak in that I do not act as I aim. And it allows for aiming at things other than one's welfare, such as helping others, where these things are a means to one's welfare.

[Abatael]

When did Fascism become anti-urban? I always had the impression Fascism encouraged an industrial society.

Allthough Fascism encourages a heavily industrialised society it is anti-urban in that In Nazi propaganda the ideal German was not an urban intellectual but a simple peasant, and uprooted intellectualism was considered a threat to the deep, irrational sources of the Volk soul. Jews were often portrayed—and therefore condemned—as quintessential city dwellers. In 1941 La Rocque commented: “The theory of ‘families of good stock who have their roots in the earth’ leads us to conclusions not far from [those of] Walter Darre, Minister of Agriculture for the Reich.” Romanian fascism relied heavily on the support of landed peasants who distrusted the “wicked” city. The agrarian wing of Japanese fascism praised the peasant soldier and denigrated the industrial worker.

That's not urbanism. That's intellectualism. It's anti-intellectualistic, which is not anti-urbanistic.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Just as bad as any other extreme right or left ideology. Communism is a bit better because it has the people's ideals at heart when Fascism is about the elite ruling.

Fascism is supposed to look out for the people's interests. It just usually doesn't work out like it's supposed to and then everyone ends up being oppressed.

[Grenartia]

What's an egoist?

Egoism is the believe that each person has but one ultimate aim: their own welfare. This allows for action that fails to maximize perceived self-interest, but rules out the sort of behavior psychological egoists like to target — such as altruistic behavior or motivation by thoughts of duty alone. It allows for weakness of will, since in weakness of will cases I am still aiming at my own welfare; I am weak in that I do not act as I aim. And it allows for aiming at things other than one's welfare, such as helping others, where these things are a means to one's welfare.

No altruism? Yep. Exactly as I said, shitty ideology.

[The USOT]

Ok, clearly you have your opinion and I have mine. Since neither of us are going to convince the other I say we bury the hatchet on this debate on 20th century Spanish history. Both sides made mistakes, but Franco was the one that ended the polarized and inefficient 2nd Spanish Republic and it's unsustainable status quo.

I agree. I dont know how to continue a conversation with someone who`s standard of success is fucking everything up and then killing people to avoid becoming irrelevant. I literally cant comprehend that

[The USOT]

Now look here when I made my first post on this. I wans't stating my pollitical views in full. I was saying what I like and dislike about Fascism.

As for my pollitical ideology I am an Egoist, Anarcho Capatlist with Anarcho Transhumanist leanings.

What's an egoist?

It is a bit of an odd position. Egoists tend to be reffering to the moral stance that rejects altruism and focuses on the self. Sometimes it refers to the idea that all actions are egoistic in nature and that altruism is not possible.

The reason it is odd is odd is that to most people its a strange or irrelevant dichotemy considering altruistic behaviour is often great for your ego through psychological wellbeing etc.

[Leningrad Union]

Just as bad as any other extreme right or left ideology. Communism is a bit better because it has the people's ideals at heart when Fascism is about the elite ruling.

Fascism is supposed to look out for the people's interests. It just usually doesn't work out like it's supposed to and then everyone ends up being oppressed.

Being a former socialist, this sounds hella familiar

[Nazi Flower Power]

Fascism is supposed to look out for the people's interests. It just usually doesn't work out like it's supposed to and then everyone ends up being oppressed.

Being a former socialist, this sounds hella familiar

It really isn't that different. Hence "National Socialism." It's called that because it originally was intended to be a form of socialism. But then the racial crap kind of took over.

[Abritus]

An idiotic nonsensical regime.

[Grenartia]

Fascism is supposed to look out for the people's interests. It just usually doesn't work out like it's supposed to and then everyone ends up being oppressed.

Being a former socialist, this sounds hella familiar

Its not inherent to all forms of socialism, though. With fascism, it rather is.

[Distruzio]

Being a former socialist, this sounds hella familiar

Its not inherent to all forms of socialism, though. With fascism, it rather is.

Indeed. Its one of the few things i can approve of in Fascism. The State has the responsibility to provide.for the citizenry. I merely disagree that responsibility necessitates the elimination of the individual in favor of the syndicate and, by extension, the State.

[Grenartia]

Its not inherent to all forms of socialism, though. With fascism, it rather is.

Indeed. Its one of the few things i can approve of in Fascism. The State has the responsibility to provide.for the citizenry. I merely disagree that responsibility necessitates the elimination of the individual in favor of the syndicate and, by extension, the State.

This may be one of the few times I agree with you with regards to economics and systems of government.

[Distruzio]

Indeed. Its one of the few things i can approve of in Fascism. The State has the responsibility to provide.for the citizenry. I merely disagree that responsibility necessitates the elimination of the individual in favor of the syndicate and, by extension, the State.

This may be one of the few times I agree with you with regards to economics and systems of government.

Thanks.

My anarchism is shifting slightly in favor of a broader view of the existence of the State. A more cynical and practical view. If the State exists, it has certain responsibilities. Too many anarchists deny its right to exist. Whether it has that right or not is beside the point. It does exist. So it should behave in an appropriate manner.

I justify this by acknowledging the existence of anarchy despite the existence of the State.

[Hesse]

Good. Certainly not as good as National Socialism, but still good.

[Distruzio]

Good. Certainly not as good as National Socialism, but still good.

The edge. It cuts so good.

[Hesse]

The edge. It cuts so good.

Coming from a "Libertarian Monarchist."