NationStates

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:33 pm**

The efficiency and fanatical devotion to the state found in fascist nations is highly appealing to me, but basic social rights are too important to me to just give up in exchange for the aforementioned qualities.

If I could have both, though...

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:34 pm**

The Great Devourer of All wrote:The efficiency and fanatical devotion to the state found in fascist nations is highly appealing to me, but basic social rights are too important to me to just give up in exchange for the aforementioned qualities.

If I could have both, though...

Fanatical devotion to a State is a terrible thing though.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:35 pm**

Fascism is a much preferable model of government, provided you had a reasonable dictator. I think a lot of people realize this.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:35 pm**

The Great Devourer of All wrote:The efficiency and fanatical devotion to the state found in fascist nations is highly appealing to me, but basic social rights are too important to me to just give up in exchange for the aforementioned qualities.

If I could have both, though...

Yeah but most state systems here on Earth suck major dick so they don't really deserve "fanatical devotion". Maybe reluctant acceptance.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:35 pm**

Pandeeria wrote:
The Great Devourer of All wrote:The efficiency and fanatical devotion to the state found in fascist nations is highly appealing to me, but basic social rights are too important to me to just give up in exchange for the aforementioned qualities.

If I could have both, though...

Fanatical devotion to a State is a terrible thing though.

You can say that, but you have yet to live the life of a man-god whose people will die by the thousands for him.

Arcturus Novus wrote:
The Great Devourer of All wrote:The efficiency and fanatical devotion to the state found in fascist nations is highly appealing to me, but basic social rights are too important to me to just give up in exchange for the aforementioned qualities.

If I could have both, though...

Yeah but most state systems here on Earth suck major dick so they don't really deserve "fanatical devotion". Maybe reluctant acceptance.

Vote me into office and see if it'll work out this time around. Go ahead, try it!

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:36 pm**

Imperial Union of America wrote:Fascism is a much preferable model of government, provided you had a reasonable dictator. I think a lot of people realize this.

Reasonable and Dictator are pretty much contradictory. The mere essence of having a single, unchallenged person is always going to lead to bad things.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:37 pm**

Pandeeria wrote:
Imperial Union of America wrote:Fascism is a much preferable model of government, provided you had a reasonable dictator. I think a lot of people realize this.

Reasonable and Dictator are pretty much contradictory. The mere essence of having a single, unchallenged person is always going to lead to bad things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Benevolent_dictators

some interesting examples. i'm sure there are more.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:37 pm**

Imperial Union of America wrote:Fascism is a much preferable model of government, provided you had a reasonable dictator. I think a lot of people realize this.

>reasonable dictator
>implying a person given total control over a state can be reasonable

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:37 pm**

The Great Devourer of All wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Fanatical devotion to a State is a terrible thing though.

You can say that, but you have yet to live the life of a man-god whose people will die by the thousands for him.

The issue is only one person can be that man-god. It's not going to be me (if it was, I would hope I try to abolish said position) and it's statistically impossible to be you.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:37 pm**

Ganonsyoni wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Class struggle is only something that I reluctantly support, a more collaborative form of society would be far more to my liking.
All the underlined I do oppose as well though.

Class collaboration is a core tenet of fascism. The capitalists work against the interest of the workers in order to enrich themselves and keep the workers dependent upon them for their own survival. The workers are maddened by their material conditions, but instead of working to overthrow the reasoning behind their oppression fascists work to trick and indoctrinate the masses to further their own goals and protect the state (see scapgoating of minorities in italy and germany and the rise of nationalism and militarism).

Yet it is also practiced by social democratic countries found in Scandinavia the Benelux.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:38 pm**

Imperial Union of America wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Reasonable and Dictator are pretty much contradictory. The mere essence of having a single, unchallenged person is always going to lead to bad things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Benevolent_dictators

some interesting examples. i'm sure there are more.

All of those people were corrupt and authoritarian. And when you look at all the examples of what dictatorship has caused, it's evident that dictatorship is inherently unreasonable.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:40 pm**

Genivaria wrote:
Ganonsyoni wrote:Class collaboration is a core tenet of fascism. The capitalists work against the interest of the workers in order to enrich themselves and keep the workers dependent upon them for their own survival. The workers are maddened by their material conditions, but instead of working to overthrow the reasoning behind their oppression fascists work to trick and indoctrinate the masses to further their own goals and protect the state (see scapgoating of minorities in italy and germany and the rise of nationalism and militarism).

Yet it is also practiced by social democratic countries found in Scandinavia the Benelux.

And they all lead to the pacification of the working class. Whether this pacification will last indefinitely or not yet I don't know.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:40 pm**

Imperial Union of America wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:
Reasonable and Dictator are pretty much contradictory. The mere essence of having a single, unchallenged person is always going to lead to bad things.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Benevolent_dictators

some interesting examples. i'm sure there are more.

Tito? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito#Evaluation

As the head of a "highly centralised and oppressive" regime, Tito wielded tremendous power in Yugoslavia, with his authoritarian rule administered through an elaborate bureaucracy which routinely suppressed human rights.[4] The main victims of this repression were during the first years known and alleged Stalinists, such as Dragoslav Mihailović and Dragoljub Mićunović, but during the following years even some of the most prominent among Tito's collaborators were arrested. On 19 November 1956 Milovan Đilas, perhaps the closest of Tito's collaborator and widely regarded as Tito's possible successor, was arrested because of his criticism against Tito's regime. The repression did not exclude intellectuals and writers, such as Venko Markovski who was arrested and sent to jail in January 1956 for writing poems considered anti-Titoist.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:40 pm**

Pandeeria wrote:
The Great Devourer of All wrote:
You can say that, but you have yet to live the life of a man-god whose people will die by the thousands for him.

The issue is only one person can be that man-god. It's not going to be me (if it was, I would hope I try to abolish said position) and it's statistically impossible to be you.

You just wait. One day I'll get voted into some inconsequential office, become the 'designated survivor', engineer a massive terrorist attack on the capitol building during the State of the Union, and move the country to COGCON 1, effectively becoming a dictator. (Only joking)

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:41 pm**

Arcturus Novus wrote:
Imperial Union of America wrote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorship#Benevolent_dictators

some interesting examples. i'm sure there are more.

Tito? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito#Evaluation
As the head of a "highly centralised and oppressive" regime, Tito wielded tremendous power in Yugoslavia, with his authoritarian rule administered through an elaborate bureaucracy which routinely suppressed human rights.[4] The main victims of this repression were during the first years known and alleged Stalinists, such as Dragoslav Mihailović and Dragoljub Mićunović, but during the following years even some of the most prominent among Tito's collaborators were arrested. On 19 November 1956 Milovan Đilas, perhaps the closest of Tito's collaborator and widely regarded as Tito's possible successor, was arrested because of his criticism against Tito's regime. The repression did not exclude intellectuals and writers, such as Venko Markovski who was arrested and sent to jail in January 1956 for writing poems considered anti-Titoist.

Yeah, really.

It's pretty much assumed that a fascist state will repress dissent, regardless of dictatorial benevolence. I personally don't believe a fascist state should be benevolent, i think enemies of the state should be removed, after all.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:42 pm**

Pandeeria wrote:
Genivaria wrote:Yet it is also practiced by social democratic countries found in Scandinavia the Benelux.

And they all lead to the pacification of the working class. Whether this pacification will last indefinitely or not yet I don't know.

They lead to social harmony AND freedom.
I have no interest in backing philosophical pipe-dreams for the sake of principle alone.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:43 pm**

The United Remnants of America wrote:I know it's not a thing with classical fascism, but I've kind of personally taken fascism and combined it with a utilitarian mindset as well as state-capitalist economic values. Actually, it's what I developed over years for my nation.

Not sure if there's a real life form of fascism that's like that. I doubt there is, but I guess you never know.

What do you mean by a utilitarian mindset?

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:44 pm**

Imperial Union of America wrote:
Arcturus Novus wrote:Tito? Really?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josip_Broz_Tito#Evaluation

Yeah, really.

It's pretty much assumed that a fascist state will repress dissent, regardless of dictatorial benevolence. I personally don't believe a fascist state should be benevolent, i think enemies of the state should be removed, after all.

The issue is the majority of the people are enemies of the state. Anyone who isn't apart of the ruling class is an enemy, an enemy just waiting for realize their situation and could act as a potential agent to the overthrow of the State. Chances are you will be on the receiving end of fascism, and will be oppressed accordingly.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:45 pm**

Ganonsyoni wrote:
Pantuxia wrote:Thanks, you killed anarchism. Hope you're happy.

Anarchism, as well as the far-left, is dead.

Your brand of communism is dead if it isn't for the liberation of everyone.

My brand of communism is. That doesn't include assigning certain words as wrongthink and self-censoring. Liberation also requires free speech, which I value greatly, even if it hurts your feelings. Words are not oppressive.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:47 pm**

Genivaria wrote:
Pandeeria wrote:And they all lead to the pacification of the working class. Whether this pacification will last indefinitely or not yet I don't know.

They lead to social harmony AND freedom.
I have no interest in backing philosophical pipe-dreams for the sake of principle alone.

Not really. The condition of one class crushing another, something present in all societies since agriculture came to be, is still existent.

It didn't lead to social harmony either, for the same class tensions that have existed for thousands of years still are. Until the abolition of class and the state itself, there can not be permanent and true social harmony. Further more the freedom you claim is has lead to whether already existed (such as the freedom of speech and religion) or take another 20 to 30 years to accomplish (rights for minorities, equality, etc.)

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:50 pm**

Genivaria wrote:
Ganonsyoni wrote:Class collaboration is a core tenet of fascism. The capitalists work against the interest of the workers in order to enrich themselves and keep the workers dependent upon them for their own survival. The workers are maddened by their material conditions, but instead of working to overthrow the reasoning behind their oppression fascists work to trick and indoctrinate the masses to further their own goals and protect the state (see scapgoating of minorities in italy and germany and the rise of nationalism and militarism).

Yet it is also practiced by social democratic countries found in Scandinavia the Benelux.

Except in social democracy, the goal is complacency. Give the working class what issue they want (minimum wage, paid leave, etc) so they shut up and let the capitalists continue to exploit their labour. These changes almost always happen when there is increasing tension from the working class until it looks like they might try to overthrow the capitalists and end their oppressive conditions. So they pass through some reform to placate them and extend the time until the next crisis. This works for other matters such as race, gender, and sexual minorities.

On the other hand, fascism seeks to guide the masses into a full-fledged collusion with the state in order to further the states goals. Empowerment of the military, conquest, repressing and killing minorites. hate for the system is changed to hate for all the state's enemies. There is no complacency, but support for it. The only way for it to turn back is for the loss in state gains (losing wars, strain on resources, no production, hunger) until the working class learns that they are just being used.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:50 pm**

Pantuxia wrote:
Ganonsyoni wrote:Your brand of communism is dead if it isn't for the liberation of everyone.

My brand of communism is. That doesn't include assigning certain words as wrongthink and self-censoring. Liberation also requires free speech, which I value greatly, even if it hurts your feelings. Words are not oppressive.

Hate speech isn't free. That's an entirely liberal concept.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:52 pm**

Ganonsyoni wrote:
Pantuxia wrote:My brand of communism is. That doesn't include assigning certain words as wrongthink and self-censoring. Liberation also requires free speech, which I value greatly, even if it hurts your feelings. Words are not oppressive.

Hate speech isn't free. That's an entirely liberal concept.

What? Free in what way? Literal or figurative? If the former, then it most certainly is.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 2:52 pm**

Ganonsyoni wrote:
Pantuxia wrote:My brand of communism is. That doesn't include assigning certain words as wrongthink and self-censoring. Liberation also requires free speech, which I value greatly, even if it hurts your feelings. Words are not oppressive.

Hate speech isn't free. That's an entirely liberal concept.

What? I'm sorry, it unequivocally is.

Posted: **Fri Sep 23, 2016 3:01 pm**

Pantuxia wrote:
Ganonsyoni wrote:Hate speech isn't free. That's an entirely liberal concept.

What?

That words don't have meaning and you are free to say as you please. This ignores the fact that there are consequences to using certain language. Let's use the n-word for example. That word has been used by white people to denigrate black/african americans as subhuman and dates back to when they were in chains. That word has a seriously oppressive charge to it for all black/african americans to this day because of the continuous oppression of their race and is the worse term to call them as it is basically calling them subhuman. if you called a black/african american that, don't expect to get out unscathed.

And no "deal with it" is not an excuse. "Deal with it" implies its the fault of the victim for getting twisted about a word when in fact its the speaker for using such a horribly charged word in the first place.

Word have meaning and words have history. That means words can be oppressive. From the n-word to all other terms used to belittle people for things they cannot control.

NationStates

Fascism Discussion Thread