NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi fascists of the board. In this thread I would like you to explain your ideology, and why it is good for the people of a nation.

This is your chance to dump the "all fascists = evil Nazi murderers" stereotype. So get talking!

By letting Nazis explain themselves, it's like letting Satan explain was he is such a bastard. They'll justify it helps keep purity and order and bs like that but all it really is is hate and ignorance against things that are different or unknown.

Liberal individualism seperates communities into self serving groups/factions hence class conflict and national division.

"Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty.."

Fascism rejects the spiritual laziness and moral decay in liberal individualism and 'democracy', believing that every culture needs a nation or homeland to secure its own destiny and way of life, Fascism sees the nation as of prime importance in every aspect of life and therefore exalts the nation as an organic whole transcending all other loyalties. Citizens serve the Nation. By serving something greater than themselves, they have commited to a life of greater importance.

When one of the most beloved American presidents of the 20th century said, "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country," by advocating national progression through ideological unity and collectivism, without knowing it, he was promoting one of the core prinicples of Fascist ideology. Look at Malcolm X's movement among the black muslims in America. In the Nation of Islam he commanded obedience and discipline from his comrades. With those ideals drug dealers, gamblers, prostitutes, convicted felons, dope heads, and others whom were previoulsy considered to be at the bottom of the barrell of society became respected leaders and productive members of society. These are somewhat representative of how Fascists civilizations have worked in the past and could work in the future.

Fascism reinforces the Ideals of Discipline, Honor, and Duty, that much like in the military, can be found in the civilian population (i.e. concept of Citizen Soldiers). Examples of Fascism could be the civilian attitude towards the State and politics in countries like Japan, China, and Germany at different times in thier history, in which they fought for their country til the end when they had to (damn prepositions!). Many people falsely assume that this will lead to wars like in the past.

Other examples of Fascist ideals might include movies like "Red Dawn" and "Starship Troopers."

A good description, Order Out Of Chaos.

Nazism was plain authoritatian, and quite different from protype fascism. Even Mussolini wasn't a 'true' fascist, just more of a kleptocrat, installing party hacks rather than talented administrators in government posts.

Loyalty to the State is bad, loyalty to the nation (people) is good. People need to make the distinction clear. Hitler was only successful because he turned popular nationalist sentiment into unswavering statism.

By letting Nazis explain themselves, it's like letting Satan explain was he is such a bastard. They'll justify it helps keep purity and order and bs like that but all it really is is hate and ignorance against things that are different or unknown.

And you people say you're tolerant..

My country was stuck in facism for some 60 years it did'nt do shit it destroyed the futre of the country and every thing every one was poor.... come on fascim sucks. :sniper:

I don't have to explain Fascism. It's enough that you do what you're told and know that it's for the greater good.

That's Fascism. :)

----"By serving something greater than themselves, they have commited to a life of greater importance."

Thats funny cause its the same thing the communism people try to say with serving for collective ownership over private ownership (its for something greater, the community) . Thats why it proves that Fascism and Communism have no ability to survive in the US. Both agree that it is an ideal that forces everyone to live a certain way, and I dont think to many people that have tasted freedom will let it slip thier grasp, but still they are no more right or wrong than capitalism. Its just the chosen ideal of the American way I guess.

The core problem with fascism isn't the racism or even the authoritarianism. It's the collectivism. For no apparent reason, we are expected to serve an abstract concept at the expense of our happiness. Why bother? What's the advantage?

Since the Allied victory and writting of history since WWII, "Fascism" has been equated with "authoritarianism." People assume that under Fascism all of their rights would be stripped away and there lives will be micromanaged by the government. Fascism became falesly view as Stalin-like "authoritarianism."

When Fascist Italy called itself "Totalitarian" it was not in an "overbearing government" sense, but in the sense that nothing existed outside the state and no will (including anarchists) could be free of being a result of the State, thus the State was a highest entity to Man. During it's run in Greece, Spain, and Italy, Fascism was no more authoritarian than any system where the end status quo was answerable to a single head; like certain past and current day "Republics."

"Fascism, in short, is not only the giver of laws and the founder of institutions, but the educator and promoter of spiritual life. It wants to remake, not the forms of human life, but its content, man, character, faith. And to this end it requires discipline and authority that can enter into the spirits of men and there govern unopposed. Its sign, therefore, is the Lictors’ rods, the symbol of unity, of strength and justice." - The Doctrine of Fascism

----"By serving something greater than themselves, they have commited to a life of greater importance."

Thats funny cause its the same thing the communism people try to say with serving for collective ownership over private ownership (its for something greater, the community) . Thats why it proves that Fascism and Communism have no ability to survive in the US. Both agree that it is an ideal that forces everyone to live a certain way, and I dont think to many people that have tasted freedom will let it slip thier grasp, but still they are no more right or wrong than capitalism. Its just the chosen ideal of the American way I guess.

Fascism retainst the capitalist system and supports private ownership.

Hi fascists of the board. In this thread I would like you to explain your ideology, and why it is good for the people of a nation.


It makes up for a tiny penis.

If you fail as a painter, you can turn to genocide.

This is something written by another Fascist:

"Fascism is a political philosophy with no presuppositions, and nothing more. To even say it was Corporate Syndicalism is to falsely define it to a transitory historical use in the Italian Fascism that they themselves assured Fascists not to hold as canon.

Mussolini accepted Giovanni Gentile to define it as presuppositionless politics through his Actual Idealism (if you have not read a work on Gentile's Actual Idealism, you in-fact cannot fully understand Fascism, it is the ultimate logical refutation of the Neo-Positivist Materialist view of the philosophical truth.)

Fascism however spawned two political movements based on, not only a presupposition but non-rational presuppositions; both Nazism & Falangism. The former had the biological materialist presupposition of national racialism, a deviation to the left. The second had the theological idealist presupposition of a dogmatism, a deviation to the right. These movements have been labeled Fascism when clearly they defy the main stipulation of what it is to be directly Fascistic; to be a political ideology free of presuppositions, without the presupposition of the external, without the presupposition of the transcendental, without the presupposition of the method of consensus, egalitarianism, or minarchism having any functional value to humanity.

Today society pejoratively considers Fascism to be 'Jingoism' or appallingly Nationalism when based on a further presupposition(!) Gentile himself wrote extensively on the fact that Nationalism in itself was a presupposition and that Fascism was the rectification of the National sentiment not put to logical presumptions on why that should be, by means of an Actual Idealist world-view.

When one asks you what Fascism is...explain that "Fascism is a political movement with no presuppositions."

When Fascist Italy called itself "Totalitarian" it was not in an "overbearing government" sense, but in the sense that nothing existed outside the state and no will (including anarchists) could be free of being a result of the State, thus the State was a highest entity to Man. During it's run in Greece, Spain, and Italy, Fascism was no more authoritarian than any system where the end status quo was answerable to a single head; like certain past and current day "Republics."

I think that's stupid. I still can't understand why people want gummint. It's built on violence and BS. Fascism is even worse than most gummints.

fascists assume that they will be the ones who have their boots on someone elses neck instead of being the ones lying on the ground gasping for breath

fascists assume that they will be the ones who have their boots on someone elses neck instead of being the ones lying on the ground gasping for breath

Much the same with racists, which is probably why the two go together so frequently.

This is something written by another Fascist:

"When one asks you what Fascism is...explain that 'Fascism is a political movement with no presuppositions.'"

Interesting start, but that's all it is, just a start:

Two questions for now:

1.) Is it possible to build anyhting onto this (missing) foundation without making presuppositions/philosophical axiomatic assumptions?

2.) Could you describe how this 'political movement with no presuppositions' would operate if it is possible to operate without additional presuppositions?

Well, I've done my part by attempting to explain Fascism (to the best of my ability anyway) so it looks like it's lights out for me while the rest of the anarchists, democracy lovers, etc. continue to voice their opposition (typical day in NS). Too bad there aren't any other Fascists (not Nazis) posting their explainations at this moment. See y'all tomorrow, Goodbye!

____________________________
"The function of a citizen and a soldier are inseparable."
- Benito Mussolini

Interesting start, but that's all it is, just a start:

Two questions for now:

1.) Is it possible to build anyhting onto this (missing) foundation without making presuppositions/philosophical axiomatic assumptions?

2.) Could you describe how this 'political movement with no presuppositions' would operate if it is possible to operate without additional presuppositions?

I am not the author of the post, it was written by someone else I know. All I can say is that many view Fascism similiar to a car or gun. They are neither good or bad, the concepts themselves are harmless. It depends who's holding the gun or who's driving the car. Fascism doesn't claim to be the best or worst form of government (unlike others), because it can be both; it just is.

There are different takes on how it would run. Some fascists refer to themselves as "Meritocratic Corporate Syndicalist Fascists" and others prefer good old fashion electing a dictatorship. There are probably several different theories on how it could and has worked, but it might vary from person to person. Maybe you should contact the American Fascist Party's website and ask them.

I'm leaving now.

There has never been a fascist society that has not been dominated by tyranny, nepotism, social violence, and fed by hatred.

Unless you count, greece, italy, portugal and spain :rolleyes:

There has never been a fascist society that has not been dominated by tyranny, nepotism, social violence, and fed by hatred.

Not True. Greece turned out okay, it was one of the most positive and unknown of fascist countries. A few others too. Now I'm really leaving.

http://www.ethniko.info/metaxas/index.html

Even more positive and unknown was Salazar's Portugal. Portugal came to a glory under his rule mirrored only by portugal's age of exploration. For the first time the people had running water, food, and plumbing. Salazar worked for it to! 14 hours a day doing paperwork, and for nothing! His children married working class families, they lived in a suburban sized home.

Ok that is the country i was talking about its not true he rouend the country.

Unless you count, greece, italy, portugal and spain :rolleyes:

Read my post carefully. See the words. They apply to all three countries you give. I have Greek and Portugese friends who either lived through the tyranny or had relatives who did. Try telling them no-one 'disappeared' if thought to be a strong threat to Fascism. As for Franco, my words apply to him more than Salasar and co.

Read my post carefully. See the words. They apply to all three countries you give. I have Greek and Portugese friends who either lived through the tyranny or had relatives who did. Try telling them no-one 'disappeared' if thought to be a strong threat to Fascism. As for Franco, my words apply to him more than Salasar and co.

"John Metaxas[mitak´sus, Gr. mA´tAksAs´´] Pronunciation Key, 1871–1941, Greek general and statesman. A career soldier, he served in the Greco-Turkish War of 1897 and in the Balkan Wars of 1912–13, in which he was assistant chief of staff. He was later chief of staff, but was exiled (1917), along with most other prominent figures of Constantine I's government, as pro-German when Greece joined the Allies in World War I. He returned in 1920 and became prominent as a royalist politician during the Republic of 1924–35. After the monarchy had been reestablished in Greece, Metaxas became premier in Apr., 1936. With the support of King George II, Metaxas dissolved parliament on Aug. 4, 1936, and established a dictatorship"

Unless you count, greece, italy, portugal and spain

I've certainly never heard good things said about their fascist gummints until now.

Even more positive and unknown was Salazar's Portugal. Portugal came to a glory under his rule mirrored only by portugal's age of exploration. For the first time the people had running water, food, and plumbing.
But no civil or political freedoms.

Amnesty International was founded in 1961 by a British lawyer named Peter Benenson. Benenson was reading his newspaper and was shocked and angered to come across the story of two Portuguese students sentenced to seven years in prison - for the crime of raising their glasses in a toast to freedom.

But no civil or political freedoms.

Precisely. Thank you.

Fascism is the government that exploits the workers and oppressing the oppressed. Making workers work for minimum wage at extortionate hours is not my idea of a good government.

Hmmmm.... what would I prefer?

running water, food, and plumbing.


or


But no civil or political freedoms.

I think I'd choose the former. Running water, food and plumbing seem to be far more important, in my mind at least.

I know some Portuguese who till this day support Salazar 100%. He made Portugal rich while the rest of Europe, fascists, democrats and communists alike, destroyed one another.

I think I'd choose the former. Running water, food and plumbing seem to be far more important, in my mind at least.

Why? If you aren't allowed to have fun, then what is the point of living?

Why? If you aren't allowed to have fun, then what is the point of living?

I doubt you could REALLY have fun without running water, food and plumbing.

I doubt you could REALLY have fun without running water, food and plumbing.

People did for thousands of years before civilization existed. I doubt you could really have fun without freedom.

Fascism is the government that exploits the workers and oppressing the oppressed. Making workers work for minimum wage at extortionate hours is not my idea of a good government.

Its funny that you say that thats how life would be under faschism when the country thats most popular for that way of life was the union of soviet socialist republics(aka USSR,CCCP) and that union was the idealogical enemy of faschism. Believe me there is nothing worse then living in a communist country and i mean NOTHING.

P.S while i am negative towards the USSR i am a supporter of the Russian people and i am happy that they broke away from such a horrible regime.

*Sigh* Okay, I'm posting pretty late on this thread, so I don't know if anyone will read this, but here goes: (I'm not a true fascist, but I believe in enough of it's ideals that I will attempt to put my 2 cents in)

First of all, to refute what many people have said about civil and political rights, fascism inherently only removes POLITICAL rights, and even then not all of them. Fascism does not require that you cannot speak in opposition to the ruling power, it requires that you cannot actually change anything without gaining the approval of the ruling power (although in many cases, yes, that ruler may choose to not let people speak their minds in opposition). Civil rights is COMPLETELY unrelated, as a fascist government could allow very good civil rights, or completely remove them, so long that those civil rights given do not conflict with what is best for the nation's future.

Fascism is an ideology that is based around selflessness, not for the better of the community, but for the betterment of society and the future as a whole, and above all, the betterment of the nation.

Some of you argue that it is wrong in order to stop someone from speaking freely, but what if what that person has to say is wrong and would lead to the demise of what could be a great, powerful and proud nation? Should they still be allowed to say it? Is the right of one, or a dozen, or a hundred, or even a thousand people to speak their mind worth sacrificing the future of an entire nation and everyone in it now, and ever will live in it?

So, why should we all serve a concept that we can't touch? Because if you refuse to do anything that has no reward in physical property, you stand for the ultimate pinnacle of materialism, and as such, I have no respect for you. Trying to explain pride in abstract concepts to a materialist would be like trying to explain color to someone that was born blind. You and I cannot see the people of the future, we will not live to see how the way we live affects their lives, we will not get to see the fruits of our labor under a fascist society, but that's what makes it all the more noble, that people would work together for the future and betterment of their nation, of their society, of what they believe in even at the expense of their own comfort.

And as a final note, to those who compare fascism to communism in the idea of selflessness to serve a greater whole, it's NOT the same. Communism requires that everyone in society believes and is willing to sacrifice their personal interest for the greater good, which is unlikely to happen (although a noble concept). Fascism requires only that one person (or a small group, depending whether the absolute leader is one person or a small group) believe that personal interest comes after the greater good. Fascism also rewards hard work, whereas communism doesn't. I could go into further detail, but right now I'm going to go get something to eat.

I may or may not wind up checking back, if not, you can telegram me or something if you have questions. I'll probably check this post again though, since the topic interests me.

*Sigh* Okay, I'm posting pretty late on this thread, so I don't know if anyone will read this, but here goes: (I'm not a true fascist, but I believe in enough of it's ideals that I will attempt to put my 2 cents in)

First of all, to refute what many people have said about civil and political rights, fascism inherently only removes POLITICAL rights, and even then not all of them. Fascism does not require that you cannot speak in opposition to the ruling power, it requires that you cannot actually change anything without gaining the approval of the ruling power (although in many cases, yes, that ruler may choose to not let people speak their minds in opposition). Civil rights is COMPLETELY unrelated, as a fascist government could allow very good civil rights, or completely remove them, so long that those civil rights given do not conflict with what is best for the nation's future.

Fascism is an ideology that is based around selflessness, not for the better of the community, but for the betterment of society and the future as a whole, and above all, the betterment of the nation.

Some of you argue that it is wrong in order to stop someone from speaking freely, but what if what that person has to say is wrong and would lead to the demise of what could be a great, powerful and proud nation? Should they still be allowed to say it? Is the right of one, or a dozen, or a hundred, or even a thousand people to speak their mind worth sacrificing the future of an entire nation and everyone in it now, and ever will live in it?

So, why should we all serve a concept that we can't touch? Because if you refuse to do anything that has no reward in physical property, you stand for the ultimate pinnacle of materialism, and as such, I have no respect for you. Trying to explain pride in abstract concepts to a materialist would be like trying to explain color to someone that was born blind. You and I cannot see the people of the future, we will not live to see how the way we live affects their lives, we will not get to see the fruits of our labor under a fascist society, but that's what makes it all the more noble, that people would work together for the future and betterment of their nation, of their society, of what they believe in even at the expense of their own comfort.

And as a final note, to those who compare fascism to communism in the idea of selflessness to serve a greater whole, it's NOT the same. Communism requires that everyone in society believes and is willing to sacrifice their personal interest for the greater good, which is unlikely to happen (although a noble concept). Fascism requires only that one person (or a small group, depending whether the absolute leader is one person or a small group) believe that personal interest comes after the greater good. Fascism also rewards hard work, whereas communism doesn't. I could go into further detail, but right now I'm going to go get something to eat.

I may or may not wind up checking back, if not, you can telegram me or something if you have questions. I'll probably check this post again though, since the topic interests me.

Why should I sacrifice my happiness for an abstract concept like a nationstate? Fascism is nothing but a poor justification for brutal oppression. It starts with the assumption that the nation is more important than the people making it up and doesn't explain how you can have a good nation if the citizens are unhappy.

People did for thousands of years before civilization existed. I doubt you could really have fun without freedom.

You have a very good point. I don't think freedom is as black or white as you seem to suggest though. Its more of a grayscale, and (I believe anyway) that you'll get to a point where a further increase in freedoms will decrease general happiness. I know you're an anarchist so you'll probably disagree with me there too, but its 3am and I can't think of the right words to justify the point I'm trying to make.

Why should I sacrifice my happiness for an abstract concept like a nationstate? Fascism is nothing but a poor justification for brutal oppression. It starts with the assumption that the nation is more important than the people making it up and doesn't explain how you can have a good nation if the citizens are unhappy.

Because that well-being of that nation-state will lead to the well-being of those who live in it in the future, and the majority of those who live in it now (although it's very possible you might be one of the ones it doesn't help, but aren't you willing to sacrifice your own well-being for the greater good?). If you hold your own happiness above all else, then you are selfish, if you deny this, explain why holding your own happiness above all else is not selfish.

It's not a justification for brutal oppression, if people, for say a generation or two (can't be sure on exact length of time, depends on alot of factors) were willing to work and live in circumstances that were not the best they could be (AT THE PRESENT), then their grandchildren could live in a paradise, and with opposing ideologies removed, there would be no conflict within the society. There will always be those few that will need to sacrifice their well-being for the continued good of the nation, but the number of those will decrease as time passes. Fascism is something that must be implemented in full and given time to reach it's full potential, it is not something where you see the effects NOW.

You assume that all the citizen's won't be happy because they don't have control over who is running their nation. The only reason you would have to be unhappy over this is if you dislike the way your nation is being run. If you shared the same vision as the government in power, you would be happy in knowing that you are working to advance that dream, and for many (although like I said, there would be many that would have to sacrifice their own self interest) they would not even have to sacrifice their own well-being for the well-being of the nation.

And of course it assumes the nation is more important than the individual citizen, because if the nation is doing well, then in turn, most of its citizens will live well, and if they live well, they will continue to improve that nation, and as such, society will progress quickly, even if a few need to be sacrified for that end.

Because that well-being of that nation-state will lead to the well-being of those who live in it in the future, and the majority of those who live in it now (although it's very possible you might be one of the ones it doesn't help, but aren't you willing to sacrifice your own well-being for the greater good?). If you hold your own happiness above all else, then you are selfish, if you deny this, explain why holding your own happiness above all else is not selfish.

I believe that other's happiness is just as important as my happiness. I am neither altruist or egoist. I will not sacrifice myself for an abstract concept, only for people as distinct individuals. I do not believe in collectives or nations or anything like that.

A strong nation isn't necessary for well-being and the way of strengthening the nation you propose will never lead to the well-being of anyone but the government and capitalists. The average person may be safe from invaders, but they will be under constant government oppression.

It's not a justification for brutal oppression, if people, for say a generation or two (can't be sure on exact length of time, depends on alot of factors) were willing to work and live in circumstances that were not the best they could be (AT THE PRESENT), then their grandchildren could live in a paradise, and with opposing ideologies removed, there would be no conflict within the society. There will always be those few that will need to sacrifice their well-being for the continued good of the nation, but the number of those will decrease as time passes. Fascism is something that must be implemented in full and given time to reach it's full potential, it is not something where you see the effects NOW.

What is the ultimate goal of fascism, then?

You assume that all the citizen's won't be happy because they don't have control over who is running their nation. The only reason you would have to be unhappy over this is if you dislike the way your nation is being run. If you shared the same vision as the government in power, you would be happy in knowing that you are working to advance that dream, and for many (although like I said, there would be many that would have to sacrifice their own self interest) they would not even have to sacrifice their own well-being for the well-being of the nation.

No, they will be unhappy because they have little freedom. I simply cannot enjoy life if I am not free. Whenever I am forced to do something, no matter how normally effortless, I hate it. Yet when I am doing it voluntarily, I find that even things like cleaning the building my family's chickens live in is tolerable.

And of course it assumes the nation is more important than the individual citizen, because if the nation is doing well, then in turn, most of its citizens will live well, and if they live well, they will continue to improve that nation, and as such, society will progress quickly, even if a few need to be sacrified for that end.

It takes more than high living standards to be happy. Fascism denies freedom and because of that, it will never make people truly happy. The nation may be safe, but the citizens may still be unhappy.

I understand fascism much better now, and it seems that it's even more flawed than I thought. The main problem is that it requires altruism to work. That's a bad idea, basing your system on the need for a great many exceptional people.

As a result, fascist societies have quickly found that few people will sacrifice themselves that willingly and have to use extreme violence. I simply cannot take a political theory seriously if it requires so much force. To me, there is no greater evil than power. Hate is the will to power, the desire to make others suffer, and there is simply too much of it necessary to hold fascism together.

The othermain problem is that it has an undefined goal. Like Marxism, it promises paradise, yet you have failed to describe what this paradise is or why only fascism can reach it. As far as I'm concerned, if anarchist means can't be used, it isn't worth it.

Ok I'll sum up several long posts into one paragraph:

Fascism believes in the state (nation) above all else. It believes that the only purpose of an individual is to benifit the nation, and thereby his fellow citizens. The reason most fascist governments silence civil rights is to achieve the second end. Put simply, to the fascist, you are nothing but a slave to the nation.

HI think I'd choose the former. Running water, food and plumbing seem to be far more important, in my mind at least.

maybe you would choose it, but others may not why should they have to live with another persons decision?


first of all, to refute what many people have said about civil and political rights, fascism inherently only removes POLITICAL rights, and even then not all of them. Fascism does not require that you cannot speak in opposition to the ruling power, it requires that you cannot actually change anything without gaining the approval of the ruling power (although in many cases, yes, that ruler may choose to not let people speak their minds in opposition). Civil rights is COMPLETELY unrelated, as a fascist government could allow very good civil rights, or completely remove them, so long that those civil rights given do not conflict with what is best for the nation's future.

A right only has meaning if it cannot be taken away or ignored.


Fascism is an ideology that is based around selflessness, not for the better of the community, but for the betterment of society and the future as a whole, and above all, the betterment of the nation.

Who decides what is better? and what gives him the right to force it on others?

Some of you argue that it is wrong in order to stop someone from speaking freely, but what if what that person has to say is wrong and would lead to the demise of what could be a great, powerful and proud nation? Should they still be allowed to say it? Is the right of one, or a dozen, or a hundred, or even a thousand people to speak their mind worth sacrificing the future of an entire nation and everyone in it now, and ever will live in it?

Yes it is worth it.

So, why should we all serve a concept that we can't touch? Because if you refuse to do anything that has no reward in physical property, you stand for the ultimate pinnacle of materialism, and as such, I have no respect for you. Trying to explain pride in abstract concepts to a materialist would be like trying to explain color to someone that was born blind. You and I cannot see the people of the future, we will not live to see how the way we live affects their lives, we will not get to see the fruits of our labor under a fascist society, but that's what makes it all the more noble, that people would work together for the future and betterment of their nation, of their society, of what they believe in even at the expense of their own comfort

How is it noble if you are forced?

And as a final note, to those who compare fascism to communism in the idea of selflessness to serve a greater whole, it's NOT the same. Communism requires that everyone in society believes and is willing to sacrifice their personal interest for the greater good, which is unlikely to happen (although a noble concept). Fascism requires only that one person (or a small group, depending whether the absolute leader is one person or a small group) believe that personal interest comes after the greater good.

I highly doubt this small group of people in charge would sacrifice much towards this greater good most of the sacrificing would be done by the people. I see nothing great or noble in being oppressed or being the oppressor.

Ok I'll sum up several long posts into one paragraph:

Fascism believes in the state (nation) above all else. It believes that the only purpose of an individual is to benifit the nation, and thereby his fellow citizens. The reason most fascist governments silence civil rights is to achieve the second end. Put simply, to the fascist, you are nothing but a slave to the nation.

So then how is that different than Communism? I'm still confused here.

Some of you argue that it is wrong in order to stop someone from speaking freely, but what if what that person has to say is wrong and would lead to the demise of what could be a great, powerful and proud nation? Should they still be allowed to say it? Is the right of one, or a dozen, or a hundred, or even a thousand people to speak their mind worth sacrificing the future of an entire nation and everyone in it now, and ever will live in it?
Absolutely. Without the right to speak freely, the future of a nation isn't something worth striving for.

So then how is that different than Communism? I'm still confused here.
Well, to be quite frank, while I know that there are differences between Communism and Socialism, I couldn't explain them to you. I can, however, point out that in "The Communist Manifesto" Marx specifically said that in order to bring about Socialism/Communism, you cannot be nationalist. Therefore, I would view "National Socialism" as an oxymoron.