NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello!

One thing I get bothered about is the amount of times I hear the word Fascist being used on this Forum and by people generally.
People dont seen to actually have clue when they sat that word-Fascist.
Usually used as a damning word that seems to apply their boss, soccer hooligans,fitness instructors, neo-nazis, big corporations, Tony Blair, George bush etc....
None of these things make one a Fascist.
Just because King George 2 is a war monger that still doesnt make him a Fascist. Communist Nations have been guilty of war mongering, liek the former Soviet Union and Maoist China. You certainly couldnt describe those regimes as Fascist. In fact the Soviet Union had been guilty of more genocidal crimes than Hitlers Semi-Fascist Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy.
Even the founder of the American Nazi Party Lincoln Rockwell was asked if he was a Fascist and he sais he wasnt because he believed in Free Enterprise!

There are certain things that Characterise a Fascist Government or a Fascist indivudual. State ownership of the press, Nationalism, anti-liberalness, self-sacrifice, Corporate State(doesnt mean Corporations run the country!), glory of the Nation,class collaboration, anti-imperialism.
Fascist Nations that existed,
Fascist Italy
Francoist Spain
Peronist Argentina
Taiwan under Chiang Kai Sheck

A fascist is not an anti-semite and you coulnt accuse the last 4 nations on that list as being anti-semitic!

Yes, like I say Tony Blair is a fascist, just I'm the only one who can see it.

anti-imperialism?!

anti-imperialism?!Juan Domingo Peron was an anti-imperialist! He kicked out the yanks and the brits who were basically looting the country.

In Italy's defence they were anti-plutocratic and didnt liek having to accept that there are only a few countrys who are wealthy and have a decent living. Mussolini transfered a country dependant on the help of foreigners into a productive self sufficient industrial superpower.

It might be a good idea to do a little reading on the characteristics of Fascism.
Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.


Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.


Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).


Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.


Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.


Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.


Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission--often metaphysical and romanticized in character.


Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy--seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.


The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.


Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.


Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.

Yes, like I say Tony Blair is a fascist, just I'm the only one who can see it.Blair cant be a Fascist. Because he participates in parliamentary Democracy, allows Freedom of the Press, an opposition party,

A fascist Government wouldnt allow these things!

Fascism is, by definition, government that centralises authority under a dictator, harsh socioeconomic controls, suppression of opposition through censorship, and usually a policy of nationalism and racism.

Communist Nations have been guilty of war mongering, liek the former Soviet Union and Maoist China. You certainly couldnt describe those regimes as Fascist.

Yes, you could. They were both economically left-wing, but socially they were fascist. Both centralised authority under a dictator, both used huge censorship and terror to quell opposition, and both were very nationalist.


[EDIT: Later on down here you make some references to communism and fascism both using violence. You are mistaking the abhorrations of Stalinism, the Soviet Union, and 'Communist' China for actual Communism. In these cases, totalitariansisms generated to safeguard their respective revolutions. This turned into fascism. Show me a true Communist government and I'll show you a lie.]

There are certain things that Characterise a Fascist Government or a Fascist indivudual. State ownership of the press, Nationalism, anti-liberalness, self-sacrifice, Corporate State(doesnt mean Corporations run the country!), glory of the Nation,class collaboration, anti-imperialism.
Fascist Nations that existed,
Fascist Italy
Francoist Spain
Peronist Argentina
Taiwan under Chiang Kai Sheck

A fascist is not an anti-semite and you coulnt accuse the last 4 nations on that list as being anti-semitic!

Well, Fascist Italy deported Jews to Germany at the request of hitler.
And in a fascist state, the goverment doesnt necessarely own the press. But it censors it alot.

Blair cant be a Fascist. Because he participates in parliamentary Democracy, allows Freedom of the Press, an opposition party,

A fascist Government wouldnt allow these things!

He just hasn't quite got there yet, but that's what he wants.

Remember the right to silence? He didn't like that much did he. (And his "government" has made rumbligs about doing away with the "double jeopardy" rule. Very fascist.) Not to mention all the "speed cameras" and public surveillance his administration has introduced.

He can already control the press if he wants (D-notices).

As for supporting democracy, he feels it's okay to pass even the silliest things by parliament when it suits him, and pretty much just does whatever he wants. Plus he has no real opposition, so it's more democracy in form than anything.

Clearly it's a fascist plot. So don't complain to me when people start to get banged away without a trial for forgetting their ID cards.

Fascism is when all resources (labor, capital and land) are made to serve the needs of the state. (hence intense nationalism) Since generally the nation is embodied by a totalitarian dictator under fascism all resources are made to serve the needs of the dictator.

Therefore it is the opposite of communism in which all resources are made to serve the needs of the commune.

It might be a good idea to do a little reading on the characteristics of Fascism. Have done, try Pheonix:Fascism in Our Time by A.James Gregor


Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit. Communist Nations have done this too.


Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).Compared to Communist and Nazi governments, the Fascists didnt use very much violence.
Today Bush or Blair dont use violence to shut opposition up


Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.neither Bush not Blair do this to the extent Hitler or Mussolini did




Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission--often metaphysical and romanticized in character.Elaborate on this


Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy--seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them. Every government does this too the enemy. It's a way of making their forces believing they are fighting to a righteous, glorious mission.


The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy. Admittidelt they did do this but this wasnt what I was asking.

It might be a good idea to do a little reading on the characteristics of Fascism.
Nationalism and super-patriotism with a sense of historic mission.


Aggressive militarism even to the extent of glorifying war as good for the national or individual spirit.


Use of violence or threats of violence to impose views on others (fascism and Nazism both employed street violence and state violence at different moments in their development).


Authoritarian reliance on a leader or elite not constitutionally responsible to an electorate.


Cult of personality around a charismatic leader.


Reaction against the values of Modernism, usually with emotional attacks against both liberalism and communism.


Exhortations for the homogeneous masses of common folk (Volkish in German, Populist in the U.S.) to join voluntarily in a heroic mission--often metaphysical and romanticized in character.


Dehumanization and scapegoating of the enemy--seeing the enemy as an inferior or subhuman force, perhaps involved in a conspiracy that justifies eradicating them.


The self image of being a superior form of social organization beyond socialism, capitalism and democracy.


Elements of national socialist ideological roots, for example, ostensible support for the industrial working class or farmers; but ultimately, the forging of an alliance with an elite sector of society.


Abandonment of any consistent ideology in a drive for state power.


Excellent list. Absolutely spot on.

Fascism is, by definition, government that centralises authority under a dictator, harsh socioeconomic controls, suppression of opposition through censorship, and usually a policy of nationalism and racism.



Yes, you could. They were both economically left-wing, but socially they were fascist. Both centralised authority under a dictator, both used huge censorship and terror to quell opposition, and both were very nationalist.Certainly both have tough systems of controls. But in actual fact Fascist nations were a lot freer than Communist societies. Fascists dont ban private property whereas Communist nations do.

Fascism is when all resources (labor, capital and land) are made to serve the needs of the state. (hence intense nationalism) Since generally the nation is embodied by a totalitarian dictator under fascism all resources are made to serve the needs of the dictator.

Therefore it is the opposite of communism in which all resources are made to serve the needs of the commune. Some of what you said is quite true but dont forget Communism bans private property and kills anyone who has more money than they do.
Fascism was more realistic and still allowed private property and religios freedom.

How is Blair responsible to the electorate? Everyone syas that there is no real opposition to the Labor party, and he is only responsible to labour MPs.

He is a de facto unelected elite.

Also, blair seems to have no compunction about arrouding the due process of the legal system, so while he may not use overt force against people, I do not find it inconceivable that he would resort to locking political opponents away on some pre-text.

In fact you can see the beginings of this in that he has prohibited anyone in the civil service from being a member of the BNP, and discharging those who are.

(Not that I agree with the BNP, but it is a bona fide political party and Blair is using non parliamentary means to supress it.)

He's a fascist alright.

He just hasn't quite got there yet, but that's what he wants.

Remember the right to silence? He didn't like that much did he. (And his "government" has made rumbligs about doing away with the "double jeopardy" rule. Very fascist.) Not to mention all the "speed cameras" and public surveillance his administration has introduced.

He can already control the press if he wants (D-notices).

As for supporting democracy, he feels it's okay to pass even the silliest things by parliament when it suits him, and pretty much just does whatever he wants. Plus he has no real opposition, so it's more democracy in form than anything.

Clearly it's a fascist plot. So don't complain to me when people start to get banged away without a trial for forgetting their ID cards.You sound like a Conspiracy nut! He doenst and cant control the press, Speed Cameras dont mean hes a fascist it's just a law.
And no-one in any previous Fascist Country didnt need ID cards.

He can pass a law because thats his Democraticaly appointed job to do.
We elected him to govern and that what he's trying to do. Although I think he sucks at it.

It doesnt matter if the opposition is strong or not. The fact is their is an opposition and we have the power to vote him out of we can be bothered to go down the poll station at the next general election in Febuary and vote!

Certainly both have tough systems of controls. But in actual fact Fascist nations were a lot freer than Communist societies. Fascists dont ban private property whereas Communist nations do.

No, but your ownership of private property [i.e. businesses] has to reflect the social system you're living in.


Some of what you said is quite true but dont forget Communism bans private property and kills anyone who has more money than they do.
Fascism was more realistic and still allowed private property and religios freedom.

Communism does not do that. Fascism in Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union did not allow for religious toleration if you were Jewish. In the Soviet Union's case, that is one of the reasons why Stalin was able to take power, he could denounce Kamenev and (the other one, begins with Z, not done GCSE History for three years so I've forgotten it) for being Jewish.

How is Blair responsible to the electorate? Everyone syas that there is no real opposition to the Labor party, and he is only responsible to labour MPs.

He is a de facto unelected elite.

Also, blair seems to have no compunction about arrouding the due process of the legal system, so while he may not use overt force against people, I do not find it inconceivable that he would resort to locking political opponents away on some pre-text.

In fact you can see the beginings of this in that he has prohibited anyone in the civil service from being a member of the BNP, and discharging those who are.

(Not that I agree with the BNP, but it is a bona fide political party and Blair is using non parliamentary means to supress it.)

He's a fascist alright.

I understand what you are saying but you 'fascist' is too extreme a word to attach to Blair. I prefer the phrase 'shameless authoritarian' :D

Have done, try Pheonix:Fascism in Our Time by A.James Gregor


Communist Nations have done this too.

.....


Portu was saying a facist government embodies all of these. Because a communist/democratic/whatever other government may use the same things does not make a government that employs all of them any less facist.

No, but your ownership of private property [i.e. businesses] has to reflect the social system you're living in. In Fascist Italy people teh working class were treated well and did not live in poverty so the society was well balanced between rich and poor.




Communism does not do that. Fascism in Italy, Germany, and the Soviet Union did not allow for religious toleration if you were Jewish. In the Soviet Union's case, that is one of the reasons why Stalin was able to take power, he could denounce Kamenev and (the other one, begins with Z, not done GCSE History for three years so I've forgotten it) for being Jewish.Actually even in semi-fascist NG the Jews were still allowed to get together at a synogogue and prayer. They could still celebrate hanukah and other Jewish events.
the Soviet Union was a Totalitarianism- and that doesnt make it Fascist. Ot had hints of whats called generic fascism-like statism, nationalism. but a lot of Nations do that anyway and that doesnt make them Fascist.

You sound like a Conspiracy nut! He doenst and cant control the press, Speed Cameras dont mean hes a fascist it's just a law.
And no-one in any previous Fascist Country didnt need ID cards.

He can pass a law because thats his Democraticaly appointed job to do.
We elected him to govern and that what he's trying to do. Although I think he sucks at it.

It doesnt matter if the opposition is strong or not. The fact is their is an opposition and we have the power to vote him out of we can be bothered to go down the poll station at the next general election in Febuary and vote!

Of course he can control the press. He could pass a law nationalizing the whole shebang tommorow. His power is effectively unlimited as long as he can appease the rest of the labour party MPs, something he seems to have no trouble doing.

And doesn't the goverment tracking people with cameras all the time bother you. Just look at the latest defense review. The government is going to spend three billion pounds developing better "surveillance" technology. That's just creepy and intrusive.

For that matter, doesn't losing the right to silence (and possibly the double jeopardy rule) also bother you and strike you as the begining of fascism.

Sounds like the begings of fascism to me. But will he be "voted out" of course not, because there is "no real alternative".

I understand what you are saying but you 'fascist' is too extreme a word to attach to Blair. I prefer the phrase 'shameless authoritarian' :D


Well that's just because he hhasn't got all his ducks in a row yet. But when he does, watch out.

(And didn't he recently make a speach about getting back to "traditional values". It's so obvious it's almost comical)

Well that's just because he hhasn't got all his ducks in a row yet. But when he does, watch out.

(And didn't he recently make a speach about getting back to "traditional values". It's so obvious it's almost comical)

Okay, at first I thought you were joking but you have actually gone stark raving mad. :D

Okay, at first I thought you were joking but you have actually gone stark raving mad. :D

Don't say I didn't warn you. :)

Don't say I didn't warn you. :)

Hey look man, I'm wired for the Revolution, no-one need warn me of the impending police state. I also have a large device for killing lizards, should those secret rulers of the world show up one of these days.