NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello Everyone!

I have created a New Fascist Forum for anyone who is either a wondering Fascist or someone who wants to come and debate with Fascists!

This is a Fascist Board and NOT a Neo-Nazi board. Fascism and National Socialism are two different idelogies! That is a fact. Anyone who thinks National Socialism and Fascism are the same have been misinformed.

Here it is

www.fascismforum.invisionzone.com/forums

I am politically ignorant, so I shall ask this incredibly foolish question: what is fascism - I mean, is it like authoritarian capitalism?

Fascism=Uber nationalism+capitalism

I would also like a definition of the what a fascist goverment is like. Unbiased, dictionary definition, if you please...

Fascism=Uber nationalism+capitalism
Like I said.... ;)

I will debate here,
How shall I leave NationStates
Kicking and screaming

Can we go to these boards and flame you for your evil political ideals?

Man, this is gonna be one sweet board.

"SW fasc-curious M seeks identically-minded SWFCF for authoritarian good times. Turns-on include curbed liberties and starched uniforms. Turn-offs include thoughtcrime and bad kissers. If this is you, maybe we could put our strength together."

Fascism is left wing, and in no event can it be described as capitalist. I suggest everyone read the Fascist manifesto before labelling it as some form of free market ideology.

The reason why it gets the "right" wing label is because leftists don't want to admit it is a form of socialism. (In fact some have speculated that it is the logical outgrowth of socialism).

Fascism is left wing, and in no event can it be described as capitalist. I suggest everyone read the Fascist manifesto before labelling it as some form of free market ideology.

The reason why it gets the "right" wing label is because leftists don't want to admit it is a form of socialism. (In fact some have speculated that it is the logical outgrowth of socialism).
Where are you getting that? Facism is the ultimate right-winged ideal, just as communism is the ultimate left-winged ideal.

I would also like a definition of the what a fascist goverment is like. Unbiased, dictionary definition, if you please...


fas·cism

1.:
A.) A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

B.)A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.

2.)Oppressive, dictatorial control.


Ok

Where are you getting that? Facism is the ultimate right-winged ideal, just as communism is the ultimate left-winged ideal.

From reading the Fascist manifesto. Try it before you make value judgements.

From reading the Fascist manifesto. Try it before you make value judgements.
Touche. Still, Facism implies complete rule by a dictator, and that's not something I want.

Man, this is gonna be one sweet board.

"SW fasc-curious M seeks identically-minded SWFCF for authoritarian good times. Turns-on include curbed liberties and starched uniforms. Turn-offs include thoughtcrime and bad kissers. If this is you, maybe we could put our strength together."

That wasn't on the board was it? That may have been the single funniest thing I have read on NS.

Fascism is left wing, and in no event can it be described as capitalist. I suggest everyone read the Fascist manifesto before labelling it as some form of free market ideology.

The reason why it gets the "right" wing label is because leftists don't want to admit it is a form of socialism. (In fact some have speculated that it is the logical outgrowth of socialism).

Right. Thanks for interpreting the word for us, homie.

In Italy, fascism grew out of Mussolini's right-wing leadership. Given that this was kind of the model for all subsequent forays into fascism, it's natural for people to associate it with right-wing politics.

Moreover, right-wing does not equal capitalist, nor left-wing socialist. Here are three outlooks taken from Wikipedia on the various ways right and left can be defined:

Whether the state should prioritize social liberty (left) or economic liberty (right).

Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be minimal (left) or interventionist (right). Note that certain left-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies.

Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell.

In each of these three uses, fascist, daddy-knows-best government are in line with right, not left thinking.

That was some good oversimplified bs though.

From reading the Fascist manifesto. Try it before you make value judgements.

Classic liberalism is the exact opposite of fascism. There are a lot of neo-liberals with half assed views of socialism that come near fascism but they are no where near the actual roots of liberalism.

Il manifesto dei fasci di combattimento published in Il Popolo d'Italia (the newspaper directed by Mussolini) on June 6 1919

Italiani! Ecco il programma di un movimento genuinamente italiano. Rivoluzionario perché antidogmatico; fortemente innovatore antipregiudiziaiolo.

Per il problema politico: Noi vogliamo:

a) Suffragio universale a scrutinio di lista regionale, con rappresentanza proporzionale, voto ed eleggibilità per le donne.
b) II minimo di età per gli elettori abbassato ai I8 anni; quello per i deputati abbassato ai 25 anni.
c) L'abolizione del Senato.
d) La convocazione di una Assemblea Nazionale per la durata di tre anni, il cui primo compito sia quello di stabilire la forma di costituzione dello Stato.
e) La formazione di Consigli Nazionali tecnici del lavoro, dell'industria, dei trasporti, dell'igiene sociale, delle comunicazioni, ecc. eletti dalle collettività professionali o di mestiere, con poteri legislativi, e diritto di eleggere un Commissario Generale con poteri di Ministro.

Per il problema sociale: Noi vogliamo:

a) La sollecita promulgazione di una legge dello Stato che sancisca per tutti i lavori la giornata legale di otto ore di lavoro.
b) I minimi di paga.
c) La partecipazione dei rappresentanti dei lavoratori al funzionamento tecnico dell'industria.
d) L'affidamento alle stesse organizzazioni proletarie (che ne siano degne moralmente e tecnicamente) della gestione di industrie o servizi pubblici.
e) La rapida e completa sistemazione dei ferrovieri e di tutte le industrie dei trasporti.
f) Una necessaria modificazione del progetto di legge di assicurazione sulla invalidità e sulla vecchiaia abbassando il limite di età, proposto attualmente a 65 anni, a 55 anni.

Per il problema militare: Noi vogliamo:

a) L'istituzione di una milizia nazionale con brevi servizi di istruzione e compito esclusivamente difensivo.
b) La nazionalizzazione di tutte le fabbriche di armi e di esplosivi.
c) Una politica estera nazionale intesa a valorizzare, nelle competizioni pacifiche della civiltà, la Nazione italiana nel mondo.

Per il problema finanziario: Noi vogliamo:

a) Una forte imposta straordinaria sul capitale a carattere progressivo, che abbia la forma di vera espropriazione parziale di tutte le ricchezze.
b) II sequestro di tutti i beni delle congregazioni religiose e l'abolizione di tutte le mense Vescovili che costituiscono una enorme passività per la Nazione e un privilegio di pochi.
c) La revisione di tutti i contratti di forniture di guerra ed il sequestro dell' 85% dei profitti di guerra.

In II popolo d'Italia, 6 giugno 1919



You see? It calls for progressive tax on capital, redistribution of wealth, union representitives involved in the actually running of companies, a maximum eight hour work day, sufferage for women, lowering the voting age to 18 (in 1919!), sequestration of profits from certian types of econmic activity, nationilization of the defense industries, social welfare net, nationlized public transport.

Actually, it sounds a lot like leftists in this country now that I think of it.

That wasn't on the board was it? That may have been the single funniest thing I have read on NS.

It's gonna be on the board in about five minutes. :D

Where are you getting that? Facism is the ultimate right-winged ideal, just as communism is the ultimate left-winged ideal.
Fascism is socially right-wing and economically left-wing. The problem here is that people view political ideologies to be uniaxial. The most practical way to do it is biaxial, or even triaxial if you want to be into the way that the government is elected (as NationStates handles it).

But I shall be dealing with fascism on a biaxial basis, since if you add another axis, it deviates from pure fascism.

This is a Fascist Board and NOT a Neo-Nazi board. Fascism and National Socialism are two different idelogies! That is a fact. Anyone who thinks National Socialism and Fascism are the same have been misinformed.
I would first like to deal with this. Fascism, socialism, and neo-Nazism are three independent ideologies. Fascism is the ultimate authoritarian government, socialism half-way to the ultimate liberal government, and neo-Nazism a sub-set of fascism with other elements included. And, by the way, there is no ultimate right-wing form of government. If there is complete economic libertarianism, then it is impossible for the government to have any power at all, and thus will become anarchy before it is able to reach whatever this ficticious right-wing government is.

As I said, fascism is the ultimate authoritarian form of government. For those more familiar with liberal and conservative, it is liberal on the economic aspects and conservative on the social aspects. It also includes most power belonging to a single leader. See, even though I tried to, I got into a third axis--political ideologies are no so simple as right- and left-wing. But I digress, fascism is when a single leader has most or all power, controlling the media, industry, legislative and executive branches of government, judicial as well if they exist in the fascist government. Typically the party is a major factor, whether the party controls the leader or the leader the party is circumstancial. It is possible to have democratic fascism, but not likely. There really is no fundamental problem with fascism, it is just that it has a strong tendency to become corrupt quickly, no matter the intents and purposes of those on power. Fascism is almost required to be unitary, though some federalism is possible if the fascist leader allows subordinates to have power.

Anyone noticed
Amren hasn't been back since
Setting up the thread?

Possibility
That this is a trolling thread
Set-up for a flame

Fascism is socially right-wing and economically left-wing. The problem here is that people view political ideologies to be uniaxial. The most practical way to do it is biaxial, or even triaxial if you want to be into the way that the government is elected (as NationStates handles it).

Thank you, G. This is a more eloquent statement of what I was getting at with the various divides between right and left. Socialism alone does not a leftist make, nor capitalism a right-winger.

You see? It calls for progressive tax on capital, redistribution of wealth, union representitives involved in the actually running of companies, a maximum eight hour work day, sufferage for women, lowering the voting age to 18 (in 1919!), sequestration of profits from certian types of econmic activity, nationilization of the defense industries, social welfare net, nationlized public transport.

Actually, it sounds a lot like leftists in this country now that I think of it.

and now remind us which parts of this actually wound up getting implemented during mussolini's two decade rule?

fascists say whatever they think will get them the support of the lower classes, while at the same time using the upper and middle classes and conservative parties to gain power. we have them on record saying as much.

"You see? It calls for progressive tax on capital, redistribution of wealth, union representitives involved in the actually running of companies, a maximum eight hour work day, sufferage for women, lowering the voting age to 18 (in 1919!), sequestration of profits from certian types of econmic activity, nationilization of the defense industries, social welfare net, nationlized public transport.

Actually, it sounds a lot like leftists in this country now that I think of it."

General LeMay
Thank you... I've had the same theory going for a while that fascism, due to the huge government control of money, is really just an outgrowth of Socialism.

Capitalism is all about financial freedom, and Fascism espouses the antithesis of that. If it looks, smells and acts like a left-wing ideology, then...

well we can call it nationalist socialism (WAIT! THAT'S WHAT THE NAZIS CALLED THEMSELVES... NATIONAL SOCIALISTS! lmao... right-wing my ass!)

Hi Everyone!

Welcome to the New Forum! I set this Forum up as I and Dan felt that we needed a proper Forum that we would be able to manage and control.
We have about 8 Subsections to start off with. As we gain more members we will build more sections.
As Dan said with the PHP board we will not put up with people coming on the Board here and trying to divide the Forum and start 'Factioning'. This Board will function in a harmonious way and if anybody tried to disturn this 'Harmony' they will be banned!

Enjoy this forum and feel free to suggest anything you think we should add that you think could be useful!

Thank You!

Subsection 6 is full of photos of Dan sledding with his shirt off. I wonder how long this experiment in total control is going to last.

a new song:

Fascism and Socialism sitting in a tree
K-i-s-s-i-n-g
First comes love
Then comes marriage
Then comes baby in a baby carriage.
(if you can finish this, your long-term memory is much better than mine is... or you have kids)

so when liberals point a finger at american republicans and call them Fascists... they've really got 3 fingers pointing back at themselves. Great stuff.

and now remind us which parts of this actually wound up getting implemented during mussolini's two decade rule?

fascists say whatever they think will get them the support of the lower classes, while at the same time using the upper and middle classes and conservative parties to gain power. we have them on record saying as much.


Pretty much all of it.

And for the record, Mussolini's agenda was more socially progressive than the democracies.

I am politically ignorant, so I shall ask this incredibly foolish question: what is fascism - I mean, is it like authoritarian capitalism? Hi!

Your question is not ignorant.

No, Fascism is not Authoritarian Capitalism. This is a Communist and Liberla lie. What Fascism stands for is whats called a 'Corporate State'
This means that the country is governed by roughly 18 different 'Corporations'. An example of Corporations are listed below
Taken From www.oswaldmosley.com

A - PRIMARY PRODUCTS.
1. Agricultural.
2. Fishing.
3. Mining and Fuel.
4. Iron and Steel.
5. Metal Trade.
B - INDUSTRIAL.
6. Engineering.
7. Printing and Paper Trade.
8. Shipbuilding.
9. Textiles. :
10. Leather and Rubber.
11. Glass and Pottery.
12. Chemicals.
13. Woodworking and Furnishing.
14. Clothing.
C. - DISTRIBUTIVE.
15. Building.
16. Public Utilities.
17. Transport.
18. Shipping
20. Banking and Insurance.
21. Civil Service.
22. Professional.

All companies above a certain size would fall under owndership and control of these Corporations. A fascist state would retain the profit motive and companies would be largely unaffected by the 'corporations' and the profits the companies make wuld be taken by the government and used for certain projects; to lower taxes, improve education and healthcare etc...
The word Corporation shounds a lot like Co-operate what is the desired idea of a Fascist State to have people working together for the betterment of the state.

IF you want to know more about Fascism then check these website
www.freewebs.com/realfascism
www.americanfascistmovement.com

"You see? It calls for progressive tax on capital, redistribution of wealth, union representitives involved in the actually running of companies, a maximum eight hour work day, sufferage for women, lowering the voting age to 18 (in 1919!), sequestration of profits from certian types of econmic activity, nationilization of the defense industries, social welfare net, nationlized public transport.

Actually, it sounds a lot like leftists in this country now that I think of it."

General LeMay
Thank you... I've had the same theory going for a while that fascism, due to the huge government control of money, is really just an outgrowth of Socialism.

Capitalism is all about financial freedom, and Fascism espouses the antithesis of that. If it looks, smells and acts like a left-wing ideology, then...

well we can call it nationalist socialism (WAIT! THAT'S WHAT THE NAZIS CALLED THEMSELVES... NATIONAL SOCIALISTS! lmao... right-wing my ass!)

Yup. They are all command economies, unlike the right which tends to believe in economic freedom and entrenched rights.

Hi!

Your question is not ignorant.

No, Fascism is not Authoritarian Capitalism. This is a Communist and Liberla lie. What Fascism stands for is whats called a 'Corporate State'
This means that the country is governed by roughly 18 different 'Corporations'. An example of Corporations are listed below
Taken From www.oswaldmosley.com

A - PRIMARY PRODUCTS.
1. Agricultural.
2. Fishing.
3. Mining and Fuel.
4. Iron and Steel.
5. Metal Trade.
B - INDUSTRIAL.
6. Engineering.
7. Printing and Paper Trade.
8. Shipbuilding.
9. Textiles. :
10. Leather and Rubber.
11. Glass and Pottery.
12. Chemicals.
13. Woodworking and Furnishing.
14. Clothing.
C. - DISTRIBUTIVE.
15. Building.
16. Public Utilities.
17. Transport.
18. Shipping
20. Banking and Insurance.
21. Civil Service.
22. Professional.

All companies above a certain size would fall under owndership and control of these Corporations. A fascist state would retain the profit motive and companies would be largely unaffected by the 'corporations' and the profits the companies make wuld be taken by the government and used for certain projects; to lower taxes, improve education and healthcare etc...
The word Corporation shounds a lot like Co-operate what is the desired idea of a Fascist State to have people working together for the betterment of the state.

IF you want to know more about Fascism then check these website
www.freewebs.com/realfascism
www.americanfascistmovement.com

Don't tell AnarchyeL, but I think he is a fascist.

But anyways, government should be about the betterment of the individual not the betterment of the state.

Hi!

Your question is not ignorant.

No, Fascism is not Authoritarian Capitalism. This is a Communist and Liberla lie. What Fascism stands for is whats called a 'Corporate State'
This means that the country is governed by roughly 18 different 'Corporations'. An example of Corporations are listed below
Taken From www.oswaldmosley.com

A - PRIMARY PRODUCTS.
1. Agricultural.
2. Fishing.
3. Mining and Fuel.
4. Iron and Steel.
5. Metal Trade.
B - INDUSTRIAL.
6. Engineering.
7. Printing and Paper Trade.
8. Shipbuilding.
9. Textiles. :
10. Leather and Rubber.
11. Glass and Pottery.
12. Chemicals.
13. Woodworking and Furnishing.
14. Clothing.
C. - DISTRIBUTIVE.
15. Building.
16. Public Utilities.
17. Transport.
18. Shipping
20. Banking and Insurance.
21. Civil Service.
22. Professional.

All companies above a certain size would fall under owndership and control of these Corporations. A fascist state would retain the profit motive and companies would be largely unaffected by the 'corporations' and the profits the companies make wuld be taken by the government and used for certain projects; to lower taxes, improve education and healthcare etc...
The word Corporation shounds a lot like Co-operate what is the desired idea of a Fascist State to have people working together for the betterment of the state.

IF you want to know more about Fascism then check these website
www.freewebs.com/realfascism
www.americanfascistmovement.com
Well, it seems like it's capitalist to a point then moves to communist, at least economically. I think I could learn to live with that, but what about rights, political and civil? Do we get any, or does the state control that too?

and now remind us which parts of this actually wound up getting implemented during mussolini's two decade rule?

fascists say whatever they think will get them the support of the lower classes, while at the same time using the upper and middle classes and conservative parties to gain power. we have them on record saying as much.No, Fascism promotes class collaboration.
For example Juan Domingo Peron who was a Fascist leader of Argentina got 'HUGE' support from the working-class because he improved their lifestyle and(at least when he was incharge) ended Argentine poverty. There were still classes in Argentina in that time but a characteristic of Fascism is too divide wealth more evenly. The working class made more money and the Capitalists made less but still enough to keep them happy.

Pretty much all of it.

hah!

Don't tell AnarchyeL, but I think he is a fascist.

But anyways, government should be about the betterment of the individual not the betterment of the state.

The government shouldn't be about the betterment of anything. If it goes out and decides to "improve" things i.e., make positive changes towards a common purpose then it's just taken the first steps on the road to dictatorship and oppression.

Government should be as benignly neglectful as possible, with the absoulute minimum of power spread among the absolute maximum number of people. What's more, rights should be defined in the negative - what government cannot do - instead of what government ought to do. Really that's a much better system, even if it does produce some inequality, because at least it castrates those damn politicians. (Except for the Air Force, that should get whatever it needs no questions, after all it's the Royal Navy of the 21st century)

But I'm glad to see you favor the individual over society, welcome to the dark side VO.

AnarchyeL has an ahistorical perspective.

Well, it seems like it's capitalist to a point then moves to communist, at least economically. I think I could learn to live with that, but what about rights, political and civil? Do we get any, or does the state control that too?You do have rights, like the right self defence, the right to own a gun, join a union, vote in direct referenda.
You would have the right to say what you want in your own home.
But Politcal rights? Such as the right to join another politcal Party? No
Government officials would not be appionted by voting, but instead by Meritocracy.

Hi!

Your question is not ignorant.

No, Fascism is not Authoritarian Capitalism. This is a Communist and Liberla lie. What Fascism stands for is whats called a 'Corporate State'
This means that the country is governed by roughly 18 different 'Corporations'. An example of Corporations are listed below
Taken From www.oswaldmosley.com

A - PRIMARY PRODUCTS.
1. Agricultural.
2. Fishing.
3. Mining and Fuel.
4. Iron and Steel.
5. Metal Trade.
B - INDUSTRIAL.
6. Engineering.
7. Printing and Paper Trade.
8. Shipbuilding.
9. Textiles. :
10. Leather and Rubber.
11. Glass and Pottery.
12. Chemicals.
13. Woodworking and Furnishing.
14. Clothing.
C. - DISTRIBUTIVE.
15. Building.
16. Public Utilities.
17. Transport.
18. Shipping
20. Banking and Insurance.
21. Civil Service.
22. Professional.

All companies above a certain size would fall under owndership and control of these Corporations. A fascist state would retain the profit motive and companies would be largely unaffected by the 'corporations' and the profits the companies make wuld be taken by the government and used for certain projects; to lower taxes, improve education and healthcare etc...
The word Corporation shounds a lot like Co-operate what is the desired idea of a Fascist State to have people working together for the betterment of the state.

IF you want to know more about Fascism then check these website
www.freewebs.com/realfascism
www.americanfascistmovement.com

Actually, to point out that is a very apt discription of an authoritarian capitalism. It maintains corporations, retains the profit motive and the free market. Yet all corporate profits are gathered under a very powerful central government (usually a dictator) that uses these profits for the betterment of the state. What could me more of an Authoritarian Capitalism?

Actually, to point out that is a very apt discription of an authoritarian capitalism. It maintains corporations, retains the profit motive and the free market. Yet all corporate profits are gathered under a very powerful central government (usually a dictator) that uses these profits for the betterment of the state. What could me more of an Authoritarian Capitalism?

Well except it call for government control of most of the market. So it's not really free market at all.

You do have rights, like the right self defence, the right to own a gun, join a union, vote in direct referenda.
You would have the right to say what you want in your own home.
But Politcal rights? Such as the right to join another politcal Party? No
Government officials would not be appionted by voting, but instead by Meritocracy.

No, gun ownership was outlawed.

No, Fascism is not Authoritarian Capitalism. This is a Communist and Liberla lie. What Fascism stands for is whats called a 'Corporate State'
What? I can tell you obviously hate liberals, but blaming misconceptions on fascism on communists is just silly, seeing as most communism actually is a type of fascism in reality.

This means that the country is governed by roughly 18 different 'Corporations'. An example of Corporations are listed below
Taken From www.oswaldmosley.com
Are you high, or something? You're advertising not a political ideology, but your personal feelings on an exact government, by listing even the number of corporations...

All companies above a certain size would fall under owndership and control of these Corporations. A fascist state would retain the profit motive and companies would be largely unaffected by the 'corporations' and the profits the companies make wuld be taken by the government and used for certain projects; to lower taxes, improve education and healthcare etc...
The word Corporation shounds a lot like Co-operate what is the desired idea of a Fascist State to have people working together for the betterment of the state.
This is not fascism. This is corporatism, which I loathe. A corporatist state is better than a fascist state, but it is so fanciful. It basically capitalism gone rampant married to oligarchical fascism. What would happen to the people under a corporatist state is truly terrifying. Why you insist upon calling it fascism, I shall never know, but what you believe in is corporatism, not fascism.

The government shouldn't be about the betterment of anything. If it goes out and decides to "improve" things i.e., make positive changes towards a common purpose then it's just taken the first steps on the road to dictatorship and oppression.

Government should be as benignly neglectful as possible, with the absoulute minimum of power spread among the absolute maximum number of people. What's more, rights should be defined in the negative - what government cannot do - instead of what government ought to do. Really that's a much better system, even if it does produce some inequality, because at least it castrates those damn politicians. (Except for the Air Force, that should get whatever it needs no questions, after all it's the Royal Navy of the 21st century)

But I'm glad to see you favor the individual over society, welcome to the dark side VO.

AnarchyeL has an ahistorical perspective.

By betterment of the individual, I mean quality of life, and the most important aspect to that, in my opinion, is autonomy. So the betterment of the individual would include the protection of autonomy by the government, so I agree with you very much.

However, I think that the government must be given the power to provide for the basic rights of people and to preserve a person's autonomy from encroachment from non-governmental entities, ie business and church.

Government officials would not be appionted by voting, but instead by Meritocracy.
God, at least you have a triaxial view of political ideology, but thoughts like this are why revolutions never work. In theory they work very well, but in practise they turn into terribly corrupt forms of government. Meritocratic power basically is Darwinism in government, which I view as regression on humanity's part. I am a heavy believer in natural selection, but hold a idealistic view that human society might be able to rise above that bestial way of doing things. Even wolves have a better form of government than contemporary humans do.

Well except it call for government control of most of the market. So it's not really free market at all.

I thought that maybe the corporations would be supported by the free market and not by the government.

If they are not supported by the free market, then that fascism is an unachievable dream. The free market would be destroyed by such a pervasive governmental control over industry, and the economy would be stagnant and would eventually fail.

But anyways, government should be about the betterment of the individual not the betterment of the state.

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that this is an artifical divide, put in place for the sake of simplifying argument. It's not like you can partition citizens from a state. It's like separating organs from a body.

For example, how does education fit into this "individual/society" model? It betters both the individual and the society. Who benefits from the armed forces? The state preserves itself, but also the property of its citizens. And, in theory, both of these institutions are put in place by the people.

I mean, pretty much everybody agrees that the state ought to provide for physical defense. But it is sort of arbitrary to limit government power to this one thing. Again, education helps the nation defend its economic standing in the world. If you consider the Cold War to be largely an economic battle (the U.S. has prevailed so far because of financial pressures exerted through weapons R&D and construction), education and productivity are as important to defense today as militias were in the revolution. So how isn't this defense?

No, Fascism promotes class collaboration.
You are the perfect example of an intellectual revolutionary. The ones that turned Russia into the U.S.S.R.. Sure, it wasn't worse than tsarism, but it wasn't an improvement. Especially considering Stalin's 5-year plans. What you propose is a complete authoritarian corporatist goverment in practise, with people living in a sea of propaganda and a right-less society.

Classic liberalism is the exact opposite of fascism.
No, those are the anarchists. Libertarianism is the exact opposite of authoritarianism, and anarchy is ideal libertarian government, and fascism the ideal authoritarian government.

Well, it seems like it's capitalist to a point then moves to communist, at least economically. I think I could learn to live with that, but what about rights, political and civil? Do we get any, or does the state control that too?
What he says is giving all the power to corporations. It is orgasmic for the C.E.O.'s, but sucky to the extreme for everyone else. You know the mass propaganda in Aldous Huxley's Brave New World? Well, this would be extremely similar, except that all of it would be controlled by the corporatists government, and would be even worse.

Sorry, but I'm of the opinion that this is an artifical divide, put in place for the sake of simplifying argument. It's not like you can partition citizens from a state. It's like separating organs from a body.

Ask an Iraqi or a Russian who lived Soviet control how seperate the Government and the individual can become.

For example, how does education fit into this "individual/society" model? It betters both the individual and the society. Who benefits from the armed forces? The state preserves itself, but also the property of its citizens. And, in theory, both of these institutions are put in place by the people.

The state preserves itself out of necessity for the protection of the individual.

I mean, pretty much everybody agrees that the state ought to provide for physical defense. But it is sort of arbitrary limit government power to this one thing. Again, education helps the nation defend its economic standing in the world. If you consider the Cold War to be largely an economic battle (the U.S. has prevailed so far because of financial pressures exerted through weapons R&D and construction), education and productivity are as important to defense today as militias were in the revolution. So how isn't this defense?

Look at America, this country was made great based on the betterment of the individual. The individuals of the nation grant the government it's power and in return it is responsible to the needs of the individual, therefore the government is nothing but a collective extention of the individual.

I thought that maybe the corporations would be supported by the free market and not by the government.

If they are not supported by the free market, then that fascism is an unachievable dream. The free market would be destroyed by such a pervasive governmental control over industry, and the economy would be stagnant and would eventually fail.

Fascism called for government control of labor and the markets, effectively eliminating "destructive" competition - which was the catch phrase of the left in those days. The idea was in a completely regulated labor/service/goods market place competition could be managed by the govenrment and, inter alia, economic pressure to underpay the workforce would be eliminated.

In practice this removed any form of free market economy: industry produced what the government wanted, when it wanted, in specified quantities and took a predetermined profit. The advantage of forming a command ecomomy this way however, is that it maintians the fiction that private ownership of property is still permitted - thus seperating fascism from bolshevism (technically). In other words, socialism thorugh the back door. People were stupid back then though, so they fell for it.

However, I think that the government must be given the power to provide for the basic rights of people and to preserve a person's autonomy from encroachment from non-governmental entities, ie business and church.

Your point is well taken. I think that can be best insured by defining rights in the negative however, i.e., what the government cannot do coupled with a strong tradtion of property rights and all they entail.

Really if people were more saavy, many of the irritating political groups today that are constantly pushing for enlargement of positive government powers to protect their rights would wake up and realize they could use corporate form free market economics to the own ends far more efficiently. Anyone can by voting stock, and if you buy enough of it you can get a seat on the board of directors. Large coallitions could influence society that way without recourse to the assinine laws that are currently passed. (The added benefit would be a diminution of the power of politicians).

Your point is well taken. I think that can be best insured by defining rights in the negative however, i.e., what the government cannot do coupled with a strong tradtion of property rights and all they entail.
Yes, restrictive rather than permissive rights are certainly the best for the people. However, a corporatist government would remove any true rights that the people had, through their immense proaganda if not legally.

Where are you getting that? Facism is the ultimate right-winged ideal, just as communism is the ultimate left-winged ideal.


wrong..
fascism is left-wing.. mussolini was socialist. all early fascists were socialist. in 1943 mussolini founded the Socialist Republic of Salò.

Fascism = nazism = right = evil is an easy equation made by the winners of II World War, but it isn't the truth.

Read anything about Fascism and Mussolini, maybe in italian language and everything will be clear..

Yes, restrictive rather than permissive rights are certainly the best for the people. However, a corporatist government would remove any true rights that the people had, through their immense proaganda if not legally.

You can never get a corporatist government with a free market.

You can never get a corporatist government with a free market.
That's funny, because coporatism is a free market in its worst. It is basically government by the industry, and is the natural progress of any state where corporations are given enough freedom and power.

Really if people were more saavy, many of the irritating political groups today that are constantly pushing for enlargement of positive government powers to protect their rights would wake up and realize they could use corporate form free market economics to the own ends far more efficiently. Anyone can by voting stock, and if you buy enough of it you can get a seat on the board of directors. Large coallitions could influence society that way without recourse to the assinine laws that are currently passed. (The added benefit would be a diminution of the power of politicians).

Isn't this why election finance is such a hot button issue? Precisely because some individuals who have controlling shares in large corporations have used their influence to shape society through govt.? I didn't think there were many who saw this as a positive thing.

Also, I think you're being a touch optimistic if you believe all it takes is a little bit of savvy to shape society by buying voting stock. It also takes beaucoup bucks. Meanwhile, everybody's born with an equal share of voting stock in the country.

Meanwhile, everybody's born with an equal share of voting stock in the country.
I think you should get a prize for this sentence. It is pure genius.

Your point is well taken. I think that can be best insured by defining rights in the negative however, i.e., what the government cannot do coupled with a strong tradtion of property rights and all they entail.

Government must have proactive abilities.

Really if people were more saavy, many of the irritating political groups today that are constantly pushing for enlargement of positive government powers to protect their rights would wake up and realize they could use corporate form free market economics to the own ends far more efficiently. Anyone can by voting stock, and if you buy enough of it you can get a seat on the board of directors. Large coallitions could influence society that way without recourse to the assinine laws that are currently passed. (The added benefit would be a diminution of the power of politicians).

There is an inherited hierarchy that must be addressed, however. Many people are born with a severe degree of unequal power over others. The government must have the ability to limit their ability to assert it.

Okay, I've been thinking about something that somebody else said, and that made a lot of sense.

Fascism can be either left OR right. Okay, here's how I see it. Some of you might have seen this theory before. It's a Diamond theory.

Politics are much too complicated to be on a single right/left basis. In the Diamond theory, there are two scales: political freedoms scale and economic freedoms scale. The political freedoms one is going vertical, and the economic freedoms one goes horizontal. At the top of the political freedoms one is Authoritarianism, which is where Fascism would fall, because that is, by definition, what authoritarianism is. At the very bottom would be Liberalism/Libertarianism. On the horizontal scale, at the very left would be Communism, and on the very right would be Capitalism.

Since the theory of Fascism is at the very top of the diamond, it can go either left or right. However, when it goes left or right, it becomes slightly less Fascist, because that's the way that a diamond is shaped. The only true Fascism is free of an economic scale, and that can't work in the real world, because economy is necessary (even without monitary units, as in a Communist society). The same holds true for the theories of Capitalism, Communism, and Libertarianism.

Now, places that Fascism has been instituted either lean to the left or to the right, because of the economic necessity. The actual axes are, like, lines of idealism...they're just ideals, and a person can't have a society that lies directly on one of the lines. So some people can think of Right-Wing (Capitalist) Fascism, and some people can think of Left-Wing (Communist) Fascism. It's all about the diamond, people!

That's funny, because coporatism is a free market in its worst. It is basically government by the industry, and is the natural progress of any state where corporations are given enough freedom and power.


corporatism isn't capitalism or comunism, it isn't government by industry or by workers.. it is just in the middle, the best way..

The government shouldn't be about the betterment of anything. If it goes out and decides to "improve" things i.e., make positive changes towards a common purpose then it's just taken the first steps on the road to dictatorship and oppression.



Is this then why countries like Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Canada are opressive dictatorships?

You are patently incorrect.

I disagree. I think that he's talking about proactive governments getting involved to help some at the expense of others... all in the name of "social justice".

It is impossible to help everyone at once. When governments increase their involvement in the lives of citizens (eg, through means of the pocketbook, voting booth, etc.) , some will be hurt and others helped.

I would imagine that the governments of Sweden, Denmark et al (which you cited) seem like oppressive dictatorships to aspiring entrepreneurs or rich people... or anyone who thinks that paying more than 50% of his paycheck so that (mentally and physically able..) Olaf the slob can sit on his ass and watch TV all day (check out those unemployment rates!) is wrong.

corporatism isn't capitalism or comunism, it isn't government by industry or by workers.. it is just in the middle, the best way..
No, corporatism is oligarchical fascism. It is in the middle economically, that is true, but everything is typically done in the interest of industry, and leads to extreme social authoritarianism.

Okay, I've been thinking about something that somebody else said, and that made a lot of sense.

Fascism can be either left OR right. Okay, here's how I see it. Some of you might have seen this theory before. It's a Diamond theory.

Politics are much too complicated to be on a single right/left basis. In the Diamond theory, there are two scales: political freedoms scale and economic freedoms scale. The political freedoms one is going vertical, and the economic freedoms one goes horizontal. At the top of the political freedoms one is Authoritarianism, which is where Fascism would fall, because that is, by definition, what authoritarianism is. At the very bottom would be Liberalism/Libertarianism. On the horizontal scale, at the very left would be Communism, and on the very right would be Capitalism.

Since the theory of Fascism is at the very top of the diamond, it can go either left or right. However, when it goes left or right, it becomes slightly less Fascist, because that's the way that a diamond is shaped. The only true Fascism is free of an economic scale, and that can't work in the real world, because economy is necessary (even without monitary units, as in a Communist society). The same holds true for the theories of Capitalism, Communism, and Libertarianism.

Now, places that Fascism has been instituted either lean to the left or to the right, because of the economic necessity. The actual axes are, like, lines of idealism...they're just ideals, and a person can't have a society that lies directly on one of the lines. So some people can think of Right-Wing (Capitalist) Fascism, and some people can think of Left-Wing (Communist) Fascism. It's all about the diamond, people!
You apparently missed my earlier points. I referred to biaxial political ideology there. Fascism can not be left or right, it is authoritarian. And I think you could stand some help here--there are four directions in biaxial political ideology. There is libertarianism, liberalism, conservatism, and authoritarianism. The extremes of each are anarchy, communism, and fascism, with conservatism having no ideal form of government. But that is rough, since there are other ways of looking at it. The two axes denote social and economic authoritarianism and libertarianism. Capitalism and communism are economic extremes, and I'm not quite sure what the social aspects would be. However, another axis must then be added for political authortiarianism and libertarianism. So now we've gone from left-right uniaxial one dimensional political ideology, to left-right-up-down biaxial, to left-right-up-down-forward-backward triaxial. We could eeven begin to go into quadriaxial fourth dimensions, but that would be very hard for anyone to actually visualise.

Anyone noticed
Amren hasn't been back since
Setting up the thread?

Possibility
That this is a trolling thread
Set-up for a flame
The name alone should set off alarms. Amren = American Resistance, a neo nazi white nationalist organization.

And we're supposed to believe that this site has no white nationalist leaning.

The name alone should set off alarms. Amren = American Resistance, a neo nazi white nationalist organization.
Oh, really! I didn't know that.

Oh, really! I didn't know that.Amren is their site name and the common abrieviation used by it's members.

They don't seem to be much into Nazism though. Then again they only have like 50 posts on their forum.

Were not into Nazism at all!

Amren was just a name I thought of the top if my head to use for Nationstates!

Gosh!

Were not into Nazism at all!

Amren was just a name I thought of the top if my head to use for Nationstates!

Gosh!Thanks for clearing that up.

You come here with the name of a white nationalist organization, promoting a facist site and claim no connection to these neo-nazi's. It's all just an unfortunate coincidence.


We of course believe you without question. :rolleyes:

The two axes denote social and economic authoritarianism and libertarianism.

i have a problem with the term 'economic authoritarianism'. one of the underlying arguments behind the entire socialist and communist ideal is that the means of social production (and especially the land itself) cannot be rightfully owned by a tiny minority of individuals. allowing this tiny minority (the capitalists) to control the means of production and to reap the benefits of other people's labor for themselves is the height of authoritarian behavior - the people who rightfully should control the means of production do not and instead are ruled over by tyrants who have seized control unjustly.

of course, to accept this you would need to accept the socialist argument, just like how in order to accept "socialism=economic authoritarianism" you would need to accept the capitalist argument. thus we are at an impasse. so we should just leave out whether the left or right is economically authoritarian or libertarian and instead define them in terms of the relationship between who controls the means of production and who gets the lion's share of the benefits of that production, etc.

Thanks for clearing that up.

You come here with the name of a white nationalist organization, promoting a facist site and claim no connection to these neo-nazi's. It's all just an unfortunate coincidence.


We of course believe you without question. :rolleyes:

I think we should get back onto topic enough about wether he is a nazi or not I think the issue at hand is Fascism in the 20th century. Shall we?

i have a problem with the term 'economic authoritarianism'. one of the underlying arguments behind the entire socialist and communist ideal is that the means of social production (and especially the land itself) cannot be rightfully owned by a tiny minority of individuals. allowing this tiny minority (the capitalists) to control the means of production and to reap the benefits of other people's labor for themselves is the height of authoritarian behavior - the people who rightfully should control the means of production do not and instead are ruled over by tyrants who have seized control unjustly.

of course, to accept this you would need to accept the socialist argument, just like how in order to accept "socialism=economic authoritarianism" you would need to accept the capitalist argument. thus we are at an impasse. so we should just leave out whether the left or right is economically authoritarian or libertarian and instead define them in terms of the relationship between who controls the means of production and who gets the lion's share of the benefits of that production, etc.

Under corporate form free market capitalism, ownership is diffuse. Very few large economic concerns are owned by a tiny minority.

Lets talk about Fascism in the 21st century for a new topic.

Under corporate form free market capitalism, ownership is diffuse. Very few large economic concerns are owned by a tiny minority.

I think your right. We have the same sort of class distinction that we used to have in England for example during the industrial revolution. A small minority that controls the mass amount of wealth. Tha'ts where communism came in. We have the same sort of thing happened now but different. Exploitation is more profuse and widespread globaly.

I think we should get back onto topic enough about wether he is a nazi or not I think the issue at hand is Fascism in the 20th century. Shall we?That's your issue, the thread is about the site promoted. Incidently, I don't think he's a nazi. White Nationalist, yes. But that's subtly different from a nazi.

That's your issue, the thread is about the site promoted. Incidently, I don't think he's a nazi. White Nationalist, yes. But that's subtly different from a nazi.

thanks for clearing that up I was unsure of what this site was about. Yes they are different things I agree. I have a question for Amren. Why would you believe in all of that racial crap. It really has nothing to do with humans or people I think it just divides us more than unites humanity. But that's my opinion and I will respect yours as well.

Under corporate form free market capitalism, ownership is diffuse. Very few large economic concerns are owned by a tiny minority.

yeah, and that's why the richest 10% own something on the order of 75% of the total wealth (with the top 1% at around 40% of the total). don't give me that crap. if that ain't a tiny minority i don't know what is.

ownership is diffuse in that almost nobody is the sole owner of any of the big economic bodies - they just all own part of lots of them.

thanks for clearing that up I was unsure of what this site was about. Yes they are different things I agree. I have a question for Amren. Why would you believe in all of that racial crap. It really has nothing to do with humans or people I think it just divides us more than unites humanity. But that's my opinion and I will respect yours as well.I dont for fuck sake.
AHHHHHHHHHHh! (pulling my hair out!
) Geez!
I dont even know who this American resistance are? I think I hears the name Amren on Star Trek or someothing.