NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm just curious, is there anyone else on these forums who believe in Facism (yes i know i misspelled it, my computer won't let me spell it the correct way...stupid parental filter..), besides me? I apologize if this thread has been done before, as you can see by my post count I am new to this forum.

So, does any one else chant Facism Forward! besides me?

Not me. :rolleyes:

how ironic...not allowed to say "fascism" because of something that limits freedom of speech.

The irony of someone who supports an authoritarian philosophy cursing restrictions which are imposed on them is pretty funny. If you lived in Mussolini's Italy and the internet had been invented, I daresay you would have encountered similar problems, but instead of parental controls they would have been governmental controls.

how ironic...not allowed to say " m" because of something that limits freedom of speech.

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that lol. my parents decided to put this stupid filter on my comp because they dont like my political ideas...it filters EVERYTHING, even the word g0lf lol whatever, i agree with the ideas behind facism and what it stands for.

ALL POWER TO THE STATE!!!

Can't say I have

I don't like the propagandistic, mind-control aspects of Fascism, but the rest of it is pretty damn cool. Maybe that's because I long for the days of jingoistic nationalism once more. It's hard to tell.

how ironic...not allowed to say "fascism" because of something that limits freedom of speech.
Dude, you nearly killed my computer in a shower of Dr Pepper spray.

Good thing I tilt my keyboard.

Fascism is based on propaganda and mind-control
well, if you like most to live in an authoritarian country where you have no freedoms except the one to agree with the Führer, good luck

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that lol. my parents decided to put this stupid filter on my comp because they dont like my political ideas...it filters EVERYTHING, even the word g0lf lol whatever, i agree with the ideas behind facism and what it stands for.

ALL POWER TO THE STATE!!!
i figure that people who are enamored of fascism imagine themselves wearing spiffy brown shirts and shiny boots instead of where they really would be...

writhing on the ground with that shiny boot on their neck.

i figure that people who are enamored of fascism imagine themselves wearing spiffy brown shirts and shiny boots instead of where they really would be...

writhing on the ground with that shiny boot on their neck.

*hands you a rather large cookie*

*hands you a rather large cookie*
YUM!

now thats a benefit of freedom of speech!

YUM!

now thats a benefit of freedom of speech!

And don't you forget it!

i figure that people who are enamored of fascism imagine themselves wearing spiffy brown shirts and shiny boots instead of where they really would be...

writhing on the ground with that shiny boot on their neck.

Very well put. But I figure, if you're living somewhere out-of-the-way, like my grandparents in the 30s/40s, who lived in the Deep South (lol) of Bavaria, you're not going to bothered much.

My friend claims to be an anarcho-fascist.

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that lol. my parents decided to put this stupid filter on my comp because they dont like my political ideas...it filters EVERYTHING, even the word g0lf lol whatever, i agree with the ideas behind facism and what it stands for.

ALL POWER TO THE STATE!!!

If you're not part of the state however, the state can do all kinds of stuff you don't like. For example, it can filter your internet access. Why surrender control of your life to somebody who doesn't care about it so that they can serve themselves at your expense?

This is why I dislike fascism.

Oh, and all the jews I've met have been very nice people, too. I don't see why they deserve to die or be slaves. (Excuse me if anti-semitism isn't part of your branch of facism. However, the holocaust is a perfect example of why surrendering ourselves totally to the will of the state is a stupid idea.)

My friend claims to be an anarcho-fascist.

Sounds like an impossible philosophy to me. Has he ever elaborated on it at all?

Anarcho-fascism does sound rather impossible. Control by the means of no (centralized) control.

Although I'm willing to say it might be possible, in the same way definitions are often redefined in an essay. I'd like to see a good and proper definition of anarcho-fascism that theoretically supports the ideals of both without conflict, or perhaps without great conflict.

If you're not part of the state however, the state can do all kinds of stuff you don't like. For example, it can filter your internet access. Why surrender control of your life to somebody who doesn't care about it so that they can serve themselves at your expense?

This is why I dislike m.

Oh, and all the jews I've met have been very nice people, too. I don't see why they deserve to die or be slaves. (Excuse me if anti-semitism isn't part of your branch of facism. However, the holocaust is a perfect example of why surrendering ourselves totally to the will of the state is a stupid idea.)

i understand your point...disagree, but understand. and i personally love jewish people, i haev nothing against them. i am a facist, not a follower of hitl3r. i think the best thing humanity could ever do would be to invent a way to go back in time and kil him before he gained power. i do not believe in racial superiorarity, i believe in a powerful centralized government, thats all.

You can't say fascism due to parental filters? Now that's irony squared.

...parental filter...

So, does any one else chant Facism Forward! besides me?

don't worry little guy, people develop at different rates. you'll catch up with the bigger kids eventually. you'll probably even get to date a girl someday. but only if you don't let your poor self esteem drag you down into just being a sad joke.

I'm just curious, is there anyone else on these forums who believe in Facism (yes i know i misspelled it, my computer won't let me spell it the correct way...stupid parental filter..), besides me? I apologize if this thread has been done before, as you can see by my post count I am new to this forum.

So, does any one else chant Facism Forward! besides me?
Parental filters suck, don't they? I had some when I first started surfing the web, but after only a few months, my parents were like, "Dammit, you can't do anything with these filters!" so they took 'em off. :D

Fascism kills.

And it's bad for your sperm.

My friend claims to be an anarcho-fascist.

tell your friend that that makes him sound stupid and adding 'anarcho' out front doesn't add insta-cool. nobody is buying it.

what kind of parental filter filters the word "golf" but not "anti-semitism"? that's just silly. :confused:

i figure that people who are enamored of fascism imagine themselves wearing spiffy brown shirts and shiny boots instead of where they really would be...

writhing on the ground with that shiny boot on their neck.


EXCELLENT USE OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE

Here, let me treat you with some Fascist music from the old days:

http://www.americanfascistmovement.com/music.htm

I'm just curious, is there anyone else on these forums who believe in Facism (yes i know i misspelled it, my computer won't let me spell it the correct way...stupid parental filter..), besides me? I apologize if this thread has been done before, as you can see by my post count I am new to this forum.

So, does any one else chant Facism Forward! besides me?

i'm fascist to an extent. i like there social system and government style, but i prefer communist economics(except the end goal). also, fascists would be for parental filters :p

My friend claims to be an anarcho-fascist.

My friend claims to be Jesus.

tell your friend that that makes him sound stupid and adding 'anarcho' out front doesn't add insta-cool. nobody is buying it.

He defines anarcho-fascism as "anarchism with the extreme nationalism of fascism."

My friend claims to be Jesus.

Ironically, so does mine (the same one who claims to be an 'anarcho-fascist').

No dice my friend. You can't be a nationalist for a non-existent nation. Without any bias as to how to define the anarchism (which I normally would bear in an argument about anarchy), it's free reign for everyone. There is no conglomerate group to call a nation. Sure they might all live in the same geographical area, but that's where it stops.

Ironically, so does mine (the same one who claims to be an 'anarcho-fascist').

:rolleyes: Apperently it's not that hard to sound stupid...

damn straight i'm a facist! I believe that the face is an important, wonderful thing! Love your face, facists!

I suggest we buck the two party system... the world is entirely too full of breastists and vaginists.... maybe we can hook up with the assists to get something going.

He defines anarcho-fascism as "anarchism with the extreme nationalism of fascism."

But... that still doesn't make sense. He wants a non-state collective to enjoy a national identity when the whole point of the system is to resist the formation of such loyalties.

Libertarian Baby!

The Smaller The Government The Better!

ALL POWER TO THE STATE!!!
"Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

There are quite a lot of fascists in these forums, but they prefer the more politically-correct designation "neo conservative."

There are quite a lot of fascists in these forums, but they prefer the more politically-correct designation "neo conservative."

Zing!

I'm just curious, is there anyone else on these forums who believe in Facism (yes i know i misspelled it, my computer won't let me spell it the correct way...stupid parental filter..), besides me? I apologize if this thread has been done before, as you can see by my post count I am new to this forum.

So, does any one else chant Facism Forward! besides me?

Seriously, this is the funniest post I have ever read.

Keep up the good work.

I am very nationalist, but in no means facist.

I like the idea of Monocracy because it's quicker than Democracies, and more efficient as long as there's a good Monocrat, which is rare as the only example would be Julius Caesar). Plus, the trains run on time! ;)

However, Democratic Republics (like the US) are similar enough to combine the best of Monocracies with the freedoms of Democracy. The only problems are countries like Germany and France, which are Totalitarian Democratic Republics, as they limit political speech and can ban political parties.

Fascism is a political system, which means that policies vary from one nation to another, which means the SUPPRESSION OF RIGHTS IS NOT FASCIST.. Fascism merly means a system of non-heritity based monarchy.
Every definition of fascism that I've seen includes some other things, such as engaging in corporatism for one, or the exalting of the State above the self.
That is sort of how Mussolini himself defined it, if I'm remembering correctly.

Every definition of fascism that I've seen includes some other things, such as engaging in corporatism for one, or the exalting of the State above the self.
That is sort of how Mussolini himself defined it, if I'm remembering correctly.

Most dictionaries go overcomplicate the definition on things it actually doesn't include itself, but did in 20th century dictatorships.

As you said, it was a political party in Italy, which Mussolini could define.

But it evolved into a political system, which means it's just the system of government, not really country politics.

(And also, it's a needed word. There is no noun that describes the system of Dictatorship, since Dictatorshipism isn't a word! ;))

He defines anarcho-fascism as "anarchism with the extreme nationalism of fascism."

yeah, it's a standard neo-nazi line. a few years back a couple of the neo-nazis and assorted other fascists still running around decided that since they are a complete joke, why not try to latch on to the 'cool' of anarchism by adding 'anarcho' to the front of their bullshit in a desperate attempt to draw in more losers. anarcho-fascism, national anarchism, etc. it's all just a bunch of pathetic nazis. it's kind of sad really. but being sad and pathetic still doesn't excuse being a fascist.

yeah, it's a standard neo-nazi line. a few years back a couple of the neo-nazis and assorted other fascists still running around decided that since they are a complete joke, why not try to latch on to the 'cool' of anarchism by adding 'anarcho' to the front of their bullshit in a desperate attempt to draw in more losers. anarcho-fascism, national anarchism, etc. it's all just a bunch of pathetic nazis. it's kind of sad really. but being sad and pathetic still doesn't excuse being a fascist.

It's anarcho-pathetic in fact.

I don't endorse fascism, I do support a government with strong corporate policies, such as the disbanding of anti-monopoly laws, allowing corporations to donate money to political campaigns, things of the sort...

I don't endorse fascism, I do support a government with strong corporate policies, such as the disbanding of anti-monopoly laws, allowing corporations to donate money to political campaigns, things of the sort...

I've always been fascinated by such policies, but I've never seen any strong justification for them.

Care to elaborate as to why you think that is best?

I've always been fascinated by such policies, but I've never seen any strong justification for them.

Care to elaborate as to why you think that is best? Well, the reason I'm for such policies is that they make sure that business doesn't influence politics - otherwise, the party that supported large corporations would become too powerful due to corporate aid, and companies would be influencing the government. Which would probably be bad for your average citizen.

Actually the definition of anarcho-fascist isn't completely wrong
Fascism was in fact generated by the melting of a branch of communist revolutionars leaded by Mussolini with local anarchoid-subversive factions
Fascism IS a totalitarian state by definition, because everything is regulated by the state, from the youth to the third age, in a unique political view view with no freedom of choice
Fascism is violent and rough
Fascism does not include racial superiority in an explicite way, but in some implicite ways like colonialism

and nazism is a derivation of it
Hitler copied the whole structure of his dictatorship from mussolini

Actually the definition of anarcho- t isn't completely wrong
m was in fact generated by the melting of a branch of communist revolutionars leaded by Mussolini with local anarchoid-subversive factions
m IS a totalitarian state by definition, because everything is regulated by the state, from the youth to the third age, in a unique political view view with no freedom of choice
m is violent and rough
m does not include racial superiority in an explicite way, but in some implicite ways like colonialism

and sm is a derivation of it
Hitler copied the whole structure of his dictatorship from mussolini

the last part you wrote is correct, however i need to correct you about something you wrote. Mussolini didnt lead a branch of commies, he was a Socialist for 10 years before WW1 and afterwards he, along with other WW1 veterans came together and formed a new political theory AGAINST ALL FORMS OF SOCIALISM.

as for things other people have written, totalitarian is a correct way of saying what i believe in. however, it needn't always be violent, it can be quite useful and non-violent towards its own citizens, if the correct person is in charge. im not asking you to agree, just keep an open mind, and PLEASE for the love of pete, STOP EQUATING FACISM WITH THE THIRD REICH!!!!!!!! THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! :headbang:

thank you.

don't worry little guy, people develop at different rates. you'll catch up with the bigger kids eventually. you'll probably even get to date a someday. but only if you don't let your poor self esteem drag you down into just being a sad joke.

is this really necessary? i dont think so. i came on this forum and asked a simple question, this flaming is uncalled for. and uh, wait...your the FREE SOVIETS?! i could fire this right back at you, you commie leftist wacko. so shut up and stay out of this thread if you dont like what i have to say.

You facists make the term right-wing sound like a dirty word
Facism - the direct antithesis to freedom.....

is this really necessary? i dont think so. i came on this forum and asked a simple question, this flaming is uncalled for. and uh, wait...your the FREE SOVIETS?! i could fire this right back at you, you commie leftist wacko. so shut up and stay out of this thread if you dont like what i have to say.

To be fair your only on 20 posts and look how many warnings you got already. Cool down for your own good

Peggy King, Chairperson Emeritus of the Troglodyte Coalition says yes
Tobias Dodinas says yes

I guess i am Fascist

is this really necessary? i dont think so. i came on this forum and asked a simple question, this flaming is uncalled for.

you're a fascist whining about parental controls. condescension is about the best you could hope for.

you'd prefer i just say "bash the fash", maybe?

Facism - the direct antithesis to freedom.....
^posted by super-power, i still gotta learn to do quotes all pro status...
Communism- A thousand times worse than facism could ever be...

At least facism doesn't stress that everyone is equal. Because like it or not people aren't. I'm smarter than a guy that get's all F's on his reportcard. At least academically. And a doctor means a lot more to society than a garbage man. If I had to choose between Facism and Communism. Facism would be my choice, it's slightly (just barely) more fare, especially to corporations and buisiness and stuff. Communism is basically an economy killer, and therefore, a nation killer.

Just for reference, I did used to be kind of fascist. Whereas now I'm pretty centrist because I beleive people should have lots of rights but we should still have a hard-line foreign policy... Not to mention the borders should be militarized!!! :mp5: :sniper: :gundge:

you commie leftist wacko.
That's got to be the weakest comeback I've ever heard. It's so cliche, and I think you'd fit in well with the 10-year-old mouthbreathers on Halo 2. Why don't you go burn books or something and stop bothering all of us?

FASCISTS??? WHERE???

:mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5:

the last part you wrote is correct, however i need to correct you about something you wrote. Mussolini didnt lead a branch of commies, he was a Socialist for 10 years before WW1 and afterwards he, along with other WW1 veterans came together and formed a new political theory AGAINST ALL FORMS OF SOCIALISM.

as for things other people have written, totalitarian is a correct way of saying what i believe in. however, it needn't always be violent, it can be quite useful and non-violent towards its own citizens, if the correct person is in charge. im not asking you to agree, just keep an open mind, and PLEASE for the love of pete, STOP EQUATING FACISM WITH THE THIRD REICH!!!!!!!! THEY ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS! :headbang:

thank you.

I live in Italy and here you study very well the history of those days
Mussolini was a communist in his youth, he also wrote for a communist journal
afterwards he developed another statalist theory in contradiction with the socialist one, the fascism --- and the fascist movement was formed with the help of openly anarchic and rebel groups

fascism and the third reich are NOT SO DIFFERENT: remember that Mussolini signed the Racial Laws which started the persecution of the Jews here in Italy
Both systems have a dictator called "Führer" ("Duce" is the equivalent in Italian), they have the same salute, both have an ancient religious sign as symbol (Hakenkreuz and Celtic Cross), the organization of the state is almost identical, they have even the same youth groups (Balilla and Hitlerjugend), the philosophy is almost the same, both persecuted the Jews on the territory (although when Mussolini came to power it was actually not on his agenda, but he took this decision later), both had an aggressive attitude against the other countries, both ideologies oppose to communism but also to liberism, the state rules everything, there's a heavy propaganda at any time of the day, large use of censure and falsification of facts, reclusion and execution of political enemies and dissidents in general

I'm smarter than a guy that get's all F's on his reportcard. At least academically.

Only academically. It only means that you have studied more. Maybe you can consider yourself smarter in the way that you are not so stupid to go write an exam without having studied. :P



And a doctor means a lot more to society than a garbage man.
Does this mean that the people who have the money to study medicin are more important than people who are poor and have to do the garbage men?

Does this mean that the people who have the money to study medicin are more important than people who are poor and have to do the garbage men?

Only if your Liberal.

If your Republican, you'll say that financial aid from elminates this from happening. ;)

(And also, it's a needed word. There is no noun that describes the system of Dictatorship, since Dictatorshipism isn't a word! ;))

'Despotism'?

If your Republican, you'll say that financial aid from elminates this from happening. ;)

I know that Republicans seldom make sense to me, but this is going to far...

FASCISTS??? WHERE???

:mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5:

Whoa, cool it, Gramps. Easy, there.

Yanis said: Only academically. It only means that you have studied more. Maybe you can consider yourself smarter in the way that you are not so stupid to go write an exam without having studied. :P

Actually I never study, I guess I just remember things well... and it was a history exam, and I aced it.. muahahah.. I looove history. lol

Yanis again: Does this mean that the people who have the money to study medicin are more important than the people who are poor and have to do the garbage men?

Well, I would hope poor people don't "do" the garbage men. Haha.. sorry. But No, I think the JOB is more important. If everyone was on equal footing, and they both had equal money, but one didn't have the intelligence to do anything more than manual work, and the other guy is super intelligent and becomes a doctor, he's more important to society. Although that not-too-smart guy could still be a better person and all that. I think a doctor is more important than a garbage man, because ANYONE from any social level and with any intelligence and any amount of money COULD be a garbage person. But ONLY a person with a really big brain (not pyhisically of course, I've seen people take things waaay to seriously in these threads) could be a doctor. It doesn't even necesarilly involve money. I mean, the doctor could have been poor but he was really good at school so he got scholorships.

Oh, and I like how this in the "Fascist" thread. hahahah

Whoa, cool it, Gramps. Easy, there.

Roach Busters :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

If everyone was on equal footing, and they both had equal money, but one didn't have the intelligence to do anything more than manual work, and the other guy is super intelligent and becomes a doctor, he's more important to society. Although that not-too-smart guy could still be a better person and all that.

If everyone was on equal footing, and they both had equal money, but one didn't have the strength to do anything more than sedentary work, and the other guy is super strong and becomes a garbage man, he's more important to society. Although that not-too-strong guy could still be a better person and all that.

If I had to choose between Facism and Communism. Facism would be my choice, it's slightly (just barely) more fare, especially to corporations and buisiness and stuff. Communism is basically an economy killer, and therefore, a nation killer.
Facism fairer to corporations than communism/totalitarian socalism? Both want to subjugate business under government rule as far as I'm concerned.
Give me liberty, or give me death!
-Patrick Henry

Roach Busters :mp5: :sniper: :mp5: :sniper:

Somebody call the funny farm, Gramps has just gone off the deep end! :eek:

hehe excuse me for my English

Ok, a doctor is socially more considered than a garbage man, but consider this: in every job, there is some aspect which can actually be studied. Thinking about it, we could probably "build" a complete 3-year degree-plan fit for a garbage man. It maybe sound weird to you now, but if you think about it it's quite possible, and it would "enrich" the job of the garbage man extending his competences and knowledge. For example he could learn to repair the garbage-machine, learn how to optimize several aspects of his job, including administrative etc. The solution to the problem is to transform every job into a qualified job. And of course public colleges.
It's not easy and needs a lot of work on it, but it wouldn't necessarily be a failure.
The error of the communism is that although the good intents of the ideology, it has become almost everywhere another form of totalitarian psychotic regime like many others, submitting the people instead of making them equal. It was a complete failure, and that's why we leftist are so deluded, angry and a little frustrated by communism in history: it could have been the best thing ever for mankind, and it has become one of the worst

maybe in a far future...

Monarcho-Platonic Fascist, myself.

Which is (in case you hadn't already guessed) pretty much a more bizarre and rigid form of fascism with all the necessary information inherent in the name.

Hi NAS!

Good to see im not the only Fascist on this Forum who comes here and pisses off all of these communists and Liberals here!

Im not going to debate Fascism here today because I have done this before and it doesnt matter what you say they arent going to listen.
Fascism needs re-packaging. This meaning giving Fascism a new name.

I hope to hear from you NAS and perhaps you can come and join my Region!

Fascism needs re-packaging. This meaning giving Fascism a new name. How about "Unitarianism"? The word Fascism originally came from the Roman Fasces, which was the symbol of unity… "Unitarianism" is quite good, actually. I'm proud to have made it up. :)

No, I'm not a fascist.
But government should be more powerful than business.

"How about "Unitarianism"? The word Fascism originally came from the Roman Fasces, which was the symbol of unity… "Unitarianism" is quite good, actually. I'm proud to have made it up."


Be proud of nothing...unitarianism is the Christain belief against the concept of the trinity. It is a term that has been around for thousands of years, used as early as 325AD at the council of Nicaea.

I'm an authoritarian with a fascist leaning, and what disappoints me the most is when i continuously see young, angry teenagers (that do in fact suffer from low self-esteem) jump on the fascist band-wagon, pervert its ideals and claim them to be a true representation of fascism.

Here's a question: why do so many 'fascists' feel inclined to distance themselves from Nazi Germany? Why do they claim to prefer Fascist Italy? This was a country that was close to a depression during the late thirties and lost the North African front as fast as the French lost their own soil!

And now i hear people saying "we should rename fascism', but what would this achieve? Do these people seriously consider the current power-brokers in society to be so stupid as to not recognise such a ploy?

NAS Rebels said a little earlier: "however, it needn't always be violent"

What wasn't violent about the Night of Long Knives, Mussolini's rise to power or any other fascist state for that reason? Violence is inherent within any fascist ideology...whether it be a 'survival of the fittest' foreign policy or the initial seizure of power. Fascism and democracy are incompatable. Yes, Hitler was elected into office by democratic means, however, this wasn't how he took power. The Enabling Act 1933 was only possible through using violence and intimidation.

After all this ranting and raving, why do i subscribe to fascism? Simply because I do not believe every individual has the capacity to make a rational decision concerning the workings of their government. This is a very simple pre-text however i believe my post has already gone on long enough...

Scyld']"How about "Unitarianism"? The word Fascism originally came from the Roman Fasces, which was the symbol of unity… "Unitarianism" is quite good, actually. I'm proud to have made it up."


Be proud of nothing...unitarianism is the Christain belief against the concept of the trinity. It is a term that has been around for thousands of years, used as early as 325AD at the council of Nicaea. Argh… I remembered that just after posting… complete idiot that I am. I keep thinking of Unitarianism as Utilitarianism though. :rolleyes: Idiot me.

Although you admit a fascist leaning, you don't sound particularly fascist… authoritatian yes, but not displaying all the signs of fascism.

After all this ranting and raving, why do i subscribe to fascism? Simply because I do not believe every individual has the capacity to make a rational decision concerning the workings of their government. This is a very simple pre-text however i believe my post has already gone on long enough...

hum

yeah i do agree in some points...
there are way too many people who just don't know who they are electing or why...
but still from my point of view the worst democracy is better than the best dictatorship...


i live in austria, central europe, where the average education is quite high..
so i believe in the intelligence and knowledge of my countrymen, although they misused it for quite some time now...


we got elections in a year or maybe sooner (the government is unwanted right now) and my favourised party will win..
so..

as a fazit:
the democracy is only usefull, if the people are educated enough to be sure of their choice and don't just elect those partys that got the coolest advertisements...

After all this ranting and raving, why do i subscribe to fascism? Simply because I do not believe every individual has the capacity to make a rational decision concerning the workings of their government. This is a very simple pre-text however i believe my post has already gone on long enough...

So why for fascism? Take your average democracy, add a system of selective suffrage to filter out the incompetent, and voila, problem solved.

hehe excuse me for my English

Ok, a doctor is socially more considered than a garbage man, but consider this: in every job, there is some aspect which can actually be studied. Thinking about it, we could probably "build" a complete 3-year degree-plan fit for a garbage man. It maybe sound weird to you now, but if you think about it it's quite possible, and it would "enrich" the job of the garbage man extending his competences and knowledge. For example he could learn to repair the garbage-machine, learn how to optimize several aspects of his job, including administrative etc. The solution to the problem is to transform every job into a qualified job. And of course public colleges.
It's not easy and needs a lot of work on it, but it wouldn't necessarily be a failure.
The error of the communism is that although the good intents of the ideology, it has become almost everywhere another form of totalitarian psychotic regime like many others, submitting the people instead of making them equal. It was a complete failure, and that's why we leftist are so deluded, angry and a little frustrated by communism in history: it could have been the best thing ever for mankind, and it has become one of the worst

maybe in a far future...
the english is very good, not exactly right but easily understood. im impressed that you can express such complicated ideas in a second language


imagine for a minute if the garbage men went on strike.....

as the city filled up with trash, everyone would understand just how socially important the job of trash collection is.

it is not a glamourous job but its one of the most important jobs in any city.


arent there some cities in italy with well run communist governements?

Baring uprisings, fascism is one of the best ways for a state to protect itself.

"Although you admit a fascist leaning, you don't sound particularly fascist… authoritatian yes, but not displaying all the signs of fascism."
- Liskeinland

Why? Because I'm not idiotic enough to be foaming at the mouth and calling for blood or some misconceived notion of power and authority? The problem that facsists encounter is that they are unable to appeal to a wider audience generally due to a lack of education and information. They all read the first 20 pages of 'Mein Kampf', believe they have a solid understanding of authoritarianism, and call for Jewish blood!

I hear alot of people whinging that they won't bother to argue for fascism to this audience because the communists 'just won't listen.'
Well I'm a fascist and i can't stand listening to all of you! Any fascist with a sound understanding of the very ideology they are purporting should have no trouble rationalising their theory with a communist. The fundamental difference between fascists and communists is the notion of how human society can be divided. Communists believe humans can be divided according to their class, fascists believe society can be divided according to their nation and in come circumstances, their race. Break down this notion of class division and you have a conversion.

-----------

So why for fascism? Take your average democracy, add a system of selective suffrage to filter out the incompetent, and voila, problem solved.
- Crimson Sith

the democracy is only usefull, if the people are educated enough to be sure of their choice and don't just elect those partys that got the coolest advertisements...
- Friona


@ Crimson Sith. I totally agree with you, selective suffrage could be perceived as an option. However, the concept of selective suffrage has already been tested...my country Australia is a wonderful example. When our Constitution was written, the indigenous population was excluded from obtaining voting rights. The fundamental theory behind this was that Aboriginies did not have the capacity to cast a rational vote due to the belief they were inferior to the White Australians. This is selective suffrage...the same example could be seen in the denial of female suffrage.

Selective suffrage has already been overthrow due to the fundamental belief underpinning democracy: that everyone is equal. This is the hurdle that the concept of selective suffrage encounters, introduce and there would be a civil war. Its either all the way or don't even bother! Furthermore Crimson Sith, fascism is a form of selective suffrage...it introduces a governmental heirachy under which only the most competant may advance and claim any degree of power and authority.

@ Friona...i agree with you. Democracy provides the perfect environment for a political circus. It is entirely a popularity contest in which the politicians are very rarely held accountable.

i was wondering how long it would take for someone to say that lol. my parents decided to put this stupid filter on my comp because they dont like my political ideas...it filters EVERYTHING, even the word g0lf lol whatever, i agree with the ideas behind facism and what it stands for.

ALL POWER TO THE STATE!!!

While other teenagers are playing air guitar or singing into a hairbrush do you practice goosestepping in front of a mirror and invading your parent's bedroom :rolleyes:

@ Crimson Sith. I totally agree with you, selective suffrage could be perceived as an option. However, the concept of selective suffrage has already been tested...my country Australia is a wonderful example. When our Constitution was written, the indigenous population was excluded from obtaining voting rights. The fundamental theory behind this was that Aboriginies did not have the capacity to cast a rational vote due to the belief they were inferior to the White Australians. This is selective suffrage...the same example could be seen in the denial of female suffrage.

This is not what I'm suggesting at all. For selective suffrage to be feasable, it would have to be through a system which is readily available to all citizens. Perhaps the successful completion of a basic political education/current events course, coupled with a record of active community service would suffice to gain a citizen the right to vote. In this way, citizens make a conscious choice on whether to participate in the political process or not. The right to suffrage is still there for all to take advantage of, but one has to make an active effort to attain it. This would surely eliminate the problem of the uninformed, incompetent, and apathetic voting for the future governing body of their nation. And it is ultimately I think a system which would be accepted by the citizens of any nation. Just as much as a democracy needs a system of responsible government to be effective, so too does it need a responsible citizenry. I truly believe that selective, or as we like to call, Meritocratic suffrage, is the future of the modern democratic system of governance.

@ Friona...i agree with you. Democracy provides the perfect environment for a political circus. It is entirely a popularity contest in which the politicians are very rarely held accountable.

i did not exactly say so... but you are right if you assume that the electors are dumb enough to not notice the indemocratical plan...

in my homeland, we often come together and critizise the futile, popularistic plans of our politicians...
the only problem is, that over all that popularistical plans, the real programm of the party gets lost...
those who want to inform themselves about their favoured party have to go to their homepage... in public the partys just talk about useless nonsense..

sTILL i do more prefere to choose a party than to get forced to live under a reign of one...
because democracy means chances for everyone.. here in austria every party ruled once, and soon there will be another change.. so if one party just produces debts, another party gets the high seat and trys anotherway.
in a fascist country one party would rule on till revolution or the total downfall of the nation...

Now one must admit Mussolini's "Corporate Fascism" was 100's of times better than Nazism.

Mussolini's Italy was Fascism without Racism. It was economically focused and admittedly super nationalist (Italy shall return to the glory of the Roman Empire, and all lands washed by the Meditteranean shall be our empire....)

What this guys problem is, is his belief that if the U.S. were to go Fascist, He would personally agree with what the state did 100% of the time, and also believe what the state believed 100% of the time.

Let's give this guy what he wants for two seconds, and say the State bans internet use by citizens. immediately the jackass will find himself in two positions: first, in regret that he supported such fascism and second, in the position of not being able to do anything about it.

My friend claims to be an anarcho-fascist.
That's impossible....

@ Crimson Sith

What you're proposing isn't democratic at all. The underlying, fundamental tenet of democracy is equality for all. Ensuring that everyone must pass a test (that obviously the government would set) isn't democratic. It isn't even close to it. Libertarians would have a field day with it! But it would be more effective! It would be more efficient! However, democracy stands in the way and tells us that ensuring that everyone has the right to vote (regardless of their capacity of ability) is better than having a more efficient and effective society.

@ Friona

No, that is exactly what you said. I just put it into different words, but did not change the meaning. Democratic elections are a circus, they are a popularity contest.

"so if one party just produces debts, another party gets the high seat and trys anotherway"

So all that you're telling me is that one party will bride electors in order to win an election, send the government into a massive debt, another party will win election promising to eliminate that debt, then come re-election, bride the electors to the extent that they fall into debt again. And this is meant to be worthwhile? All so that we, as a society, can have our wet dreams every four years of actually making a difference?

"Now one must admit Mussolini's "Corporate Fascism" was 100's of times better than Nazism." - Vatican City2008

How do you come to that conclusion? Do you really think Mussolini cared about corporations? Or were they simply a tool to ensure he gained and remained in power until he could nationalise them? Let's not forget the strength of the Italian army during WW2...they lost the African front in a matter of days...

Scyld']
After all this ranting and raving, why do i subscribe to fascism? Simply because I do not believe every individual has the capacity to make a rational decision concerning the workings of their government. This is a very simple pre-text however i believe my post has already gone on long enough...

I understand your justification for facism. Indeed, there are plenty of people in the public who might vote for an unsuitable leader or unsuitable governmental measures. However, by taking away democracy, how do we know that the person who seizes power un-democratically is going to be able to make the rational decisions regarding government (or indeed the entire nation if they're operating in a totalitarian way)?

With democracy, there is a fair likelyhood that public opinion will sway towards an appropriate leader, but without it there is none, because public opinion doesn't play a part in it. In an undemocratic system like fascism or communism, what's to stop the village idiot (or the psychotic person-butcher) from climbing up the political structure and seizing control?

Scyld']However, democracy stands in the way and tells us that ensuring that everyone has the right to vote (regardless of their capacity of ability) is better than having a more efficient and effective society.


But how do we know that the person judging capacity or ability has himself got sufficient mental capacity? And what if the person judging decided that only people who were likely to vote for him had suitable mental capacity?

You are wrong. There is a huge element of public support involved with fascism. Every fascist revolution has been a result of mass public support for the purported leader. You want an example of a democratic decision that produced the village idiot? ...how about George Bush? I support the conservatives in the US, but this guy is an abomination!

Now lets look at the situation realistically. It could only take a mastermind, a genuis to be able to take government in the western world with a fascist regime given the extent of anti-fascist propaganda that has been thrown into society these days. However, if someone did, they would most likely follow the fascist heirachy, that being, that the leader appoints new leaders provided that they have proved themselves capable, efficient etc. It works in the same manner as the military (to use an appropriate example). One must earn a position of authority...

Even with democracy, how can we be sure that an unsuitable leader wouldn't get elected? As everyone is aware, money wins elections...not votes.

hehehehehe scyld you are definately on the wrong forum ^^

link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8994532&posted=1#post8994532


soooooo i did not say that they are bribing the electors, thats not possible, there are way too many :D

i also did not say, that every party is in government, because they want to be in government... its exactly the other way round..
our politicians are very potent (in the meaning of able), the government that is now in the high seat for instance changed a lot... they sold all fabrics and institutes that belonged to the state to ensure a private market..

PLUS i did NOT say, that they all produce debts, goddammnit, i just said, that IF THEY PRODUCED some, we were able to kick them out

something that is definately NOT POSSIBLE in a fascist country


at the guy above who talked about mussolini as a saint:

you know what he did to the lardiner?

Scyld']@ Crimson Sith

What you're proposing isn't democratic at all. The underlying, fundamental tenet of democracy is equality for all. Ensuring that everyone must pass a test (that obviously the government would set) isn't democratic. It isn't even close to it. Libertarians would have a field day with it! But it would be more effective! It would be more efficient! However, democracy stands in the way and tells us that ensuring that everyone has the right to vote (regardless of their capacity of ability) is better than having a more efficient and effective society.

By this definition, modern democracy isn't democratic either, because since no one under the age of 18 may cast a vote, all those under 18 are not equal to those over 18.

'Despotism'?

I found one!: "Monocracy". Despotism describes a tyrant, so that term can't be used. ;)

god i really wish there werent

Fascism isn't cool kids.


Anarcho-Communism for meeeee!

http://www.prole.info/introduction/intro_0.html

I found one!: "Monocracy". Despotism describes a tyrant, so that term can't be used. ;) I think you mean Autocracy, which is slightly different literally - "rule of me".

I think you mean Autocracy, which is slightly different literally - "rule of me".

For which part of my post? :confused:

Fascism isn't cool kids.


Anarcho-Communism for meeeee!

http://www.prole.info/introduction/intro_0.html

no....just....no..

Scyld']
However, if someone did, they would most likely follow the fascist heirachy, that being, that the leader appoints new leaders provided that they have proved themselves capable, efficient etc.


That's where nepotism and the like starts to happen. If the leader has a choice regarding his successor, he's bound to chose a close friend of his or a member of his family. Hereditary rulers are often terrible. Just because you're the chum or offspring of someone who was a good leader and is now dead, it doesn't mean that you know the first thing about governing a country.

For which part of my post? :confused: You suggested "monocracy"; I was voicing the opinion that "autocracy" was possibly the correct term. :)

Fascism isn't cool kids.


Anarcho-Communism for meeeee!

http://www.prole.info/introduction/intro_0.html

How is what this presentation is suggesting any different to run-of-the-mill communism? This is the perfect example of what New Soviets was talking about. The presentation is just the rehashing of bog standard communist philosophy with an added anarcho. How silly.

(Excuse my slight sidetrack)

Fun fact: the salute (strait arm up) of the fascists was used in Ancient Rome and portrayed in the statue of Marcus Aurelius which stands on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.

Fair warning: This is really long!
This comes from what is considered to be the most carefully constructed single statement of fascist doctrine written in 1932 for the Enciclopedia Italiana by Giavanni Gentile, an early supporter of fascism.

"It [fascism] is opposed to classical liberalism which arose as a reaction to absolutism and exhauseted its historical function when the State became the expression of the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual...The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State - a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values - interprets, develops, and potentiates the whole life of a people.
....First of all, as regards the future development of mankind-and quite apart from present political considerations-Fascism does not, generally speaking, believe in the possibility or utility of perpetual peace. It therefore discards pacificism as a cloak for cowardly supine renunciation in contradistinction to self-sacrifice. War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it....
Fascism denies the materialistic conception of happiness.... This means that Fascism denies the equation: well being=happiness, which sees in men mere animals, content when they can feed and fatten......
After socialism, Fascism trains its guns on the whole block of democratic ideologies, and rejects both their premises and their practical applications and implements. Fascism denies that numbers, as such, can be the determining factor in human society; it denies the right of numbers to govern by means of periodic consultations; it asserts the irremediable and fertile and beneficient inequality of men who cannot be leveled by any such mechanical and extrinsic device as universal suffrage.
....The State, as conceived and realized by Fascism, is a spiritual and ethical entity for securing the political, juridicial, and economic organization of the nation, an organization which in its origin and growth is a manifestation of the spirit. The State guarantees the internal and external safety of the country, but it also safeguards and transmits the spirit of the people, elaborated down the ages in its language, its customs, its faith. The State is not only the present, it is also the past and above all the furture. Transcending the individual's brief spell of life, the Stated stands for the immanent conscience of the nation."

This notion of the State over the individual and the fixation on strife is just a little sample of why I have issues with fascism.

You suggested "monocracy"; I was voicing the opinion that "autocracy" was possibly the correct term. :)

Monocracy means the same thing, actually:

mo·noc·ra·cy

Government or rule by a single person; autocracy.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Fun fact: the salute (strait arm up) of the fascists was used in Ancient Rome and portrayed in the statue of Marcus Aurelius which stands on the Capitoline Hill in Rome.

huh of course it wasn't invented by the national socialists, even their "art" and "architecture" are pure fake...

it (the salute) actually means "My Power To You"
and Ceasar (lateron Hitler) held his arm up to catch it....