NationStates Jolt Archive

Actually this thread is about fasces, a symbol of Roman origin that became the emblem of fascism in the 20th century. It consists of a bundle of rods and symbolises strength through unity. It has been used by many governments throughout history since the fall of Rome to symbolise power, including adorning the backs of US dimes from 1916 to 1945 and continues to show up in the House of Representatives and Senate today as well as in monuments and the emblems of several organizations.

My question here is twofold. Why has this symbol avoided the stigma of association with fascism that the swastika attained? The very word fascism and the basic ideology are derived from this symbol whose name means bundle in Latin.

And why is it that people today who deny being fascist support the basic ideology of unity through strength? Many communists equate unity with strength and promote a sense of social unity. How can someone who says and believes things like 'as individuals we are weak but as a collective we are strong" deny being a fascist? Such statements and ideology seem to support authoritarianism, statism, collectivism, and populism and one could also argue nationalism and an opposition to economic, personal, and political liberalism.

This is what I'm talking about:
http://www.romanarmy.com/rat/images/medals/fasces.jpg

Thread does not deliver. ;)

Thread does not deliver. ;)
Disapointed in the lack of crap? They can't all be Hot Topics like seatbelt laws.

Disapointed in the lack of crap? They can't all be Hot Topics like seatbelt laws.
The title of the thread says it all. :p

Disapointed in the lack of crap? They can't all be Hot Topics like seatbelt laws.

Crap was definitely what I expected when I saw the title, but now that I've gotten over my initial disappointment, I'll venture an answer to at least your first question. One explanation that comes immediately to mind is that the Nazi swastika is associated not only with fascism (which I think most adult Americans would be hard-pressed to define and don't really care much about on its own) but with the Holocaust (which every schoolchild over a certain age knows about). That's a bit of a U.S.-centric explanation, I know, but while I've spent a fair bit of time outside the U.S. I don't feel I have the experience to say definitively whether those things are true elsewhere.

Another explanation could be something you've already alluded to: the fasces aren't just a symbol of fascism, and while they may be present in many places, they're a symbol that doesn't get a lot of press. Most wouldn't recognize them on the back of the dime, for instance. Also, I think there are a lot of people today who aren't fascists in any meaningful sense of the word, but still subscribe to some degree to the idea of strength through unity. As an example, just look at nostalgia for the "unity" of immediate post-9/11 America. I think that most, even if they were made aware of the meaning of this symbol, would just give you a blank look and say, "Hey, that's kind of neat."

My question here is twofold. Why has this symbol avoided the stigma of association with fascism that the swastika attained? The very word fascism and the basic ideology are derived from this symbol whose name means bundle in Latin.
A: Let's face it, nobody is scared of Benito Mussolini. He was an incompetent tyrant and an obvious follower on the whole fanatical anti-semitism thing. The fasces has a long history as a symbol of republican authority, i.e. the power of the people, not a dictator or emperor, so it was relatively unscathed by its appropriation by a bald-headed blowhard wimp.

And why is it that people today who deny being fascist support the basic ideology of unity through strength? Many communists equate unity with strength and promote a sense of social unity. How can someone who says and believes things like 'as individuals we are weak but as a collective we are strong" deny being a fascist? Such statements and ideology seem to support authoritarianism, statism, collectivism, and populism and one could also argue nationalism and an opposition to economic, personal, and political liberalism.
A: A group of people is much stronger than an individual. That's not idealism, it's a simple fact. People cooperate for a benefit they can't obtain individually. Sometimes the goal of the relationship is predatory, other times it isn't.

I've never heard of the symbol before.

But if you are asking for a comparison of fascism and communism: Fascism is extreme conservative, Communism is extreme liberalism. But that isn't on a line, it's on a circle. The top of the circle is moderate. If you go down the right side to the bottom you are fascist. If you go down the left side of the circle to the bottom you are communist.

The point is when you get to the bottom both extremes meet.

If you talk of symbols, the swastika is a world wide symbol; usually a "good luck" symbol. It is believed that it is the representation of a comet that appeared in a year when the weather was particularly good world-wide.

Disapointed in the lack of crap? They can't all be Hot Topics like seatbelt laws.
According to my mathematics skills at dividng, there are 12 thousand topics and 20 thousand posts. Divide twenty thousand into twelve thousand, you have an average of roughly 50 posts per topic. That's quite a hot topic on most forums.

Shit! I thought of a bundle of sticks was a faggot.

How can someone who says and believes things like 'as individuals we are weak but as a collective we are strong" deny being a fascist?

because that isn't fascism

Where's all the crap gone?

I'm an individualist. I am against nationalism, patriotism, or anything like that. I am somewhat of a leftist, but only because I believe everyone deserves a fair chance, not because I believe in "unity through strength" like some communists do.

because that isn't fascism
It certainly represents collectivsim and, to a certain extent, populism. Both are central tenets of fascism. Enforcing either upon a resistant or indifferent public would require a state with the power to enforce ideology, providing statism and militarism. Such a state may be describable as totalitarian and would certainly be authoritarian, both of which could be described as the polar opposite of liberalism. When you think about it, communism and other socialist philosophies are really just anti-corporatists variants or versions of fascism.

It's not as instantly inflammatory as the Swastika because the Fascists that used it (the Italians mainly) didn't murder 6 million+ people just because they happened to be Jewish (or, additionally, gay, cripples, gypsies, etc.), and... as another poster pointed out, nobody is scared of Mussolini, as his German counterpart's government was a bit better at conquering vast swaths of land, at least for a while.

Fascism and Communism both stress unity (since it is a fact that a bunch of people acting together is stronger than one person acting) but for different reasons and justifications.

It certainly represents collectivsim and, to a certain extent, populism. Both are central tenets of fascism.

but they are not among the most important tenets that distinguish fascism from other movements and theories. for those you want ideas like the leader is the absolute embodiment of the will of the people and must be held above any artificial restraints like law, and that violence for its own sake is good, that reason and enlightenment values are bad, and that current society is in a terrible state of decay that must be renewed and brought back to glory - preferably through violence.

without that you are just talking about the trivially obvious fact that humans are social animals and that we can accomplish much more together than by ourselves.

This thread is shitty.

For the last time, you can be fascist and still have a "communist" (read: centrally planned) economy. Fascism is a political system, communism is economic.

*poops on thread and OP for misleading title*

It certainly represents collectivsim and, to a certain extent, populism. Both are central tenets of fascism. Enforcing either upon a resistant or indifferent public would require a state with the power to enforce ideology, providing statism and militarism. Such a state may be describable as totalitarian and would certainly be authoritarian, both of which could be described as the polar opposite of liberalism. When you think about it, communism and other socialist philosophies are really just anti-corporatists variants or versions of fascism.

The rise of nihlism from the age of reason, the then rise of nationalism as a replacement for religion, and then the decline of nationalism after the defeat of Germany in WWII - Facism and Communism offered a replacement for nationalism; Facism through the 'strength of the nation' and communism through the grand vision, the utopian almost 'heaven on earth' like vision of a workers paradise.

And why is it that people today who deny being fascist support the basic ideology of unity through strength? Many communists equate unity with strength and promote a sense of social unity. How can someone who says and believes things like 'as individuals we are weak but as a collective we are strong" deny being a fascist? Such statements and ideology seem to support authoritarianism, statism, collectivism, and populism and one could also argue nationalism and an opposition to economic, personal, and political liberalism.


because people can cooperate without resorting to authoritarianism, statism, collectivism and populism. It's easy to see how people can unite without resorting to nationalism and an opposition to liberalism (because they can unite round other ideologies for instance)

because people can cooperate without resorting to authoritarianism, statism, collectivism and populism. It's easy to see how people can unite without resorting to nationalism and an opposition to liberalism (because they can unite round other ideologies for instance)

It depends, however, on whether they continue uniting or whether they turn around and start defining their group on who they exclude.

because people can cooperate without resorting to authoritarianism, statism, collectivism and populism. It's easy to see how people can unite without resorting to nationalism and an opposition to liberalism (because they can unite round other ideologies for instance)
This is true, but as I already stated in response to Free Soviets' post, it is generally not the case when the people are either opposed or indifferent to such ideals. Even though I am an individualist I can work with others to achieve a goal that I personally seek but I will at least be willing to put my needs ahead of the needs of the others. Somewhat selfish but if I perish then I cannot help anyone and cannot work to ensure the completion of objectives. Simply put, a dead hero does no one any good whereas if I'm alive I can at least continue working toward the shared goal.

but they are not among the most important tenets that distinguish fascism from other movements and theories. for those you want ideas like the leader is the absolute embodiment of the will of the people and must be held above any artificial restraints like law, and that violence for its own sake is good, that reason and enlightenment values are bad, and that current society is in a terrible state of decay that must be renewed and brought back to glory - preferably through violence.
And how was Stalin--no Lenin, not made to be the embodiment of the will of the people and the philosophy of socialism? How were the leaders of the Soviet empire not above artificial restraints like their own laws? I know that a lot of modern communists don't like to talk about the USSR and its checkered past but you can't deny history, especially the particularly violent history of what has come to represent communism to the world. When I look at one and then at the other the only differences I see are color scheme, longevity, and language. Both oppose perceived elitism, both seek a national unity and enforce the will of the state and the current head of it through force or threat of force, both seem to elevate tyrants to monarchical status, both try to control industry, both are collectivist by nature. They seem to have a lot in common.

Am I the only one who realises that it's spelled "fasces", not "feces"?

Anyways, I think more people are fascists than say they are. Most people have no idea what fascism is and what it stands for. When Ann Coulter types speak of "Islamo-Fascism", I laugh.

My question here is twofold. Why has this symbol avoided the stigma of association with fascism that the swastika attained? The very word fascism and the basic ideology are derived from this symbol whose name means bundle in Latin.
Because Nazism is worse than Fascism, and a completely different kettle of fish entirely?
And why is it that people today who deny being fascist support the basic ideology of unity through strength? Many communists equate unity with strength and promote a sense of social unity.
Because they reckon that fascism = baddie Mussolini, who so famously cracked down on communists in Italy, and hence Is A Baddie (although the communes of 1919-21 were also elitist, prejudiced, hate-filled outposts of extremism gone wrong, they also like to ignore this).
How can someone who says and believes things like 'as individuals we are weak but as a collective we are strong" deny being a fascist?
Because that might not be so much a political ideology as a philosophy on life in general, that is hardly exclusive to fascism?
Such statements and ideology seem to support authoritarianism, statism, collectivism, and populism and one could also argue nationalism and an opposition to economic, personal, and political liberalism.
It could also mean an opposition to authoritarianism (together we are stronger than those 'above us'), "statism" (as all of us are humans, thus we stick together, not bound by our state but by our humanity), collectivism (each of us, although intertwined, keeps our own properties) and populism (we, as fascists, are different from the rest).

As to nationalism, it could be a showing of a unified humanity over a nation, for a lack of economic freedoms, that were are all entities and although society may try to bind us, we prevail alone, personal liberties, that we should not be crushed by the mass of society but should flourish with it instead, and for political liberalism in that everyone, of all sorts, is kept together by their right to democracy.



The fasces is the Swiss Army Knife of symbolism. It's just oh so versatile.

Am I the only one who realises that it's spelled "fasces", not "feces"?
No :p

For the last time, you can be fascist and still have a "communist" (read: centrally planned) economy. Fascism is a political system, communism is economic.

Fascism is the means of powering a nation through nationalism, militarism, and a strong, corporate economy. Do some research before you talk.

US dimes from 1916 to 1945 and continues to show up in the House of Representatives and Senate today as well as in monuments and the emblems of several organizations.got any pictures of those?

got any pictures of those?
http://www.coincommunity.info/coin/0010/1941_mercury_dime_reverse.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/HouseofRepresentatives.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/6/65/190px-Senate_cap.PNG
http://www.destination360.com/north-america/us/washington-dc/images/s/washington-dc-lincoln-memorial-s.jpg
http://www.knightsite.org/kc4599/clremblm.gif
See? In understand that some of those went in before Fascism took over Italy but someone had to notice the dime was still getting printed with the emblem of fascism during a war against it.

Also, populism is suposed to be a philosophy of placing the interests of the common man ahead of the corrupt elite. Saying that you're better than other would be a sign of elitism rather than a dislike of it. Collectivism is idea of sacrificing personal desires and needs for the good of the whole, a rejection of individuality and I think your attempted alternative interpretation of the statist and nationalist pilars is a bit of a stretch, just grasping for straws.

The title was originally going to be Fasces but I decided to go the cheap humor route and change it to Feces.

The title was originally going to be Fasces but I decided to go the cheap humor route and change it to Feces.its OK.. sometimes people wants cheap.
.
See?yes I see, This is new for me. (I have learned something new)