NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is my first thread here on general so I'm not sure if this has been done/overdone/whatever but I think I will make my first thread something that has been on my mind a bit lately. Before i start I want to make something quite clear:

I am NOT Fascist
I am NOT Antifascist

Well, now that is out the way. My point: I been thinking about how things like Antifa are always going on about how it is "bad" and should be "Outlawed" How an end should be put to it and everything but has any of them considered that in doing that they would be removing people's right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion? Something which they claim to be for.
Does it not strike people as being slightly hypocritical?

I mean, say if, for example, they actually manage to get rid of fascism once and for all, will they stop there? Will they take their victory and have done with it? No, I think not. People don't work that way. What they will do is go after the guy who has differing views to them. And pretty soon they will persecute everyone who does not share their same views on what a perfect system would be like and say they et in power, how will they maintain their views? By propaganda. By Force. By using those very tactics they claim to hate so much.

People, it is a vicious circle that applies for many things after all, how far is someone willing to go? Once they get their first taste of victory they will want more, that is human nature, the cycle will continue.

Responses?

EDIT: I realize this sounds bias, but whatever, I'll argue the opposite if you want me to xD

It's all nice and happy to say things like "I do not oppose fascism even though I don't like it", but eventually, you have to draw a line, right? Arguing in favour of fascism, even in the devil's advocate sort of way, strikes me as being a fundamental failure. That whole "your freedom to punch ends at the tip of my nose" kind of thing. Hanging back and giving people leave to be fascist is just enabling eventual oppression of SOMEBODY.

Ok, this is my first thread here on general so I'm not sure if this has been done/overdone/whatever
You haven't used a gun smiley. That's good news.

-snip-
Sounds like you're talking about something rather like the 'No Platform for Fascists' that the NUS (National union of Students) has against the BNP (British National Party), in the name of anti-fascism. I can't say I care for it; as well intended as they are, I doubt that motions at the NUS national conference, demonstrations outside Dagenham town hall or leaking BNP membership lists will do anything to stop people from voting for the BNP and gives them anti-establishment/populist credibility. To oppose something you don't have to ban it.

That's not to say that far-right groups ought to be given political equality with mainstream politicians, giving the BNP a seat on the panel of Question Time would be as silly as giving one to the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist), and when Oxford University invited a spokesperson for the BNP to take part in a debate there on free speech they were being outrageously silly and attention-seeking.

Ultimately the only way to stop these far right groups is to work out why people are voting for them in the first place. People don't become racist, homophobic or anti-semetic overnight, although I guess they are always going to exist. My gut feeling is that many people who vote for these groups do so because they want to vent fustration at the political process as a whole, and would have gone to the other end of the political spectrum to do so a generation ago. Make with that what you will.

Why's it been on your mind?

nothing but a bunch of kids trying to be cool/hard/whatever

the difference is they are uni students and in all probability will get their arses handed to them by someone who eats food *nods*

Ok, this is my first thread here on general

*offers coffee and makes you sit in the waiting room before your interview starts*

*Takes coffee looking slightly confused*

Anyways... For why people vote for them, I think it's perhaps the ideas of strength that such groups/parties portray, the appeal to peoples patriotism (Which as I know can be a strong driving force) ad such ideas would appeal to a certain mind set.

As for why it's been on my mind... I have no idea why, it just has

(And no gun smilies from me, I come from II forums, ad they don't like them there either. Besides Even if they did, I think their stupid- the smilies)

The most effective way to oppose a point of view is to drag it into the open and force it to compete in the Marketplace of Ideas. Banning or oppressing ANY point of view only makes it stronger.

Ok, this is my first thread here on general so I'm not sure if this has been done/overdone/whatever but I think I will make my first thread something that has been on my mind a bit lately. Before i start I want to make something quite clear:

I am NOT Fascist
I am NOT Antifascist

Well, now that is out the way. My point: I been thinking about how things like Antifa are always going on about how it is "bad" and should be "Outlawed" How an end should be put to it and everything but has any of them considered that in doing that they would be removing people's right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion? Something which they claim to be for.
Does it not strike people as being slightly hypocritical?
Not particularly, in and of itself. I think it is unrealistic to think that an idea can be eliminated by stifling it. Fascists found that out, and so will those who oppose fascism. And although I believe that people have a right to express their opinions, it is a fact that not every idea/expression is of equal value.

As another poster pointed out, any tolerance of fascism is a tolerance for either active oppression of someone or calls for oppression of someone. That is inescapable, because fascism cannot exist without an "us vs them" mentality that requires a designated scapegoat against which to focus its followers to the desired level of conformity.

Fascism is a pernicious social/political system, and as such it deserves no more tolerance than an illegal enterprise would. Someone mentioned a particular UK university group's policy against the BNP. As someone outside the UK, I am not fully familiar with the BNP, but it is my understanding that they are not just a party that is founded on a certain political philosophy. They are, apparently, advocates for discrimination and have been linked to racial and xenophobic violence in some instances. From what I have heard of them, they seem to stray across the line between political party and street gang, similar to fascist groups in other countries as well, including the US. Nobody who breaks the law and engages in and/or advocates violence deserves to put themselves on the same podium as legitimate political organizations just because they claim to be a party as well as a gang of thugs.

I mean, say if, for example, they actually manage to get rid of fascism once and for all, will they stop there? Will they take their victory and have done with it? No, I think not. People don't work that way. What they will do is go after the guy who has differing views to them. And pretty soon they will persecute everyone who does not share their same views on what a perfect system would be like and say they et in power, how will they maintain their views? By propaganda. By Force. By using those very tactics they claim to hate so much.
Slippery slope fallacy = failed argument. Unless you can:

A) Identify who you are talking about;

B) Show a historical pattern of those people doing what you describe; and

C) Present any evidence that suggests they are using the tactics you claim now;

then your predictions are based on nothing.

People, it is a vicious circle that applies for many things after all, how far is someone willing to go? Once they get their first taste of victory they will want more, that is human nature, the cycle will continue.

Responses?
My initial response is that your supposedly neutral argument seems to feel rather pointedly pro-fascism.

I base that on the fact that you do not identify any particular group who are being oppressed by any other group, but you do paint an alarming image of a rising tide of rights-destroying "somebodies" who are only just beginning with the poor little fascists because they are cheap targets, but who will be coming for us next. Oh, dear! :eek2:

Sorry, but like I said, I know of no fascist group that does not break the law -- and I mean laws against assault and incitement to violence, not just laws against being a nazi where those exist -- and I just do not feel that my rights are threatened if a few criminals find their liberties slightly curtailed in a general way.

The most effective way to oppose a point of view is to drag it into the open and force it to compete in the Marketplace of Ideas. Banning or oppressing ANY point of view only makes it stronger.
I agree in principle. However, it has been my experience that many times when people complain that they are being shut up, what they really mean is that their ideas are being met with hostility. I live in the US where the First Amendment protection of free speech guarantees that the government will not stop us from expressing our ideas, but it does not guarantee that we will be listened to or that there will be no consequences in the form of public reaction to our speech. Also, it does not protect "illegal" speech, such as calls for violence against any particular group. Fascists, racists, and other intolerant groups have had their right to speak publicly protected in the US, but that does not make it easy for them to do so, because other citizens have the same right to express their opposition to those ideas, as well as a right to refuse to listen to them. Since the public cannot force people to listen to fascists any more than it can force fascists to keep silent, then if a private group, like a university, refuses a forum to fascists, that's kind of tough for the fascists. They'll have to find another venue for their ideas.

Hey, I hope people don't get the wrong idea of me from this, It's just a little something that's been on my mind that's all.

I'm just saying that people have the rights to their own opinions even if said opinions are not those shared by or supported by the majority. This whole thing being said, Anti-fascism cannot be put down based on the same facts given to the opposite stance.

And Illegal activities on both sides (because both have done their fair share of fighting) is not being endorsed, the law should be put above opinions and both sides should treated in the same way no matter who the aggressor is.

The most effective way to oppose a point of view is to drag it into the open and force it to compete in the Marketplace of Ideas. Banning or oppressing ANY point of view only makes it stronger.
... yeah or not. This is not a rational ideology.

If a fascist and an antifascist meet do they explode in a cloud of pure energy? How many fascists by volume can one antifascist explode?

If a fascist and an antifascist meet do they explode in a cloud of pure energy? How many fascists by volume can one antifascist explode?

Oh damn, a maths question, There goes my ability to answer xD

EDIT: OMG, I just realized I been accused of being bias by someone! Want me to argue the other side to level it out somewhat?

... yeah or not. This is not a rational ideology.

What of it? Very few ideologies are rational.

What of it? Very few ideologies are rational.
What of it?

"Bugger *insert race here*"
"What all of them? What've they done to you?"
"They control the banks/corner shops/record industry/etc."
"That's as maybe but doesn't that mean kicking them out would annihilate sector x?"
"No, up yours race traitor"
"You are a pleb with no decorum, fuck you right back"

*Takes coffee looking slightly confused*

nsg = tea party club

would you like some scones?

Anyways... For why people vote for them, I think it's perhaps the ideas of strength that such groups/parties portray, the appeal to peoples patriotism (Which as I know can be a strong driving force) ad such ideas would appeal to a certain mind set.

nah people are just fed up with politics and the way things are going so they vote whatever nut jobs promise to take their problems away (along with the nice security that its not your fault)

As someone outside the UK, I am not fully familiar with the BNP, but it is my understanding that they are not just a party that is founded on a certain political philosophy. They are, apparently, advocates for discrimination and have been linked to racial and xenophobic violence in some instances.

there is a link but its not officially endorsed by the party and I wouldn't really call them outright fascists (I have no idea why but they don't seem very dictatorial)

What of it?

"Bugger *class here*"
"What all of them? What've they done to you?"
"They control the banks/Gypsy camps/dole industry/etc."
"That's as maybe but doesn't that mean lining them up and shooting them would annihilate sector x?"
"No, up yours class traitor"
"You are a pleb with no decorum, fuck you right back"

look at me I just explained British politics :p

look at me I just explained British politics :p
Congratulations, I signed you up to the Young Conservatives :D

Scones would be lovely xD

Anyways, I have a random out of the blue question. Who here would not, given the chance, be a dictator?

I mean seriously, think about it; what do you HATE, what kind off people piss you off something dreadful (rhetorical question) If you think about it most people are incredibly intolerant, I was talking to someone today who is basically the whole "hippy, save the planet, world peace" thing and they said that if they were in charge they would ban this that and the other and then i mentioned dictatorship and they were like "It does sound like that..."
So yea... I have no idea where that just went but whatever

EDIT: *Hates late posts*

Anyways, I have a random out of the blue question. Who here would not, given the chance, be a dictator?
Almost everyone on this forum comes from a game which gives you 100% executive control of a country even if you make it "democratic". That's a silly question :tongue:

Congratulations, I signed you up to the Young Conservatives :D

old bean I live in the midlands where everything remotely female is conservative one way or another :p

*has wild barn rave*

Scones would be lovely xD

what is politics other than an excuse to travel around the world having tea with strangers?

Anyways, I have a random out of the blue question. Who here would not, given the chance, be a dictator?

nah I'm a bit too lazy for that

Almost everyone on this forum comes from a game which gives you 100% executive control of a country even if you make it "democratic". That's a silly question :tongue:

answering the same issues over and over again for no reason at all?

old bean I live in the midlands where everything remotely female is conservative one way or another
Remind me not to court in the Midlands...

what is politics other than an excuse to travel around the world having tea with strangers?

That's all it is really *nods*


answering the same issues over and over again for no reason at all?

Speaking as a RPer It's far more than that, and while my nation is a dictatorship, it is like that because I made it that way. If I made made it a democracy it would only be that way 'cos that's how I made it, same if it was communist, socialist or anything else for that matter. So that still proves that no matter what you chose it is still that way because you made it so.

Oh damn, a maths question, There goes my ability to answer xD

EDIT: OMG, I just realized I been accused of being bias by someone! Want me to argue the other side to level it out somewhat?
If you're talking about me, I said that your argument seemed less than neutral. I did not say that you were biased, only that your argument appeared to be so as written.

there is a link but its not officially endorsed by the party and I wouldn't really call them outright fascists (I have no idea why but they don't seem very dictatorial)
Again, going by just what I hear of them, they strike me as being similar to white power groups and anti-immigrant groups in the US, who like to wrap themselves up in fascist-like regalia and claims, but who are really not fascists -- just bigots.

Scones would be lovely xD

Anyways, I have a random out of the blue question. Who here would not, given the chance, be a dictator?
*raises hand* Neither slave nor master for me, thanks. Being a dictator is nothing but work, day and night. Screw that.

Remind me not to court in the Midlands...

conservatives have big tits *nods*

Speaking as a RPer

couldn't you just say "well my nation is actually a anarcho-primitivist feifdom" though? I've never understood the emphasis on what your nation page says (in a completely friendly pondering way)

but really what I was getting at is being a national leader really is just answering the same issues over and over until your tax rate is 100+% much like real life with labour

Again, going by just what I hear of them, they strike me as being similar to white power groups and anti-immigrant groups in the US, who like to wrap themselves up in fascist-like regalia and claims, but who are really not fascists -- just bigots.

I wouldn't go that far though some of them are just idiots and follow the BNP because they agree with some of the issues (any wonder why the conservative party is losing members to it)

same reason I vote green despite not being a dirty welfare scrounger nor crypto-Bolshevist

That's all it is really *nods*



Speaking as a RPer It's far more than that, and while my nation is a dictatorship, it is like that because I made it that way. If I made made it a democracy it would only be that way 'cos that's how I made it, same if it was communist, socialist or anything else for that matter. So that still proves that no matter what you chose it is still that way because you made it so.
I only maintain my nation enough to keep my account current. After the fourth reiteration of the same issues, I stopped caring, really. I only come here for the NSG arguments.

Also, I deliberately built my country with a minimum of control or direction. When I started, I wanted to see how long it would take for my laissez-faire, super-egalitarian and liberal-tolerant attitudes to run a country into the ground. Three years later, Muravyets is still liberal, still egalitarian, and still afloat (barely and somehow).

conservatives have big tits *nods*
Hmmm... and with those shire accents...

*is tempted*

Hmmm... and with those shire accents...

*is tempted*
Don't do it, man. By a couple of years in, you'll be talking of the merits of Dorrrseeeet, and will be brutally mocked by other Scottish people :tongue:

*is tempted*

problem is shire women are boring as toast (not that it matters amirite?:p)

Don't do it, man. By a couple of years in, you'll be talking of the merits of Dorrrseeeet, and will be brutally mocked by other Scottish people :tongue:

have ya seen Corby?

have ya seen Corby?
Aye. The Germans should have tried harder.

I only maintain my nation enough to keep my account current. After the fourth reiteration of the same issues, I stopped caring, really. I only come here for the NSG arguments.

Also, I deliberately built my country with a minimum of control or direction. When I started, I wanted to see how long it would take for my laissez-faire, super-egalitarian and liberal-tolerant attitudes to run a country into the ground. Three years later, Muravyets is still liberal, still egalitarian, and still afloat (barely and somehow).

Mine not only survives, it thrives....

Aye. The Germans should have tried harder.

well ya' know how we just let the Germans have the channel islands...

The problem with Fascism, both in its supporters and its detractors, is that it's a collection of ideals loosely joined by a thread of central authority. To some, the very idea of a national Police force is fascistic and abhorrent, symbolising the dominance of the many by the few, while to others, the thought of private security rackets in the absence of a strictly governed policing monopoly fills them with dread. Both of these are individually legitimate concerns. But to actually be Fascist or antifascist, given the generalised nature of the terms, is, correspondingly, to believe in the widespread exercise of central control and to reject any attempt to impose such control order.

These extremes are neither rational nor practical. The Antifascist must jettison any consistent order and law, while the Fascist must discard individuality and liberty. In fact, the entire point of society is the ongoing balancing act between these two factors. There is no freedom from oppression except in that which is found in their compromise, for neither an anarchic nor a totalitarian system saves the vulnerable from being made pawns of the Nietzschean supermen.

The common thread in both explicit stances is ideological force and the desire to defeat the opponent, and this for one reason - people want to be on the winning side. They want to reap the benefits of being the people in power. But while ideas don't kill people, people with ideas kill people, and as long as the two sides are in conflict, we will suffer casualties. And not always as nicely as being gunned down in the street - whether the law actively demands it or there is no law to prevent it, a life chained to a factory production line on barely enough to keep you living is every bit as terminal a sentence. Ultimately, neither is progress; when one team wins, the board will merely be reset and play continues. The only desirable conclusion for the pawns is that the players get bored and leave the table.

We need to get over the stage of reacting against Fascism by abandoning people, but we also can't afford to allow Fascism to recover and dominate. As always, I find myself in the ridiculous position of being a radical moderate - Only a compromise between Order and Chaos that protects the well-being of all is an acceptable outcome, and I will accept nothing less.

The problem with Fascism, both in its supporters and its detractors, is that it's a collection of ideals loosely joined by a thread of central authority. To some, the very idea of a national Police force is fascistic and abhorrent, symbolising the dominance of the many by the few, while to others, the thought of private security rackets in the absence of a strictly governed policing monopoly fills them with dread. Both of these are individually legitimate concerns. But to actually be Fascist or antifascist, given the generalised nature of the terms, is, correspondingly, to believe in the widespread exercise of central control and to reject any attempt to impose such control order.

These extremes are neither rational nor practical. The Antifascist must jettison any consistent order and law, while the Fascist must discard individuality and liberty. In fact, the entire point of society is the ongoing balancing act between these two factors. There is no freedom from oppression except in that which is found in their compromise, for neither an anarchic nor a totalitarian system saves the vulnerable from being made pawns of the Nietzschean supermen.

The common thread in both explicit stances is ideological force and the desire to defeat the opponent, and this for one reason - people want to be on the winning side. They want to reap the benefits of being the people in power. But while ideas don't kill people, people with ideas kill people, and as long as the two sides are in conflict, we will suffer casualties. And not always as nicely as being gunned down in the street - whether the law actively demands it or there is no law to prevent it, a life chained to a factory production line on barely enough to keep you living is every bit as terminal a sentence. Ultimately, neither is progress; when one team wins, the board will merely be reset and play continues. The only desirable conclusion for the pawns is that the players get bored and leave the table.

We need to get over the stage of reacting against Fascism by abandoning people, but we also can't afford to allow Fascism to recover and dominate. As always, I find myself in the ridiculous position of being a radical moderate - Only a compromise between Order and Chaos that protects the well-being of all is an acceptable outcome, and I will accept nothing less.
Um...actually...

Fascism is one name for a fairly specific set of socio-political concepts, primary among which is the concentration of power into the hands of a private, capitalist elite (what Mussolini called corporatism), and the subordination of the general populace outside that elite under the direct authority of the state, which is the tool of that elite. Another distinctive feature of fascism is its fundamental assumption that human beings are not equal and should not be treated as such, because egalitarianism = anarchy in the fascistic mind.

Centralized authority and its various methods of exercising control -- especially the establishing of scapegoats to enforce public acceptance and conformity to government control -- are not exclusive to fascism, but fascism does use them a lot because of its elitist stance against equality and thus the assumption that "lesser" people cannot be reasoned with or educated but must just be controlled.

This is why I said earlier that many groups who call themselves "fascist" or "neo-nazi" are not actually fascists at all. They are just bigots -- xenophobes and/or racists -- but they lack the sense of social organization that fascism is based on.

When "anti-fascists" label anything that is bigoted (or anything that isn't on the left) as "fascism", they are just using the word as an insult without really thinking about what it means. It allows people to forget how fascism operates and think that it is defined solely by the bigotry that is identified with it because it exploits bigotry for control. So many people focus on just that one sensationalist part of fascism that they miss when fascist thinking does rise up again in politics, in education, in business, etc. Fascism doesn't have to target immigrants or other minorities for hate speech or attacks to be pernicious and harmful to a country.

Um...actually...

Fascism is one name for a fairly specific set of socio-political concepts, primary among which is the concentration of power into the hands of a private, capitalist elite (what Mussolini called corporatism), and the subordination of the general populace outside that elite under the direct authority of the state, which is the tool of that elite. Another distinctive feature of fascism is its fundamental assumption that human beings are not equal and should not be treated as such, because egalitarianism = anarchy in the fascistic mind.

Centralized authority and its various methods of exercising control -- especially the establishing of scapegoats to enforce public acceptance and conformity to government control -- are not exclusive to fascism, but fascism does use them a lot because of its elitist stance against equality and thus the assumption that "lesser" people cannot be reasoned with or educated but must just be controlled.

This is why I said earlier that many groups who call themselves "fascist" or "neo-nazi" are not actually fascists at all. They are just bigots -- xenophobes and/or racists -- but they lack the sense of social organization that fascism is based on.

When "anti-fascists" label anything that is bigoted (or anything that isn't on the left) as "fascism", they are just using the word as an insult without really thinking about what it means. It allows people to forget how fascism operates and think that it is defined solely by the bigotry that is identified with it because it exploits bigotry for control. So many people focus on just that one sensationalist part of fascism that they miss when fascist thinking does rise up again in politics, in education, in business, etc. Fascism doesn't have to target immigrants or other minorities for hate speech or attacks to be pernicious and harmful to a country.

Which is why as we can plainly see, Obama is a fascist.

Fascism is one name for a fairly specific set of socio-political concepts...
It's not as straightforward as that. Words mutate as their usage shifts. Although Italian Fascism was to some extent rigidly defined, Fascism as a concept continued to develop in the psyche of the west into the war and long long after Mussolini's execution, becoming a hybrid of the socio-economic ideals of the European Axis powers and framed by the actions and attitudes of Stalin during the war and subsequent stand-offs. Fascism, as we talk about it today, really does refer to something far less concrete than "the ideas of the Italian National Fascist Party". We're not mistaken about what it means; we have altered what it means.

In any case, the fact that historically Fascism is as you've stated probably doesn't greatly affect the present-day Fascist/Antifascist debate.

Which is why as we can plainly see, Obama is a fascist.
Less so than the majority of the US presidents to date, though.

It's not as straightforward as that. Words mutate as their usage shifts. Although Italian Fascism was to some extent rigidly defined, Fascism as a concept continued to develop in the psyche of the west into the war and long long after Mussolini's execution, becoming a hybrid of the socio-economic ideals of the European Axis powers and framed by the actions and attitudes of Stalin during the war and subsequent stand-offs. Fascism, as we talk about it today, really does refer to something far less concrete than "the ideas of the Italian National Fascist Party". We're not mistaken about what it means; we have altered what it means.

In any case, the fact that historically Fascism is as you've stated probably doesn't greatly affect the present-day Fascist/Antifascist debate.
You can take that stance if you like. I disagree. I think there is a difference between a word changing and a word just being misused.

Which is why as we can plainly see, Obama is a fascist.
I'm considering throwing something at you, but I'm not sure yet.

I'm considering throwing something at you, but I'm not sure yet.

yourself. *nods*

yourself. *nods*
Ahem. *drums fingers on desk*

The problem is that stupid common people seem to confuse Fascism and Nazism. Nazism is inevitably evil and should be banned, but a working, benevolently authoritarian Fascist state could not only be possible, but could also be much more efficient and functional than the inefficient and corrupt mob rule of democracy. Sheesh, dumb and incompetent people with good-looking faces can (and often WILL) win elections and then lead their countries into turmoil.

Just another fact to show that democracy is not for people. Look at China today - they got it working the way it was meant to work.

...Besides, Mussolini was such a cool guy... NOT.

You can take that stance if you like. I disagree. I think there is a difference between a word changing and a word just being misused.
Me too. I just think in this case it's the former, rather than the latter.

Me too. I just think in this case it's the former, rather than the latter.
Like I said, I disagree, but it's a minor point.

Fascism is pretty much just a mix of authoritarianism and corporatist economic policies. I think its fundamental weakness is that it just doesn't really have a long-term aim other than power and at the same time its authoritarian policies prevent the kind of individual efforts that could push society in a given direction. Economically, corporatism kind of represents the worst of both worlds in terms of economics; it lacks the flexibility of capitalism but doesn't really give the state sufficient power to direct the economy towards a given goal as is the case with central planning.

The end result is usually pretty inefficient, which probably has a lot to do with why the Axis powers lost the war. Recall that it took until 1943 for Nazi Germany to actually fully shift to a war footing economically, by which point they were already being pounded by the Soviets who comparatively had been almost fully mobilized by the end of 1941. In 1944, for example, they were producing enough newer, better equipment to outfit 250 divisions but only had somewhere around 120-130 active.

Ahem. *drums fingers on desk*Hard to believe you didn't see that one coming.
*tsk*

Nobody has gotten to the central issue here...

Before i start I want to make something quite clear:

I am NOT Fascist
I am NOT Antifascist

Well, now that is out the way. My point: I been thinking about how things like Antifa are always going on about how it is "bad" and should be "Outlawed" How an end should be put to it and everything but has any of them considered that in doing that they would be removing people's right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion? Something which they claim to be for.
Does it not strike people as being slightly hypocritical?


Mh. I think you are quite wrong.

1.The whole world of antifascism doesn't include just the groups who name themselves "Antifa" (mostly left-wing anarchists, black blocs etc). Mr.Fini, currently President of the Camera dei Deputati (italian Lower House), ally of Berlusconi's, and formerly leader of the Movimento Sociale Italiano, a party who claimed to be the direct heir to fascism and to the Repubblica Sociale Italiana (Mussolini's puppet state after 1943), recently told that "antifascism should be a value shared by everyone".

2.In some countries, fascism isn't a legal political position. If you don't understand why, just remember that fascists and nazis (and many other fascist-like parties) used the freedom of speech to attain power, then proceeded to REMOVE freedom (any kind of freedom) from anyone who didn't enlist their parties; including killing millions of people worldwide.
This happened in Germany, Italy, Vichy France, Salazar's Portugal, Franco's Spain, Slovakia, Hungary, Greece, Chile, Argentina...
And no, the "communists did that too" excuse is not valid. Not because many communist/socialist States did respect internal oppositions. No, it is because the fundamental texts of communism/socialism call for moral values like equality, liberty, solidarity etc: this has led to the birth of many, many different forms and political lines within the communism/socialism family, so the failures and crimes of some communist/socialist states/parties cannot be blamed on the ideal itself. As example: the italian CP denounced the soviet invasion of socialist Czechoslovakia; the portuguese CP was the foremost force in the opposition to Salazar's regime, etc). Otoh, the fundamental texts of fascism and nazism (Mussolini's speeches, Mein Kampf) actually call for ideals like racial suprematism, abolition of democracy, instauration of dictatorship, elimination of opposition, genocide, war and violence as ultimate tests of the value of men and of nations.

So, antifascism is a necessary value of democracies. Plain and simple.

The problem with fascism is that the word has become so tainted with emotional tripe that oftimes it gets difficult to sift through what is melodramatic propaganda and what is actual fascism.

I will never be a supporter of fascism. But the same I don't think it's fair to tarnish non-fascists as fascists, or to more harshly criticize fascists than they deserve (depending on their ideological denomination).

Fascism in itself. Is often called the Third way. It fits into no definable spectrum of the political field. Often it is thrown into "far-right" because of some of it's economic policies. But then again the social policies of "true" fascist nations following the fascist doctrine are again fairly far to the left. As well as the idolizing as the simple worker/farmer as the ultimate representative (stereotype) of the people. Also whilst corporatism is oft-claimed. A fascist nation is a nightmare to many big business, since free capitalism does not exist. The government "in the interest of the people" very strictly regulates and interferes in most business [in this respect fascism is very similar to communism]. A rich class is allowed to exist. However only if they, like the common people, are humble before the State. Fascism, much like communism, also tended to eradicate classism to a bigger degree. It became illegal to claim privilege, in the eyes of the State all "citizens" were equals (which means they all have the same lack of liberal rights essentially, if you want to be a cynist).

As for the tenants of fascism itself. There it gets more difficult. The easiest one could describe fascism is, as "hive mentality." The individual is not important. The individual is to be scorned. There is one Queen, one hive, one population. The population should selflessy for the betterment of the hive serve the interests of the people [as dictated by the Queen]. Individualism is demonized, you are taught you can only achieve success through teamwork and teamwork alone. Many people, due to nazism also assume fascism at it's base is inherently racist. This is a mixed truth. The mistake many people make is assuming nazism is the prototype of fascism. Whilst nazism was fascist, fascism is not nazism.
Fascism demands that there are no seperate entities. That there is only one population for the stability and furtherment of the hive. Take Civil War Spain for example. The socialist government [along with the anarchists] forcibly kicked out all Morrocan Spaniards out of mainland Spain, started handing out autonomy to various regions of Spain. The fascists considered the kicking out [not quite sure if it constitutes to ethnic cleansing] the Morrocan Spanish to be atrocious. When the war started, the Morrocans of course flocked with their armies to the support of the fascists (in a cruel sense of irony, the consolidation of Morroco and it's armies into fascist hands is what allowed the fascist rebellion to even gain a foothold and not be immediately crushed). When the fascists won. They immediately revoked all autonomy. Their attitude is there is only one spanish people, one spanish nation. The Catalan, Asturian and Basque were an inseperable part of the nation. Does this sound like racism? No. Quite the opposite. They simply overlook regional/racial differences to unite the nation. At least in Spain's fascist government.

Although to be fair. Portugals fascist government was also not by any real stretch of imagination racistly inclined. Very nationalist, yes. Racist no? After all Salazar proudly proclaimed the Portuguese Empire and identity to be a multi-racial one, however there was only one Portuguese language/culture/people (despite being different tribes with different histories, they are the same people ideology).

As for Nazism. The fascist ideology that started up there took the need to unify the nation to another extreme. Instead of emulating Portual/Spain in forcibly unifying all differing parties under the same banner and declaring them an unalienable people. The Nazis made a point of exclusion. So the opposite. All not fitting into the wished identity, instead of being forced to conform for the greater good of the nation/people. Were eradicated.

Now the tenants of fascism don't truly go into detail about which method is correct. The forcible inclusion/annexation of all differing groups into your cultural/linguistic fold or the eradication of all differing groups. However the basic need for a uniform people, language and identity is a central pillar of fascism.

Why would fascism be so anti- multi-cultural? Simply because fascism, like quite a few ideologies was borne out in a time of great instability and desperation. It was seen [whether true or not] by it's adherents as the last ditch effort to stave complete collapse of their respective nations. It did fulfill it's goal to this end in most nations. Since whatever one can say about fascist Spain/Portugal/Italy, they brought their rebellion/anarchist problems under control. These fascist nations while not being a paradise to live in, were at the very best stable. Which in my eyes is preferable to a Somalia anarchist State. Which Italy in the 1920s, and Spain in the late 1920s and 1930s looked dangerously close to becoming. That these nations, once fully stabilized later returned to democracy was in my eye simply wonderful.

But it also shows that fascism as an ideology is a defensive mechanism. When the hive is seen as being in danger. Radical ideologies such as fascism, which call for the complete abandonment of selfish thought and literally becoming an Ant Hive tend to win ground.

Now is fascism a bad ideology? No worse than any other. Should fascism be instituted? No. At least not in stable, working and economically prospering nations. When should an ideology such as fascism ever be allowed to take power? In my eyes, it is the best ideology to deal with crisis of epic proportions which threaten the very existence of the State. Why? Because of it's forcible unification of the State, it's eradication of all but the most basic freedoms/rights. It's ability to bring about stability again. What should happen once stability has been attained? The nation should return to a democratic State and grant back all the suspended rights/privileges of the people. To be fair though, quite a few democratic nations such as the US or UK already have quite a few fascist policies in place, such as martial law and extended police/army rights. This shows even democratic nations see the benefits of fascist tenants in times of absolute crisis.

So my summary of fascism? An emergency ideology that should only be tolerated in times of disaster, societal collapse and economic breakdown. Should nazism ever be tolerated? No. Nazism was by far the queerest form of fascism, and the most destructive. It's emphasis on cleaning up/eradication rather than uniting makes it unfit from a humane point of view. I shudder to think of the world ever collapsing so far to the point that a National Socialist government might actually be needed. I personally don't think it's possible. But then again, I live in a stable democratic western nation with a strong economy.

The problem with fascism is that the word has become so tainted with emotional tripe that oftimes it gets difficult to sift through what is melodramatic propaganda and what is actual fascism.

I will never be a supporter of fascism. But the same I don't think it's fair to tarnish non-fascists as fascists, or to more harshly criticize fascists than they deserve (depending on their ideological denomination).

Fascism in itself. Is often called the Third way. It fits into no definable spectrum of the political field. Often it is thrown into "far-right" because of some of it's economic policies. But then again the social policies of "true" fascist nations following the fascist doctrine are again fairly far to the left. As well as the idolizing as the simple worker/farmer as the ultimate representative (stereotype) of the people. Also whilst corporatism is oft-claimed. A fascist nation is a nightmare to many big business, since free capitalism does not exist.

*...tl;dr*


While I agree that it is quite stupid to yell "fascist" around even to non-fascists, I think that you got your facts quite mixed up.

Fascism in itself (as ideated and ruled by Mussolini), isn't the "third way". Generally the "third way", at least during Cold War, was the european socialdemocracy: that is, different from both US ultraliberism and soviet model.

Fascism isn't "thrown in the far right" by its economical policies. Fascism, in the european political spectrum, CHOSE to sit in the far right (back in 1919-1922, when the fascists earned their first seats in the Parliament of the Kingdom of Italy). Why? Because fascism was created as COUNTERPART to the Soviet Revolution. Capitalists and big land owners saw in Mussolini and his Fasci di Combattimento (mostly unemployed veterans from WW1) a useful tool to fight back the strong advance the Socialist Party was having in Italy.

As fascism developed, its economical policies became centrist, or right-of-centre: that is, public money was siphoned into the capitalists' pockets (see Agnelli, Pirelli etc), while minimal wages law and some kind of social welfare were introduced. The fascism stayed "extreme right" because of its authoritarianism and totalitarism (Mussolini himself used the term "totalitario" to describe the fascist State), coupled with cult of violence and action (see Mussolini's texts), systematical killing of opposition leaders (Matteotti, Gramsci), expansionism, racism (see Manifesto degli scienziati fascisti), iron fist colonialism (massive use of chemical weapons against suspected insurgents in the colonies - Lybia and Italian Eastern Africa).

Fascism wasn't the nightmare of the italian capitalists. They were all quite happy with Mussolini. Google "Agnelli" (that is FIAT), "Pirelli", and "Mussolini". Or see what Henry Ford thought of the Lancia automobile factory. You might also find some pics of Mussolini being presented with the new FIAT "Balilla" (the italian equivalent of Hitler's KDF - VW project). To keep capitalists happy, you don't have to give them free capitalism: it is enough to grant to the most important capitalists the MONOPOLY on economy.

Ok, this is my first thread here on general so I'm not sure if this has been done/overdone/whatever but I think I will make my first thread something that has been on my mind a bit lately. Before i start I want to make something quite clear:

I am NOT Fascist
I am NOT Antifascist

Well, now that is out the way. My point: I been thinking about how things like Antifa are always going on about how it is "bad" and should be "Outlawed" How an end should be put to it and everything but has any of them considered that in doing that they would be removing people's right to freedom of speech and freedom of opinion? Something which they claim to be for.
Does it not strike people as being slightly hypocritical?

I mean, say if, for example, they actually manage to get rid of fascism once and for all, will they stop there? Will they take their victory and have done with it? No, I think not. People don't work that way. What they will do is go after the guy who has differing views to them. And pretty soon they will persecute everyone who does not share their same views on what a perfect system would be like and say they et in power, how will they maintain their views? By propaganda. By Force. By using those very tactics they claim to hate so much.

People, it is a vicious circle that applies for many things after all, how far is someone willing to go? Once they get their first taste of victory they will want more, that is human nature, the cycle will continue.

Responses?

EDIT: I realize this sounds bias, but whatever, I'll argue the opposite if you want me to xD

For the record I am a fascist, that is to say I am totaly fascist when it comes to bigots.

But I don't know even one person who shares a similar stance to mine that would try to deny bigots their voice, we just reserve the right to express our own opinion about them.

You could substitute words "Klu Klux Klan Member" in the opening statement as well. If you happen to not be in the cross hairs. Would stamping out the Klu Klux Klan stamp out racism? I doubt it. It would likely move elsewhere.

Facism is more of a philosophy as well being a political party. Let's change to Communism could you actually end communism for good? I am not sure that is even possible. It is better to keep them in the open mostly so we can keep an eye on them because they are generally up to no good.

First we need a definition. Wiki is as good as sny.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Fascism is an authoritarian nationalist ideology focused on solving economic, political, and social problems that its supporters see as causing national decline or decadence.[1][2][3][4] Fascist governments typically seek to prepare a nation for armed conflict with other nations, to defend itself or to expand its state to allow for the growth of a nation.[5] Fascists aim to create a single-party state in which the government is led by a dictator who seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of of the nation or a race.

***
My words from here down

See this is the thing you could also take the word Republicanism and substitute it where ever you see Fascism. You may have to replace some words with very similar words.

Dictator = President


This can be said of just about any political party
" seeks unity by requiring individuals to subordinate self-interest to the collective interest of of the nation or a race."

Fascism and overt Nationalism are difficult to differentiate. Where exactly is that line? Generally when you forbid or discourage other parties. You could also say that is Authoritarian. We know what is best for the country you just sit back and relax and we will get everything under control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian

"Highly concentrated and centralized power structures," in which political power is generated and maintained by a "repressive system that excludes potential challengers" and uses political parties and mass organizations to "mobilize people around the goals of the government";[1]

***My words between the stars. You could argue that Washington D.C is this***

The following principles: "1) rule of men, not rule of law;
***Men make the laws***

2) rigged elections;
*** or is our party just that much better than yours***

3) all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors;
***Okay so even if they are elected. Change the word unelected to elected in the above sentence. Does it change yeah some but not much***

4) a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve;
***Again I say Washington D.C. since all vote are secret who can tell***

5) the informal and unregulated exercise of political power";
***Change it to loosely regulated***

Leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"
*** Term limits and etc***
6). Modern Democracy

No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;
***This is where differ if at all especially if we challenge those liberties or take them away for special reasons***

Weakening of civil society: "No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society";
***Or we regulate the crap out of them making it difficult if not impossible***
and
Political stability maintained by "control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society;
***Every government does this***

2) a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime;
***Every government does this***

3) control of internal opposition and dissent
***Or we hammer them in the media a make the public not want to vote for them***

4) creation of allegiance through various means of socialization."
***Every government does this***

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian

"Highly concentrated and centralized power structures," in which political power is generated and maintained by a "repressive system that excludes potential challengers" and uses political parties and mass organizations to "mobilize people around the goals of the government";[1]

***My words between the stars. You could argue that Washington D.C is this***

The following principles: "1) rule of men, not rule of law;
***Men make the laws***

2) rigged elections;
*** or is our party just that much better than yours***

3) all important political decisions made by unelected officials behind closed doors;
***Okay so even if they are elected. Change the word unelected to elected in the above sentence. Does it change yeah some but not much***

4) a bureaucracy operated quite independently of rules, the supervision of elected officials, or concerns of the constituencies they purportedly serve;
***Again I say Washington D.C. since all vote are secret who can tell***

5) the informal and unregulated exercise of political power";
***Change it to loosely regulated***

Leadership that is "self-appointed and even if elected cannot be displaced by citizens' free choice among competitors"
*** Term limits and etc***
6). Modern Democracy

No guarantee of civil liberties or tolerance for meaningful opposition;
***This is where differ if at all especially if we challenge those liberties or take them away for special reasons***

Weakening of civil society: "No freedom to create a broad range of groups, organizations, and political parties to compete for power or question the decisions of rulers," with instead an "attempt to impose controls on virtually all elements of society";
***Or we regulate the crap out of them making it difficult if not impossible***
and
Political stability maintained by "control over and support of the military to provide security to the system and control of society;
***Every government does this***

2) a pervasive bureaucracy staffed by the regime;
***Every government does this***

3) control of internal opposition and dissent
***Or we hammer them in the media a make the public not want to vote for them***

4) creation of allegiance through various means of socialization."
***Every government does this***

TB, these minor differences you point out are still the difference between a fascist dictatorship and a democratic form of government.