NationStates Jolt Archive

On this day in 1919 (March 23), Benito Mussolini founded the Fascist Party, opening a whole new can of worms.

Just thought I would note this, seeing as some people wish the Communist Manifesto "Happy Birthday" so...

Happy Birthday Fascism!

Congratulations on being the second-most troublesome and destructive ideology to ever grace the Earth!

Happy Birthday Fascism!

Congratulations on being the second-most troublesome and destructive ideology to ever grace the Earth!

Yay, no one can beat capitalism so far.

In piazzale Loreto c'è ancora tanto posto!

(In piazzale Loreto there's still plenty of room! It's true, I checked it just this evening as I was going home.)

VAFFANCULO MASCELLONE!

Yay, no one can beat capitalism so far.

In piazzale Loreto c'è ancora tanto posto!

(In piazzale Loreto there's still plenty of room! It's true, I checked it just this evening as I was going home.)

VAFFANCULO MASCELLONE!

I actually meant Communism as #1. Hasn't beaten out fascism on most people killed and property damage. (Excluding religions, of course. As a whole, religion beats out everything.)

Yay, no one can beat capitalism so far.


hurr hurr

Yay Fascism!

*invades people*

Woohoo! Bon anniversaire!!!

I actually meant Communism as #1. Hasn't beaten out fascism on most people killed and property damage.
Actually if you compare the figures of WW2 you'll see that the Axis managed to put up the biggest massacre of all times (unless you want to blame Soviet losses on Stalin alone, Yugoslav losses on Tito alone and Chinese losses on Mao alone).

By the way, fascism is just an extremist subset of capitalism (not of libertarian capitalism, of course!), as proven by the support German and Italian companies gave to Hitler and Mussolini. Plus we could take into the account of capitalism a lot of slave trade, genocides (both past and current, see Africa...).

Ruling the world is a dirty business.

Anyway, by NSG rule (just made up by me for the occasion), whoever makes the first claim is right. I claimed capitalism as #1 destructive ideology before you could say "communism". I won. Gimme a complimentary lollipop. NOW!

On this day in 1919 (March 23), Benito Mussolini founded the Fascist Party, opening a whole new can of worms.

Just thought I would note this, seeing as some people wish the Communist Manifesto "Happy Birthday" so...

Happy Birthday Fascism!

Congratulations on being the second-most troublesome and destructive ideology to ever grace the Earth!

Behind Libertarianism? I'd agree, fascism is slightly less evil.

Behind Libertarianism? I'd agree, fascism is slightly less evil.

Meaningless value judgements are awesome.

Meaningless value judgements are awesome.

And... this was yours?

And... this was yours?

It was indeed.

*Gets a cake in the shape of a boot stepping on a human face... forever.*

Fascism isn't the most troublesome or destructive ideology, and neither is communism. There's nothing 'meaningless' about that value judgement.

Libertarianism is far more troublesome and destructive than both put together - because at least communism and fascism aimed at making the world a better place (whether or not you agreed with the methodology), while Libertarianism basically says 'fuck the rest of you, I'm about making the world a better place for ME'.

Thus - the most evil ideology. Ever.

By the way, fascism is just an extremist subset of capitalism

The destructive elements of it of course having nothing to do with capitalism.

Fascism isn't the most troublesome or destructive ideology, and neither is communism. There's nothing 'meaningless' about that value judgement.


Firstly, you used the term evil, which when applied to an economic and political model, is totally meaningless. It does not specifically wish harm on anyone, unlike fascism, which pretty much does.


, while Libertarianism basically says 'fuck the rest of you, I'm about making the world a better place for ME'.

No, that can be applied to any ideology that has every existed ever, if you think that your own ideology well benefit you at the expense of others (which is almost the definition of fascism regardless), but no libertarian necessarily thinks this, and why someone supports an ideology is independent of the ideology itself. What you seem to attacking is the moral foundations that cause SOME people support libertarianism, so it would be more accurate if you were attacking objectivism say, or just moral egoism in general. You don't HAVE to be an egotist support libertarianism, you may think it increases overall welfare for everyone.

Fascism > Obama

Firstly, you used the term evil, which when applied to an economic and political model, is totally meaningless.


Not at all. It's clear that my phrasing links it to the descriptors already provided.


It does not specifically wish harm on anyone, unlike fascism, which pretty much does.


The fact that Libertarianism is less 'specific' about it's victims, is actually a point against it, rather than in favour.


No, that can be applied to any ideology that has every existed ever,


Except, say, communism.


...if you think that your own ideology well benefit you at the expense of others (which is almost the definition of fascism regardless),


If, by this, you mean that - for example - Mussolini used his acquired power to serve himself - you're just saying that fascism can suffer from the same flaw as libertarianism (selfishness). So - the worst things about all ideology... are the definining characteristic of libertarianism.


...but no libertarian necessarily thinks this, and why someone supports an ideology is independent of the ideology itself.


But the selfishness isn't just what draws someone TO libertarianism, it's what defines it.


What you seem to attacking is the moral foundations that cause SOME people support libertarianism, so it would be more accurate if you were attacking objectivism say, or just moral egoism in general. You don't HAVE to be an egotist support libertarianism, you may think it increases overall welfare for everyone.

No - because someone who actually cared about increasing overall welfare for everyone would be a communist.

Fascism > Obama

Apple tree > sadness.

Wait, sorry, this ISN'T the thread about weird and useless comparisons.

In honor of the Fascist Birthday, they should stomp the supporters of all the other ideologies in the face.....



of course this morning I became a fascist, :$

Not at all. It's clear that my phrasing links it to the descriptors already provided.


It's still a highly obnoxious word to use, and only makes your analysis seem completely biased and emotionally driven.


Except, say, communism.


Anybody can support any ideology for their own ends, there is no universal rule against that.


If, by this, you mean that - for example - Mussolini used his acquired power to serve himself - you're just saying that fascism can suffer from the same flaw as libertarianism (selfishness). So - the worst things about all ideology... are the definining characteristic of libertarianism.


No, I'm saying the ideology of fascism itself contains within it that some people literally deserve to be oppressed. I can't think of any other ideology that does that (not counting much of what a few communists say about the upper classes).


But the selfishness isn't just what draws someone TO libertarianism, it's what defines it.


Then you don't know what libertarianism is.


No - because someone who actually cared about increasing overall welfare for everyone would be a communist.

As you said earlier, whether the methodology actually produces what the person intends is irrelevant.

No - because someone who actually cared about increasing overall welfare for everyone would be a communist.

hahahaha...

hahahaha...

Huh. The truth isnt usually funny. Guess we all react differently huh.

Huh. The truth isnt usually funny. Guess we all react differently huh.

Since when were you a communist?

Since when were you a communist?

I keep it on the down low around here. But to answer your question...since I was 16:p

Huh. The truth isnt usually funny. Guess we all react differently huh.

Except its clearly not the truth. Plenty of people who I think indisputably want to help people aren't communists. Mostly because they think its a crappy ass theory, which will hurt more than help. Or maybe even because they disagree on a moral level with the methods. I was laughing because the statement was complete bunk, imo. As I'm sure you're aware.

Then you don't know what libertarianism is.


Allegedly, ideally, an opposite position to authoritarianism - which would suggest that most libertarians have as little grasp as you claim I do.

Which is irrelevent, of course, but a fun fact.

What matters is that libertarianism suggests that moral agency can be effectively and constructively delegated to the minimal level, i.e. the individual. In other words - selfishness as policy.

I was laughing because the statement was complete bunk, imo.

Meh, youre entitled to your wrong opinions.:p

I keep it on the down low around here. But to answer your question...since I was 16:p

AHA@!!! A confession...

http://s3.amazonaws.com/findagrave/photos/2001/222/mccarthyjosephbio.jpg

Except its clearly not the truth. Plenty of people who I think indisputably want to help people aren't communists. Mostly because they think its a crappy ass theory, which will hurt more than help. Or maybe even because they disagree on a moral level with the methods. I was laughing because the statement was complete bunk, imo. As I'm sure you're aware.

The 'methods'?

'Sharing' is disagreeable, on a moral level?

The 'methods'?

'Sharing' is disagreeable, on a moral level?

Only when the wealthy have to share.

The 'methods'?

'Sharing' is disagreeable, on a moral level?

That would be more the end rather than the means...


I think its more the forcing people to that is disagreeable...



Although its also disagreeable to 3 year olds, so, there ya go, lol...

Only when the wealthy have to share.

Yeah, when the poor 'share' with the wealthy, its perfectly agreeable to the reaganites..;)

The 'methods'?

'Sharing' is disagreeable, on a moral level?

Forcing people to "share" is for many, yes.

Yeah, when the poor 'share' with the wealthy, its perfectly agreeable to the reaganites..;)

This.

Allegedly, ideally, an opposite position to authoritarianism - which would suggest that most libertarians have as little grasp as you claim I do.

That is the definition of the word, libertarianism is etymologically the opposite of authoritarianism. Technically, quite a large number of people on NSG could be labelled libertarian. However, when people talk of libertarianism, they are usually more specifically talking about 'right libertarianism', the only real distinction being that property freedoms should also be maximised, along with other freedoms.


What matters is that libertarianism suggests that moral agency can be effectively and constructively delegated to the minimal level, i.e. the individual.

That is incredibly vague, I could take this to mean a whole lot of different things. Could you be a little more clear?

Forcing people to "share" is for many, yes.

Like three year olds.


I mean, I knew right wingers were basically three year olds, but its nice to hear someone else say it:p

That would be more the end rather than the means...

I think its more the forcing people to that is disagreeable...

Although its also disagreeable to 3 year olds, so, there ya go, lol...

My three year old is fine with sharing. I guess it depends how you raise them. :)

Forcing people to "share" is for many, yes.

'Force' isn't a methodology of communism. It certainly isn't any more inherent in communism than in any other model.

On this day in 1919 (March 23), Benito Mussolini founded the Fascist Party, opening a whole new can of worms.

Just thought I would note this, seeing as some people wish the Communist Manifesto "Happy Birthday" so...

Happy Birthday Fascism!

Congratulations on being the second-most troublesome and destructive ideology to ever grace the Earth!

Happy birthday, you sonofabitch. I have to read twenty pages on you in my goddamn history class. Happy fucking birthday, fascism.

(not bitter at all)

'Sharing' is disagreeable, on a moral level?

That's not what communism is though. It's an economic model that involves a specific type of distribution of wealth, it's not simply equalizing the wealth already generated, but also completely restructuring how wealth is generated in the first place. It's perfectly possible to support sharing in general, whilst believing that the communist model is unsustainable and will ultimately result in massive economic hardship.

That is the definition of the word, libertarianism is etymologically the opposite of authoritarianism. Technically, quite a large number of people on NSG could be labelled libertarian. However, when people talk of libertarianism, they are usually more specifically talking about 'right libertarianism', the only real distinction being that property freedoms should also be maximised, along with other freedoms.


When people talk about libertarianism, they're usually referring to minimal regulation of business, and the infamous 'invisible hand' as the god of economics.

Happy birthday, you sonofabitch. I have to read twenty pages on you in my goddamn history class. Happy fucking birthday, fascism.

(not bitter at all)

That time could have been better spent.



Like posting on NSG. :p

That's not what communism is though.


A.


It's an economic model that involves a specific type of distribution of wealth, it's not simply equalizing the wealth already generated, but also completely restructuring how wealth is generated in the first place.

A.

What do you know, A does equal A.

When people talk about libertarianism, they're usually referring to minimal regulation of business

Regardless of whether this is a defining characteristic of libertarianism (which it isn't). Are you saying that minimal regulation of business is the most evil ideology ever?


, and the infamous 'invisible hand' as the god of economics.

I haven't seen anyone mention the 'invisible hand' in years. It's almost never used in any economic discourse ever, it was just a bit of tiny rhetoric one person used aaaages ago to communicate an idea he had.

I post something noting a historical event, and an anti-right dogpile ensues.

What has this world come to...?

A.



A.

What do you know, A does equal A.

Will there ever be a time when you actually form an argument?

Regardless of whether this is a defining characteristic of libertarianism (which it isn't). Are you saying that minimal regulation of business is the most evil ideology ever?


Sure.


I haven't seen anyone mention the 'invisible hand' in years. It's almost never used in any economic discourse ever, it was just a bit of tiny rhetoric one person used aaaages ago to communicate an idea he had.

The fact that 'invisible hand' isn't the phrase du jour doesn't mean that proponents of the libertarian ideology don't still tout market forces as some kind of modern messiah.

Will there ever be a time when you actually form an argument?

I just pointed out that your argument that A didn't equal A (which, apparently, made sense to you) was fundamentally flawed.

Mainly, by virtue of being the exact opposite of true. Which some consider a flaw.

Sure.


Show me someone who supports what you're talking about (different people have very different ideas about what should, and shouldn't be regulated, different people who support 'minimal regulation', could both be supporting something completely different). Show me how he is more 'evil' than Hitler.

I just pointed out that your argument that A didn't equal A (which, apparently, made sense to you) was fundamentally flawed.

Mainly, by virtue of being the exact opposite of true. Which some consider a flaw.

In other words, you said that 'sharing' and a very specific economic model, are the same thing, but did not show this to be the case, hence, not making an argument.

In other words, you said that 'sharing' and a very specific economic model, are the same thing, but did not show this to be the case, hence, not making an argument.

You made the argument that redefining the economic model, etc somehow conflicted with 'sharing'.

You made the argument that redefining the economic model, etc somehow conflicted with 'sharing'.

I didn't say it conflicted, I said it's not the same thing. Jumping off a cliff doesn't conflict with extreme, I might like extreme sports, but that doesn't mean I want to jump off a cliff.

I didn't say it conflicted, I said it's not the same thing. Jumping off a cliff doesn't conflict with extreme, I might like extreme sports, but that doesn't mean I want to jump off a cliff.

Okay - here's what you said: "That's not what communism is though. It's an economic model that involves a specific type of distribution of wealth, it's not simply equalizing the wealth already generated, but also completely restructuring how wealth is generated in the first place. It's perfectly possible to support sharing in general, whilst believing that the communist model is unsustainable and will ultimately result in massive economic hardship."

In response to me saying: "'Sharing' is disagreeable, on a moral level?", which I was arguing was the 'means' of communism.

You said "That's not what communism is though".

I'm forced to assume that this means you were saying: 'sharing' is 'not what communism is'.

You then expanded upon that by talking about an economic model involving a specific type of distribution of wealth (it is - it's a type called 'sharing') and restructuring how wealth is generated in the first place (it is - wealth is a collective asset - also known as 'sharing').

Somehow - you think your statements about economic models and restructuring weath were different to the 'means' (sharing)... but I'm really not sure how.

-snip-

Can you seriously not work out that an economic model that may involve sharing, does not mean that the model itself is sharing. There are many other ways of sharing resources, it doesn't HAVE to be communal based, you don't HAVE to get rid of a market (which effectively means forcibly banning it, because people will not freely stop trading with each other, but I digress). Resources do not HAVE to be shared amongst everyone equally.

Happy birthday!

Fascism turns 90 years old today!

Fascism forever, and with hopes for the true Enlightenment to come...


Actually, the most troublesome form of society is Anarchy, as more people have died in lawless conditions than have died in any Fascist, Communist, Libertarian, or anything society. Without a government, people massacre each other.

I post something noting a historical event, and an anti-right dogpile ensues.

What has this world come to...?

On the bright side, it does do much to dispel that nasty rumor that Fascism is somehow a Leftist ideology...

Can you seriously not work out that an economic model that may involve sharing, does not mean that the model itself is sharing. There are many other ways of sharing resources, it doesn't HAVE to be communal based, you don't HAVE to get rid of a market (which effectively means forcibly banning it, because people will not freely stop trading with each other, but I digress). Resources do not HAVE to be shared amongst everyone equally.

The only thing in communism that is shared is the means of production.

While fascism may or may not have caused more deaths than any other ideology, I can't think of any that has been such a purely destructive force. Even communism was beneficial in some ways (witness the kibbutzim in Israel, or the positive work done by socialist parties).

Happy birthday!

Fascism turns 90 years old today!

Fascism forever, and with hopes for the true Enlightenment to come...


Actually, the most troublesome form of society is Anarchy, as more people have died in lawless conditions than have died in any Fascist, Communist, Libertarian, or anything society. Without a government, people massacre each other.

To the bolded: You are either trolling, joking, or seriously deluded as to what Fascism IS.

And with one, peopleS massacre each other. Your point?

As for the "liberal order"... You can do nothing to fight it. Have a nice day.

To the bolded: You are either trolling, joking, or seriously deluded as to what Fascism IS.

And with one, peopleS massacre each other. Your point?

As for the "liberal order"... You can do nothing to fight it. Have a nice day.

Its not massacre, its national selection. Its like natural selection, but with more artillery.

Hoch O'Duffy! Tim Gunn shall rule!

The destructive elements of it of course having nothing to do with capitalism.

No, well. Actually, many destructive elements of fascism are part of capitalism (which doesn't always show its libertarian face, you know).

1.Fascism and capitalists. Fascism in Italy became powerful after the strike wave of 1920-21 (the so-called Biennio Rosso). The fascists were paid and used by the capitalists as muscle squads to "restore the order" (the bourgois order, of course), with a secret green light from the italian cabinet and from the King. Under fascism, strikes were illegal, free workers' unions were disbanded, and private property of the tools of mass production was granted.

2.Fascism and imperialism. Italy strenghtened its colonial policies (completing the conquest of Libya and of East Africa, with many genocides, and invading and annexating Albania) under fascist rule. Imperialism is phase of capitalism.

3.Fascism and protectionism. Fascist Italy introduced punitive tarifs against importations after the SoN issued sanctions against Italy for the attack on Ethiopia. At the same time, Italy's private industries continued to export items galore (Italy even exported naval motors to Britain till July 1940). Hence, fascism acted in favour of capitalists by these measures, while forcing the working classes to autarchia (literally self-sufficience: a "buy italian" law).

4.Fascism and the military. The increased public expense for the military during the fascist regime went into the pockets of the national private industries - Fiat, Piaggio, Pirelli, Ansaldo, Officine Reggiane, Montecatini, Breda, Beretta... in a scheme typical of capitalism countries.

To sum it up, fascism economically was a centrist regime - and centrist is still one of the various capitalist forms.

Without a government, people massacre each other.

With governments, nations massacre each other. Wow, what an improvement.

The only thing in communism that is shared is the means of production.

To be more accurate, the means of mass production.

Not the tools of your local cobbler, as example.

Fascism has turned 90, time to kick it to the curb and let it die cold and alone along with Feudalism and what we Americans like to pretend is democracy.

1.Fascism and capitalists. Fascism in Italy became powerful after the strike wave of 1920-21 (the so-called Biennio Rosso). The fascists were paid and used by the capitalists as muscle squads to "restore the order" (the bourgois order, of course), with a secret green light from the italian cabinet and from the King.

I don't see how who supported fascism in the twenties in Italy has anything to do with whether fascism are the destructive elements of fascism, rather than the loosely mixed market based economy it may also contain within it. I mean, Hitler had massive, unprecedented support from the workers in Germany, more than the Spartacus league. That doesn't mean fascism is inherently a labour ideology.


Under fascism, strikes were illegal

Not capitalist


, free workers' unions were disbanded

Not capitalist.


, and private property of the tools of mass production was granted.


Eh? The tools of mass production were already private IIRC.


2.Fascism and imperialism. Italy strenghtened its colonial policies (completing the conquest of Libya and of East Africa, with many genocides, and invading and annexating Albania) under fascist rule. Imperialism is phase of capitalism.


Imperialism has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.


3.Fascism and protectionism.

You'll be hard pressed to find any capitalist that supports protectionism.


Hence, fascism acted in favour of capitalists by these measures, while forcing the working classes to autarchia (literally self-sufficience: a "buy italian" law).


This is getting silly. Being 'rich' does not mean you're a capitalist, even if there is generally a correlation. Something that benefits the rich but not the poor =/= capitalist.


4.Fascism and the military. The increased public expense for the military during the fascist regime went into the pockets of the national private industries - Fiat, Piaggio, Pirelli, Ansaldo, Officine Reggiane, Montecatini, Breda, Beretta... in a scheme typical of capitalism countries.


Same as above.


To sum it up, fascism economically was a centrist regime - and centrist is still one of the various capitalist forms.

But none of the destructive elements you pointed out were 'capitalist', but rather almost the opposite. Protectionism is not capitalist, you can be capitalist and support protectionism, but the reasons one might support protectionism have nothing to do with the capitalist ideology. Banning unions etc... is definitely not capitalist.

I'd say that its quite clear that fascism has always been a Third Way, between capitalism and communism. They might throw a few sops to both groups but fascists are completely at odds with both capitalist individualism and communist internationalism.

I don't see how who supported fascism in the twenties in Italy has anything to do with whether fascism are the destructive elements of fascism, rather than the loosely mixed market based economy it may also contain within it. I mean, Hitler had massive, unprecedented support from the workers in Germany, more than the Spartacus league. That doesn't mean fascism is inherently a labour ideology.

Financing bands of hooligans to beat strikers =/= voting for a party. Different kinds of support, different kinds of involvement.
Fascism was actually created with the financial support of the major companies to suit their own ends.



Not capitalist (...)

Banning workers' unions and making strikes illegal is clearly a pro-capitalist move.


Eh? The tools of mass production were already private IIRC.

Yes, and stayed that. There were no moves against capitalism. So fascism had nothing to object with capitalism.


Imperialism has nothing whatsoever to do with capitalism.

Excuse me? This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Care for more explanations?
Example, the British Empire: homeland of modern capitalism, built on imperialism.
Other example: the USA: current powerhouse of capitalism, imperialist (in a more modern sort of way when they can, old-style in Iraq and Afghanistan).


You'll be hard pressed to find any capitalist that supports protectionism.

Most right-wing governments and most capitalists support protectionism in their own country, while asking for free market in the countries which are target of their exports. I thought you read some newspapers in the last six months.
Or are you telling me that the US capitalists are lobbying to remove the punitive tarifs on EU exports into the US, just for the sake of free market? No, I don't think so.


This is getting silly. Being 'rich' does not mean you're a capitalist, even if there is generally a correlation. Something that benefits the rich but not the poor =/= capitalist.

Hello? Are you aware of how the bourgois society works? I doubt it.


But none of the destructive elements you pointed out were 'capitalist', but rather almost the opposite. Protectionism is not capitalist, you can be capitalist and support protectionism, but the reasons one might support protectionism have nothing to do with the capitalist ideology. Banning unions etc... is definitely not capitalist.
I think that you're really confusing "libertarian" with "capitalist". The two things are quite different.
To keep it extremely simple, "capitalism" is about the role of individuals in the economy, while "libertarian" is about civil and personal freedom.
There can be libertarian capitalism and there can be authoritarian capitalism. Fascism is an extremely authoritarian, economically centrist, ideologically totalitarian, capitalist system.

Banning workers' unions and making strikes illegal is clearly a pro-capitalist move.


No it isn't. It's an authoritarian move. There is nothing about the ideology of capitalism that prohibits unions, such a thing would be highly at odds with the free market.


Yes, and stayed that. There were no moves against capitalism. So fascism had nothing to object with capitalism.


Right, just because in that instance there was no inherent conflict with capitalism, does not mean capitalism is the destructive element of fascism itself. How hard is that to understand?


Excuse me? This is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard. Care for more explanations?

Correlation =/= causation. Your argument seems to be, A is B and was also C, therefore, B = C (a flawed argument). Just because Britain was imperialistic, and also capitalist (in some senses), does not mean imperialism itself is just a form of capitalism. Imperialism is not tied to any economic ideology. You can be just as imperialistic with a heavily centrally planned economy.


Most right-wing governments and most capitalists support protectionism in their own country, while asking for free market in the countries which are target of their exports. I thought you read some newspapers in the last six months.

Great, you've found that politicians are hypocrites. Colour me surprised. But I really cannot think of any single modern academic, who identifies himself as capitalist, that supports protectionism as anything other than at most a necessary evil. Even many of these politicians support an overall reduction in tariffs, but political realities make it very difficult and in some cases a diplomatic impossibility, to just remove tariffs overnight, politicians generally are bound by more than their personal ideologies. Plus, what does that show anyway? Nobody argues that any country is pure capitalist.


Hello? Are you aware of how the bourgois society works? I doubt it.


Firstly, people should stop using that outdated category 'bourgeois', society today is a little more complex than to be able to conveniently pigeon hole people into groups that easily. But that's another debate. I don't see what you're getting at. Just because a group of people support X for Y, doesn't mean X was made for Y.


There can be libertarian capitalism and there can be authoritarian capitalism. Fascism is an extremely authoritarian, economically centrist, ideologically totalitarian, capitalist system.

Exactly! How can you not see that the destructive elements of fascism, i.e. authoritarian centrist capitalism, is the authoritarian part of that description, and not the centrist capitalist part of the description?

On this day in 1919 (March 23), Benito Mussolini founded the Fascist Party, opening a whole new can of worms.

Just thought I would note this, seeing as some people wish the Communist Manifesto "Happy Birthday" so...

Happy Birthday Fascism!

Congratulations on being the second-most troublesome and destructive ideology to ever grace the Earth!
What about the far more fascist Hittites, which came ages before?

What about the far more fascist Hittites, which came ages before?

The Nazi Party was founded the same year...

The Nazi Party was founded the same year...
Uhu... and the predecessor to that, the Austro-Hungarian DAP, was founded on the 14th November 1903.

That time could have been better spent.



Like posting on NSG. :p

Yes, indeed.

Firstly, people should stop using that outdated category 'bourgeois', society today is a little more complex than to be able to conveniently pigeon hole people into groups that easily.

In what way is 'bourgeois' outdated?

The only thing in communism that is shared is the means of production.

And the products of production, for example. And the production, itself, arguably.

Can you seriously not work out that an economic model that may involve sharing, does not mean that the model itself is sharing.


Ah, the old snip followed by an evasion. I'd expected better, if not much.


There are many other ways of sharing resources, it doesn't HAVE to be communal based,


'Sharing' that isn't communal is more accurately described as 'NOT sharing'.


you don't HAVE to get rid of a market


You don't have to, no.

Just like you don't HAVE to keep a bale of hay in the back of the vehicle to feed the horses.


which effectively means forcibly banning it,


Only in made-up-bullshit-land.


Resources do not HAVE to be shared amongst everyone equally.

Of course they don't. Fair doesn't always equal 'equally'. An infant won't consume as much food as a full-grown man. But the access should be equal.

and today marked the beginning of NATO bombing of Serbia *cue spooky scenes of the US dominating the world*

What about the far more fascist Hittites, which came ages before?

O_o

And it also marked the end of the slave trade in the British Empire. COINCIDENCE???

O_o
What? It's true, they were total fascist dickheads.

GnI, this is pretty off topic. I'm happy to take this to another thread, but I'm not going to continue this here.

What about the far more fascist Hittites, which came ages before?

They weren't as organized about it.

Oh, and to end the conversation:

Dictatorship sucks.

Anything that infringes on rights like crazy sucks (DEMOCRATIC PARTY-cough-cough!)(THE PATRIOT ACT-cough-cough) (THE BRADY CAMPAIGN-cough-cough). Sorry, I need to take some robutussin. Nasty cherry shit.

In my experience, Mixed Market is the best way to go. Keeps things running smoother, keeps a safety net for those fallen on hard times, and still encourages personal achievement.

Fascism isn't the most troublesome or destructive ideology, and neither is communism. There's nothing 'meaningless' about that value judgement.

Libertarianism is far more troublesome and destructive than both put together - because at least communism and fascism aimed at making the world a better place (whether or not you agreed with the methodology), while Libertarianism basically says 'fuck the rest of you, I'm about making the world a better place for ME'.

Thus - the most evil ideology. Ever.
Sure numbskull. Libertarianism is responsible for killing in the 100s of millions, for gulags, for concentration camps, for extreme nationalism &c. (and before you link me to some amateurish "CAPITALISMZ IS TEH MURDEROR!!1!!ONE" type of site, realise we're not so stupid as to support the currently existing system which is closer to your beloved fascism.) Are you out of your limited mind? You are either a troll or a sick, stupid individual. I am willing to bet on the latter. Your understanding of libertarianism is next to zero. I will not be sorry when the commissar or the fascist dictator puts a bullet through scum like you. You enable them. Good riddance. Lie all you like. You're naught but a pseudo-intellectual hack.

(Excluding religions, of course. As a whole, religion beats out everything.)

And excluding humanity... which is the actual cause of destruction, not religions or philosophies.

Sure numbskull. Libertarianism is responsible for killing in the 100s of millions, for gulags, for concentration camps, for extreme nationalism &c. (and before you link me to some amateurish "CAPITALISMZ IS TEH MURDEROR!!1!!ONE" type of site, realise we're not so stupid as to support the currently existing system which is closer to your beloved fascism.) Are you out of your limited mind? You are either a troll or a sick, stupid individual. I am willing to bet on the latter. Your understanding of libertarianism is next to zero. I will not be sorry when the commissar or the fascist dictator puts a bullet through scum like you. You enable them. Good riddance. Lie all you like. You're naught but a pseudo-intellectual hack.

Haha....

And excluding humanity... which is the actual cause of destruction, not religions or philosophies.

Youre right, because religion or philosophies dont encourage it or bring out the worst in us or give us justification or anything...

No it isn't. It's an authoritarian move. There is nothing about the ideology of capitalism that prohibits unions, such a thing would be highly at odds with the free market.

Wait. Again, you're mixing the libertarian ideology with the economical model called "capitalism". There is NO such thing as a "capitalist ideology". Capitalism, as any production system, is quite pragmatical.

Outlawing free workers' unions, of course, works in favour of capitalists (that is the people, or social class, who occupy the seats of economical power in a society whose production system is capitalist).


Right, just because in that instance there was no inherent conflict with capitalism, does not mean capitalism is the destructive element of fascism itself. How hard is that to understand?

I didn't say that capitalism IS the destructive element of fascism itself. Simply, it happened that, in those historical circumstances, the capitalist model of society chose the authoritarian way. The authoritarian counterpart of fascism on the left-wing (that is, controlled market) would be stalinism, not fascism. Hence fascism is a subset of the set the systems based on capitalism.


Correlation =/= causation. Your argument seems to be, A is B and was also C, therefore, B = C (a flawed argument). Just because Britain was imperialistic, and also capitalist (in some senses), does not mean imperialism itself is just a form of capitalism. Imperialism is not tied to any economic ideology. You can be just as imperialistic with a heavily centrally planned economy.

Imperialism isn't a form of capitalism, how hard can be this to understand?
Imperialism is a world strategy of nation states which, during the development of the capitalist societies, becomes a necessity (eventually just temporarily so): access to cheaper sources and access to larger export markets, which is crucial in production systems based on inflation, like capitalist systems.
Anyway, back in the 1920s and '30s, the only production system which could effectively use imperialism was capitalism. Hence any imperialistic policy of a capitalist national system was an organical part of the global capitalist system.


Great, you've found that politicians are hypocrites. Colour me surprised. But I really cannot think of any single modern academic, who identifies himself as capitalist, that supports protectionism as anything other than at most a necessary evil. Even many of these politicians support an overall reduction in tariffs, but political realities make it very difficult and in some cases a diplomatic impossibility, to just remove tariffs overnight, politicians generally are bound by more than their personal ideologies. Plus, what does that show anyway? Nobody argues that any country is pure capitalist.

Academics DO NOT identify themselves as capitalists because academics don't own industries, buster.
Anyway, I can give you Giulio Tremonti as example (italian finance minister in both last and current Berlusconi cabinet). Ideologically libertarian, formally pro-capitalism, pro-tarifs in imports and anti-tarifs in exports. That is, protectionist.


Firstly, people should stop using that outdated category 'bourgeois', society today is a little more complex than to be able to conveniently pigeon hole people into groups that easily.
I was using "bourgoise" in the historical meaning of it: that is, the kind of society and production model that started during the Renaissance, with the creation of banks, credit system, and the rise of the bourgoise class to the power, as opposed to aristocracy. Which is still the same system today, more or less.


Just because a group of people support X for Y, doesn't mean X was made for Y.

It means that X is seen as favourable for Y, though.

Exactly! How can you not see that the destructive elements of fascism, i.e. authoritarian centrist capitalism, is the authoritarian part of that description, and not the centrist capitalist part of the description?
I think that this distinction between authoritarian and centrist capitalism is immaterial when discussing fascism as a whole (not just as "evil").
First and foremost, a society is defined by its own production system.
Of course, you get capitalism in all ideological "flavours", from classical libertarian to scandinavian social-democratic.
Fascism is one of the possible ideological "flavours" of capitalism.


Now a thread-related question: are we threadjacking a bit?