Archive of topics from before June 2012. PM a mod to get one reopened.
  •  
  •  
#210707
Nazism was only one expression of fascism, but race is a frequent component, and done rather differently from the racist elements of communist or other forms of totalitarianism, as it's based in nationalism.

There is a pretty clear definition of fascism (see above) we are trying to refine it.

Don't you think that just saying that people are stupid gives the bad guys a free go?
By Big Rob
#210725
Well nazism was pretty clear to me. Aryan race above all else. (Hence the socialism in national socialism.... property ownership was only allowed when it benefited the aryan race.)

Fascism was similar. However it was the nation state above all else (from that definition at least), including property ownership, (so fascism was a form of socialism, as far as property ownership goes... just not the kind Marx had in mind).

However fascism was not specifically defined the way nazism was (thank you adoph).... So it is a term that is thrown around to describe various shit that people don't like....

I do that too... So ... fascist is not necessarily a 'bad' insult...
#210736
Big Rob wrote:Well nazism was pretty clear to me. Aryan race above all else. (Hence the socialism in national socialism.... property ownership was only allowed when it benefited the aryan race.)

Fascism was similar. However it was the nation state above all else (from that definition at least), including property ownership, (so fascism was a form of socialism, as far as property ownership goes... just not the kind Marx had in mind).

However fascism was not specifically defined the way nazism was (thank you adoph).... So it is a term that is thrown around to describe various shit that people don't like....

I do that too... So ... fascist is not necessarily a 'bad' insult...
I don't know where to begin on this.

Fascism is not 'similar' to Nazism. Nazism is a specific, German form of fascism. It stresses racial purity and the volk, but that is in the context of nationalism. Fascism is fascism (which is the whole point of this thread) and not Nazism, which was an adaptation of Mussolini's ideas based on a corporate state and national identity, calls to history and race, any more than fascism in Hungary or Spain was Nazism. Or, for that matter, what Mosley wanted in Britain.

There was no socialism in Nazism. The word is there by accident, it was in the title of the party Hitler took over, and he kept it because it sounded reassuring. You can replace 'socialist' with 'volkisch' - but activities such as the winter help programmes were there to build the idea of a nation, not to provide altruistic social support for the less well-off. There were no socialist institutions other than those organised by the party for members, and here I'm thinking of holiday camps, youth organisations and so on.

Fascism (as in the original version and expressed in different ways in different places up to the present time) is a denial of the rights of the individual. It's hard to see anything good about it.

The whole point of this thread is to define Fascism carefully to counter those people who seem to think that they can use the term to describe any political system which made them cross today. It isn't, like communism or democracy it has a definition.
#210745
Because people use it wrongly, and by doing so devalue it's hatefulness, and impede sensible discussion. It's also an imprecise and woolly mode of thought.

It's a discussion...
#210746
Big Rob wrote:
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Nazism is a specific, German form of fascism. It stresses racial purity and the volk, but that is in the context of nationalism.
I agree. I simply do not know what you are driving at.
Interesting. That's the opposite of what you posted...
By Big Rob
#210749
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:
Big Rob wrote:
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Nazism is a specific, German form of fascism. It stresses racial purity and the volk, but that is in the context of nationalism.
I agree. I simply do not know what you are driving at.
Interesting. That's the opposite of what you posted...
Is it? Okay... there ya go ... because what I posted must have been flat out wrong.... :D

Jeez... How could I make a mistake like that....
By Big Rob
#210751
Malcolm Armsteen wrote:Because people use it wrongly, and by doing so devalue it's hatefulness, and impede sensible discussion. It's also an imprecise and woolly mode of thought.

It's a discussion...
It's a discussion is it?

Even when people use a term, that has no clear definition, wrongly ... to make a political point...

And this thread is making a decision about what that term means?

Sheesh Malcolm... come on dude.... stop breaking my balls....
Last edited by Big Rob on Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By jguazu
Membership Days
#210753
I think number 3 is a big characteristic of fascism: fascist régimes seem to use scapegoating a lot more than other totalitarian systems. There's always an internal, rather than external, enemy - Jews in Germnay, Jesuits in Paraguay, communists in Chile and Argentina. I reckon that 8, 11 and 12 are also particularly important to fascism.

With 14, I'd say fascist régimes maintain less of a pretence of being democratic than communist ones. They're both totalitarian, but communist nations always seem to pretend that they're democratic: Cuba, North Korea, USSR - whereas fascists, at least in Latin America, tended to adopt an attitude of "we're in charge, we know best, we don't need elections".
#210759
fascist régimes seem to use scapegoating a lot more than other totalitarian systems.
Yes they do, to a great extent, but communism in Russia and China both identified internal 'enemies' kulaks, royalists, bourgeoisie, intellectuals and so on and the Russians also scapegoated national minorities and Jews. Does this one work as a fascist identifier? I'm not convinced myself. I think that may be another one where totalitarian regimes look for fictitious enemies to get the support of frightened people.

Certainly communist regimes tend to call themselves democratic whereas fascist ones have referred to authoritarian models, such as Mussolini and his references to recreating the Roman Empire, or Hitler and the Teutonic Knights. That's important.
 
By Bones McCoy
Membership Days Posts
#210764
mojojojo wrote:Looks pretty good to me. And yes point 9 does seem to make the distinction between facism and totalitarianism.


Mind you, it misses out parking restrictions, speeding fines and voluntary recycling. (sorry)
And where's the clause about the gayz showing their unmentionables down our windpipes.
#210766
Fascists do seem much exercised by that possibility. But then Uncle Joe wasn't a fan of teh gayz, as I recall.
Totalitarian states require conformity, obviously.
Brexit Fuckwit Thread

That's it.

The LibDems, generally

Spotted this elsewhere. Warning: contains Piers Mo[…]

GE 2020

The deluded fuckwit still thinks there's such a […]

David Cameron

Compassionate conservatism: putting professionals […]