It’d be better for those who have read a few of my politcal posts to contribute first, other wise you probably won’t really understand what I’m reffering too.
I’ve recently been researching the politcal Ideology known as Fascism and have found myself sympathising and outright agreeing with a majority of it’s doctrine, probably a good 80% of it.
The odd thing is I didn’t just starting reading it and go “oh that sounds like a good idea” in fact i’ve been trying to compile and organize my own personnal political beliefs, and before I even began to read much into fascism I thought I was compiling differant successful segments of opposing ideologies and reconstructing them into something I thought was new (not in the terms of a completely orignal policies, but new in the form of an organized political ideology). I had already considered myself to be a Fascist sympathiser as I have read into it before but when I started to read more into fascism I discovered that alot of what I was trying to compile had already been so in Fascism.
Of Course like a majority of you I always had a negative view of Fascism based on what I had been taught by society to perceive it as, this is a little excerpt fro m a conversation I
Of course at the time I was still set in an ill informed premise of what Fascism was and rejected his statment on the premise that I was (and am) drawing influence from many differant ideologies but now i’m starting to think that he hit the nail on the head, and this was in November of 2011.
Three policies I do not support that are often associated with Fascism are Totalitarianism, Nationalism and Racism (though this is not necessarily a Fascist ideal).
Also I still oppose Nazism despite my research into their ideology as well and consider it to be distinct from Fascism.
What I’m basically inquiring is do you think I am a Fascist, or am I differant enough to be considered something else?
Feel free to ask questions about certain Fascist supported policies whether or not I agree an why.
Any major movement is going to have a lot of attractive features. Unfortunately the 20% you disagree with is at the heart of fascism. Nation and race binds the group together. The select, superior group must have control in order to further its goals and that means totalitarianism and violence.
Nazism is fascism taken to its logical conclusion.
A Syncrenetic politcal ideology which in part is based off a disallusionment with Socialism (which many fascists originally were) combining radical change and reform with establishments that are too well ingrained in human society to be rid of (such as Hierarchy).
State enforced Class cooperation as oppossed to class warfare.
A desire to establish meritocratic policies based on ones abilities in certain fields,
A support for a strong military and a large cultural support for the military itself.
The support of corporatism as an alternative to capitalism and the communist based state controlled economy,
The support for the gain of the state above individual gain.
Self sufficent autarky when it comes to essential goods.
The combination of Autocracy, Aristocracy and Democracy etc.
Yeah you could say that and perhaps I’m differant enough to merely be a Fascist sympathiser rather than a Fascist but out of all of the politcal ideologies i’ve read this one has resonated with me the most.
Id have to researce more into it but perhaps Peronism is more similiar to the politcal posistion I’m at, Peron himself was deeply influenced by Fascism and Benito Mussolini but today the party is considered Centrist rather than Fascist which i suppose is a less inflammatory and ostrocised word.
Interestingly enough one ideological belief in Fascism is that emotional perspective has a larger impact on politics that rationality or reason, and seeing the ostrazation of the word Fascist as George Orwell so famously explained, the word has been used fro pretty much anything in the modern lexicon rather than what it actually is supposed to describe. Being used dismissively rather than descriptively.
Only if you focus on the features most would consider “bad”.
Which many have.
Also I don’t see violence as necessarily bad, it all depends on the situation. For example there are some Nazi’s I wouldn’t mind putting the boot to, thats some direct action that would serve to convince people that Fascists aren’t Nazi’s more than any well organized speech would.
Just a minor point are you really putting out there that you are a racist. Not that I am going to bring The PC police along but that is really unusual that you would claim that. How are you a racist if I might ask?
To be frank Fascism is not as bad as communism in practice generally I mean you have the Nazis, but that’s just one example that really tends to bias the whole ideology, communism in general has been much worse, although like fascism no government really tried the idea or actual type of fascism or communism, so calling real world either what the beliefs maintain is a wast of time. For example nationalism, a tenet that fascism is concerned with should mean that war was unnecessary or at least that it was an expenditure of resources that did not need to happen except in defence of national ideals. Fascism I think is not expansionist it is mostly concerned with the countries concerns, at least as the beliefs actually are.
So is violence used to silence fascist sympathizers also legitimate? Who decides what is okay violence? If a group of people can put together an effective paramilitary force then do they naturally have the right to use it to intimidate? Of course it is all done for the good of the nation and the people.
Uh… I believe I said I was not a racist, perhaps I misstyped something or you missread something.
Well I agree that I find Fascism preferable to Communism in fact many of the Fascist movements were seen at the time (post WWI to the end of WWII) as the only real alternative to Communism other than the established and weakening Monarchies and Republics.
And It’s seems true that Fascism as an official politcal ideology has not been tried much because of it being ostracised during WWII (largely because people saw Nazism as Fascism). But during the 20’s and 30’s with the Fascists rise to power in Italy many nations admittidely or not were influenced and saw it as a positive and legitimate politcal ideology.
Italys economy faired better than many others during the great depression, and President Roosevelts new deal was said to be inspired from it.
Fascism is not necessarily expansionist, but unlike the mainstream political scene today expansion and aggressive use of military power was seen as a legitmate act of a nations self interest, rather than the U.N.'s “laws” that state it as an international crime.
But of course the nations don’t need to pursue such policies.
I suppose, it’s all dependent on what one considers legitimate. Of course I wouldn’t want to be attacked but if I were it would give me a Cassus belli against those who attacked me.
I’m not entirely sure though I suppose these open questions are why ideolgies clash in the first place.
The thing is I’m not really a violent person at least not for it’s own sake.
They and those who sympathize with them will, those who oppose them won’t.
Thats what they all think, except for the explotative tyrants of course.
As you pointed out, Fascism is a post-Communist movement in the same way that Neo-Conservatism is a post-Socialist* movement. Since you find the ideas of Fascism appealing, I have to ask what your feelings on Neo-Conservatism are? It encompasses many of the same ideas and may be a better fit for your current ideological state, not in terms of actual ideology but in terms of being able to meaningfully get things done and associate with others in the current political climate.
I don’t know much about Neoconservatism and I’m sure most of what i have heard is largely biased politcal rhetoric either in criticism or favor of it. Could you explain to me some of it’s defining characteristics?
Of course neither system works in practice which is probably why its all very well to believe in it but like libertarianism, to name another system that basically just isn’t realistic, it’s a bit of a pie in the sky ideology.
Personally I wouldn’t bother assigning a value to systems that aren’t pragmatic, but that’s just me.
Well I don’t believe that for a second, Fascist policies have been successfully implemented in the past they simply weren’t a formalized ideology.
Unlike Communism that wishes to radically change human society all together, Fascism seems to me to simply take advantage of and support certain policies which already exist in human society.
But so I can better understand your position what do you think is so unrealistic about it?
Yeah but that’s not a fascist government. Calling martial law is not quite the same as say Italy’s form of fascism.
Individualism often is subservient to an elite fews will. Under fascism there is little means to challenge poor government, often because to generally bring in fascist policy broadly is not popular, it tends to lead towards totalitarianism. It encourages racism to prosper, because the citizen is considered more important than the non citizen. Here I cite the victories of the German governments and Italy’s as examples of lack of popularity and the gradual move towards despotism and racist ideology. People who aren’t remotely nationalist, which is probably a large portion of people in my country are alienated. Simply put it is not a democratic system in practice (because too few people believe in it), and suffers from being overthrown forcibly. It does not work in practice in countries as a system for any extended period. Largely for the same reasons communism doesn’t, but generally although not always in reverse.
Here’s the general point, it doesn’t and has never worked in practice because it is not popular enough to succeed generally, and its method of acquiring power lacks a democratic base. Is that in one place enough for you?
I’m getting that you don’t see it as a viable ideology, but your position isn’t convicing me because of it’s circumstantial ground.
Whether somethings popular or not is based on cultural peceptions, which can change.
And no it’s not a completely democratic so what? It was never meant to be and I don’t see that as a bad thing.
Though it does maintain Democratic policies to a point.
In Fact I think it was the Fascist Manifesto that called for lowering the age of voting to 18 and giving women the right to vote (this was in Italy mind you).
My position isn’t solid because all real world examples of it in practice are substantial failiures? Great. Sounds like a solid counter argument to me.
Atlas shrugs, yes? To quote a pseudo libertarian ideoligist. Is it remotely likely given the way the world is moving that nationalism is going to become the crowning paradigm over say democracy?
Italies form of facism was a failure, probably because it tried to assert it’s Roman supremacy and rights to Empire. Admittedly fascism often kills itself, but then that is the flaw with nationalist ideologies, over more liberal ones, and includes the sense of entitlement that they didn’t earn, but that comes from reflected glory. Expecting people to accept your rights are more important than their sovereignty is a substantial flaw in those governments that existed in reality, especially when its based on an Empire that was dead 1600 years ago or there abouts. People don’t respect me as an Eglishman because of what the Empire did any more than anyone respects someone as a sports fan because of what their team did. The intrinsic right to respect is not a given, this is a flaw in the system.
