Political Discussions for "Adults"

OccultHawk · 07-09-2020, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mindfulness

Virus dangerous enough for criminals to be released but safe enough for schools to open

Compulsory schooling is fascist af. It’s one of those things that’s incredible to me that people can’t see. You have to go somewhere, every ****ing day, against your will just because you’re below a certain age. It’s insane that a kid will be arrested before they allow him to walk out of a school.

And this bull**** that they’re putting out that kids are actually harmed by missing school is outlandish.

Lucem Ferre · 07-09-2020, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

The 'legit' definiton according to whom?

Oxford defines fascism as "An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

Merriam Webster defines fascism as "a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition"

Dictionary.com defines fascism as "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism."

British historian Roger Griffin coined the term 'fascist minimum' in his book The Nature of Fascism, a set of minimum conditions that a political movement or government must meet to satisfy the quality of being fascist. If historians could agree on something like this, it might be more useful than our current hodgepodge of definitions.

Many think 'fascism' is inextricably linked with 'corporatism', but your definition doesn't require corporatism. Some believe that 'fascism' is inextricably tied to far-right ideologies, but others believe it better suited to simple authoritarianism, of any political root.

So depending on one's definition, Nazi Germany was fascist, Imperial Japan was fascist, Israel is fascist, the modern US is fascist, the early US was fascist, the Soviet Union was fascist, pre-communist China was fascist, and modern day China is fascist.

Every single one of those definitions fit perfectly with the one I gave.

And yes, I would and have said that all those things are fascist.

MidnightRambler · 07-09-2020, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I imagine it was real fascists and not BLM protesters who tore down a ****ing Frederick Douglass statue.

I never said that BLM tore down the Douglas statue. BLM doesn't like those people because they try to hide behind BLM in order to excuse their lawlessness and vandalism.

The same faction behind the tearing down of Jefferson statues are behind the tearing down of Freddy Douglas, and I want to know who they are and what their real goal is, so that I can loudly oppose it.

There's no reason to tear down a statue of a real American hero like FD.

SGR · 07-09-2020, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Every single one of those definitions fit perfectly with the one I gave.

And yes, I would and have said that all those things are fascist.

'Fit perfectly' - come on now. Even with the loosest interpretations of these definitions, they don't 'fit perfectly' with yours. Even if the application of your definition was as loose as Jenna Jameson, it wouldn't fit perfectly.

A definition of political ideology that applies to all those countries is not a useful one.

~~jwb~~ · 07-09-2020, 01:45 PM

His definition includes the majority of regimes throughout human history so yeah, I'd say it's not particularly useful.

Fascism usually refers to a specific movement most notably in early 20th century Europe. Using it as a vague catch all for authoritarianism in general or nationalism/racism in general is lazy and unhelpful.

Lucem Ferre · 07-09-2020, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

'Fit perfectly' - come on now. Even with the loosest interpretations of these definitions, they don't 'fit perfectly' with yours. Even if the application of your definition was as loose as Jenna Jameson, it wouldn't fit perfectly.

A definition of political ideology that applies to all those countries is not a useful one.

Mine was ripped straight from Websters I just simplified it.

But I'm willing to admit I'm wrong in how I use it in regards to the Soviet Union but not in regards to America.

Edit: If there's something from Websters definition that you think should be added go ahead.

SGR · 07-09-2020, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

Fascism usually refers to a specific movement most notably in early 20th century Europe. Using it as a vague catch all for authoritarianism in general or nationalism/racism in general is lazy and unhelpful.

This was my point exactly. The term is thrown around so much these days, I usually don't have a clue what someone means by it unless I ask for qualification.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Mine was ripped straight from Websters I just simplified it.

But I'm willing to admit I'm wrong in how I use it in regards to the Soviet Union but not in regards to America.

Edit: If there's something from Websters definition that you think should be added go ahead.

There may be things I'd add, but I don't know if there would be any point. I could add things, but then it would just be my definition, rather than Webster's definition, and I am by no means an expert on fascism or an expert on what the term most accurately means in the politics of today. I have a fair understanding of what it meant back in WW2, but its meaning back then has been diluted. Words evolve and take on new meaning and historians argue over ideology - nothing wrong with that but I'm not really enough of an authority to take part in that.

I'll bite though - why wouldn't you apply your definition to the Soviet Union? Would you agree that it was a dictatorship? If not, why not? Do you agree that it was a government based on classism (e.g. bourgeoisie/proletariat)? If not, why not?

~~jwb~~ · 07-09-2020, 02:12 PM

So LF, going by your statements your definition of a 'dictatorship' also includes the United States? Once again it seems you are using terms too loosely.

I think this article is a decent basic explanation of what Fascism is. I'll quote some highlights.

Quote:

Robert Paxton, a professor emeritus of social science at Columbia University in New York who is widely considered the father of fascism studies, defined fascism as "a form of political practice distinctive to the 20th century that arouses popular enthusiasm by sophisticated propaganda techniques for an anti-liberal, anti-socialist, violently exclusionary, expansionist nationalist agenda."

[...]

Paxton, author of several books, including "The Anatomy of Fascism" (Vintage, 2005), said fascism is based more on feelings than philosophical ideas. In his 1988 essay "The Five Stages of Fascism," published in 1998 in the Journal of Modern History, he defined seven feelings that act as "mobilizing passions" for fascist regimes. They are:

-The primacy of the group. Supporting the group feels more important than maintaining either individual or universal rights.
-Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies.
-The belief that individualism and liberalism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group.
-A strong sense of community or brotherhood. This brotherhood's "unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary."
-Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group. Paxton called this an "enhanced sense of identity and belonging."
-Extreme support of a "natural" leader, who is always male. This results in one man taking on the role of national savior.
-"The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle," Paxton wrote. The idea of a naturally superior group or, especially in Hitler's case, biological racism, fits into a fascist interpretation of Darwinism.
Once in power, "fascist dictatorships suppressed individual liberties, imprisoned opponents, forbade strikes, authorized unlimited police power in the name of national unity and revival, and committed military aggression," Paxton wrote.

https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html

Lucem Ferre · 07-09-2020, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

This was my point exactly. The term is thrown around so much these days, I usually don't have a clue what someone means by it unless I ask for qualification.

There may be things I'd add, but I don't know if there would be any point. I could add things, but then it would just be my definition, rather than Webster's definition, and I am by no means an expert on fascism or an expert on what the term most accurately means in the politics of today. I have a fair understanding of what it meant back in WW2, but its meaning back then has been diluted. Words evolve and take on new meaning and historians argue over ideology - nothing wrong with that but I'm not really enough of an authority to take part in that.

I'll bite though - why wouldn't you apply your definition to the Soviet Union? Would you agree that it was a dictatorship? If not, why not? Do you agree that it was a government based on classism (e.g. bourgeoisie/proletariat)? If not, why not?

Not what I meant on classism. They were trying to eliminate class all together rather than perpetuate it. That being the whole idea behind communism. I'm not sure how race plays a part in that movement either.

That's not really true about the definition in WW2 either. The original Antifa considered democratic socialism and liberals to be fascist. Actually, they kind of considered anything that wasn't communism to be fascist.

Lucem Ferre · 07-09-2020, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jwb

So LF, going by your statements your definition of a 'dictatorship' also includes the United States? Once again it seems you are using terms too loosely.

I think this article is a decent basic explanation of what Fascism is. I'll quote some highlights.

https://www.livescience.com/57622-fascism.html

I think this country is thriving with fascist ideas that is quickly moving the needle towards a dictatorship. I think when Trump declared supreme authority, stole medical supplies from states for not opening up when he wanted and declared Antifa a terrorist organization while declaring anybody that makes him look bad to be Antifa we arrived at being fascist.

Edit: I think I'm going to adopt his definition as the definition I use then. Seems more in tune with what I'm trying to say.

07-09-2020, 01:45 PM	#6615 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	His definition includes the majority of regimes throughout human history so yeah, I'd say it's not particularly useful. Fascism usually refers to a specific movement most notably in early 20th century Europe. Using it as a vague catch all for authoritarianism in general or nationalism/racism in general is lazy and unhelpful.