Things which piss me off.... Teachers sprouting ignorance!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

because some Fascists hide behind the label of conservative.

Oh really? Like who?

I don't even want to say, because you will want specifics and I can't remember any. Generally, when capitalist start taking anit-democratic stances I call them Fascists, and they are.

edit: I consider Albert Speer and Fez Fascists and there are others I'm sure.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

because some Fascists hide behind the label of conservative.

Oh really? Like who?

Reagan
Limbaugh
Ashcroft
Fez
Bodds
Albert Speer

[Imran Siddiqui]

Kid: Odin's first three on his list proves it my point in dealing with most lefties on this site.

Generally, when capitalist start taking anit-democratic stances I call them Fascists, and they are.

So you just think that Fascists are capitalists who are totalitarian? And you want me to read more?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Kid: Odin's first three on his list proves it my point in dealing with most lefties on this site.

Generally, when capitalist start taking anit-democratic stances I call them Fascists, and they are.

So you just think that Fascists are capitalists who are totalitarian? And you want me to read more?

That's what a fascist is. What did you think it was?

edit: I would change totalitarian with authoritarian though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's what a fascist is. What did you think it was?

edit: I would change totalitarian with authoritarian though.

Read some Mussolini or Barres please.

Fascism is more corporatist than capitalist. It believes in the state controlling production mostly by getting business and labor together and hammering out production amounts and wages.

It also strongly emphasizes the state as the unifying force. Everyone is the same in the nation, and there is one leader who everyone looks up to and is the apex of the state.

In a sense Fascism is also radical for it looks to destroy those traditional notions that don't fit the idea that unity under the state is the ultimate goal. Everything is brought under heel, including traditions. At the same time it has some conservatism in it, dealing with national myths and legends.

As for changing totalitarianism to authoritarianism, you lose the basic element of Fascism when you do that.

[st_swithin]

The Chinese reserve the 19th level of hell for bad teachers.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
As for changing totalitarianism to authoritarianism, you lose the basic element of Fascism when you do that.

No you don't. You just have less extreme fascism. There is no one type of fascism just like there is not one type of communism. Communism is in general community ownership of the means of production. You can have all kinds of different specifics to go with that. Similarly, Fascism is generally undemocratic capitalism. You can have different specifics on that and different extremes too. If Mussolini would have allowed the Italian people to have a little more freedom would you call him democratic. Hell no. He would still be a Fascist, because Fascism is a relative term.

[Imran Siddiqui]

No you don't. You just have less extreme fascism. There is no one type of fascism just like there is not one type of communism. Communism is in general community ownership of the means of production.

You have absolutely no idea what Fascism is, do you?

The single leader who transcends all is a PRIMARY tenant of Fascism. The individual must be alienated and made to feel that only by joining with the leader and the state will his life be complete. The leader is in charge of all groups. He transcends all other affiliations. The leader is looked up to by all. Without that, you don't have Fascism. A plethora of leaders dilutes the power of the state over the individual. The individual does not have the one leader necessary to transcend the created alienation. There is not the one voice with which the state is unified.

Is there any other reason why every Fascist society has the 'leader'?

Fascism is generally undemocratic capitalism.

Again, you do not understand Fascism in the slightest. It is an entirely anti-individualist philosophy. That makes it hard at best to fit nicely with capitalism, which is originally an individualist philosophy. Fascism rails against liberalism, which is the dominant force in bringing capitalism.

To say that Fascism is undemocratic capitalism is being simplistic. It would be like saying Musharraf is a Fascist. Or 1910 Germany was Fascist. Or Suharto (of Indonesia) was a Fascist. Your definition leads to incredibly dumb results.

As the dictionary (American Heritage Dictionary) states:

A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

Though I'd make it "or racism", since Mussolini's or Franco's or Pinochet's Fascist states do not seem to be racist.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Though I'd make it "or racism", since Mussolini's or Franco's or Pinochet's Fascist states do not seem to be racist.

Ha! Look at what you posted. It's a relative term. You even say so here.

Look, you can either be democratic, and support democratic principles, or you can be fascist, and not support democratic principles. If you aren't totalitarian fascist it doesn't mean that you are democratic. If you're not communist or democratic then you are a fascist.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If you're not communist or democratic then you are a fascist.

This is basic Political Theory 101! Dictatorship does NOT equal Fascism! This leads to idiotic comments like William the Conquerer and Louis XIV was a Fascist!

It only proves that you are totally out of your gourd when talking about Fascism, because you have no clue what it is!

It's a relative term. You even say so here.

Where did I say it was a relative term? I said it can either have belligerant nationalism or racism... how does that make the term relative?

If you aren't totalitarian fascist it doesn't mean that you are democratic.

Of course! If you aren't totalitarian Fascist, then you can simply be a Dictatorship, a Junta, a Monarchy, etc. There aren't only three political systems in the world!

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If you're not communist or democratic then you are a fascist.

This is basic Political Theory 101! Dictatorship does NOT equal Fascism! This leads to idiotic comments like William the Conquerer and Louis XIV was a Fascist!

Louis XIV was a monarch. There's a difference. Fascism gives the government greater control over the economy, but it doesn't require that the govt take TOTAL control.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

It's a relative term. You even say so here.

Where did I say it was a relative term? I said it can either have belligerant nationalism or racism... how does that make the term relative?

You want to define fascism the way it existed only in Italy. That would be an absolute definition of the word. Unfortunately, fascism exists differently than that. That's why it is a relative term. To use your example, a fascist can be racist or not.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

If you aren't totalitarian fascist it doesn't mean that you are democratic.

Of course! If you aren't totalitarian Fascist, then you can simply be a Dictatorship, a Junta, a Monarchy, etc. There aren't only three political systems in the world!

Is there such a thing as a Dictatorist? No, we call them fascists.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Louis XIV was a monarch. There's a difference. Fascism gives the government greater control over the economy, but it doesn't require that the govt take TOTAL control.

You contradicted yourself. You said there was only democracy, communism, and fascism (putting aside the fact that communism and democracy can co-exist in the same state). How does monarchy suddenly arise?

Also, it requires a lot of control over the economy... to prevent corporations from exploiting the nation's workers.

You want to define fascism the way it existed only in Italy. That would be an absolute definition of the word. Unfortunately, fascism exists differently than that.

I want to define Fascism as the founders of Fascism defined it. How is that wrong? How is defining a political movement the way you want to and ignoring what the founders of that movement wanted it to mean correct?

Fascism does not exist differently than that, and if you don't believe me, please feel free to take political theory courses at your local university (like I did).

Btw, does this mean you have no objection to calling Stalin a 'Communist' (even though he really isn't?).

To use your example, a fascist can be racist or not.

Yeah, but it leads to the same thing. Extreme Nationalism. The difference is in defining the 'nation'. Hitler defined it as the German people. Everyone else defined it as the people in the state. In fact there is a good argument that Naziism is simply a subset of Fascism and not indicative of the theory (kinda like Anarchism and Communism... every Communist is not an Anarchist).

How saying Fascism can be racist or not opens the floodgates into making it mean whatever the Hell you want it to mean is ludicrous and silly.

Is there such a thing as a Dictatorist? No, we call them fascists.

No we don't... we call them by the Dictator's name: Maoist, Stalinist, etc. or the Dictator's political persuation: Royalist, Nationalist, etc.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Louis XIV was a monarch. There's a difference. Fascism gives the government greater control over the economy, but it doesn't require that the govt take TOTAL control.

You contradicted yourself. You said there was only democracy, communism, and fascism (putting aside the fact that communism and democracy can co-exist in the same state). How does monarchy suddenly arise?

Monarchy is an old system. It has no place in the modern world.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Also, it requires a lot of control over the economy... to prevent corporations from exploiting the nation's workers.

It doesn't prevent exploitation. It may simply make decisions that the corporations might otherwise make.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

You want to define fascism the way it existed only in Italy. That would be an absolute definition of the word. Unfortunately, fascism exists differently than that.

I want to define Fascism as the founders of Fascism defined it. How is that wrong? How is defining a political movement the way you want to and ignoring what the founders of that movement wanted it to mean correct?

T. Jefferson is ONE of the founders of democracy. The modern US is different from the original US, but it is still a democracy.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Btw, does this mean you have no objection to calling Stalin a 'Communist' (even though he really isn't?).

I do consider him a communist. Although the community did not truly own the means of production there is a grey area. So I call him a communist, even though I accept it when others do not.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

To use your example, a fascist can be racist or not.

Yeah, but it leads to the same thing. Extreme Nationalism. The difference is in defining the 'nation'. Hitler defined it as the German people. Everyone else defined it as the people in the state. In fact there is a good argument that Naziism is simply a subset of Fascism and not indicative of the theory (kinda like Anarchism and Communism... every Communist is not an Anarchist).

Nationalism, racism, it's all about the govt being for a minority and not having consideration for those that are not part of the group. That is fascism.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Is there such a thing as a Dictatorist? No, we call them fascists.

No we don't... we call them by the Dictator's name: Maoist, Stalinist, etc. or the Dictator's political persuation: Royalist, Nationalist, etc.

Those are specific govts that can only exist once. I'm asking you for a term that describes people who believe in authoritarian, capitalist regimes. We need a name to put them on the spectrum.

[Odin]

I believe their are 5 basic government types


Absolutism: Rule of a single person who believes he/she has a philosophical or religious right to rule.
-Nazi Germany
-17th Century France
-Czarist Russia
-Mussolini's Italy
-Imperial Rome
-Ancient Egypt
-Saudi Arabia

Despotism Rule of an power-hungry tyrant.
-Stalinist USSR
-Saddam-ruled Iraq
-Many African nations

Oligarchy: Rule of a chosen few, usually wealthy, people.
-Feudal Europe
-Ancient Sparta
-Post-Stalin USSR

Republic: Rule of the people through elected "Wise.Elite"
-US
-Republican Rome
-Modern Russia
-Modern Egypt
-Modern Turkey
-Mexico

Democracy: Rule of elected common people.
-Most European counties
-Canada
-Modern Japan
-Australia
-Modern South Africa
-Modern Israel
-Ancient Athens

[Imran Siddiqui]

The modern US is different from the original US, but it is still a democracy.

*cough* Democratic Republic.

I do consider him a communist.

But he isn't. He isn't even a Leninist Communist.

Nationalism, racism, it's all about the govt being for a minority and not having consideration for those that are not part of the group. That is fascism.

Actually you are wrong. In every Fascist state the government was for the MAJORITY.

And Fascism, if you want to boil it down is basically total support of the state with a dictatorial regime. THAT is Fascism.

Those are specific govts that can only exist once. I'm asking you for a term that describes people who believe in authoritarian, capitalist regimes. We need a name to put them on the spectrum.

You already have a name. Authoritarian Capitalism. That sounds ok to me.

On the much better 4 point spectrum (going from Socialism on the Left to Capitalism on the Right and Authoritarianism on the Top to Libertarianism on the Bottom), they'd be on the Top right. Fascism would be Top center.


Fascism is a very, very specific government (like Anarchism). It is a subset of Authoritarianism. Authoritarian Capitalism is another, different, subset. Fascist economics takes a little from Capitalism and a little from Socialism and creates something with both, which is now commonly refered to as Corporatism (but under a nicer and different form, usually seen in Central Europe, especially in Austria).

I want you to answer however (since you've ignored it) whether you believe Musharraf is a Fascist. Or, let's say, whether Mugabe is a Fascist? What about Charles Taylor in Liberia? Or Joseph Kabila in Congo?