A Question (or two) for Fascists...

[Az]

If a true fascism would exist now, it would be one the most evil governments, after a theocratic government. I would like to note that in a true fascism, corporations would be nationalized, one should remember that, when he reads the "government+corporations=fascism" quote.

Fascism, as I said, even the 20th century form of it, could be the moral, and the logical choice, under certain circumstances.

[Az]

Fascism is about the primacy of the Nation and its culture to the develpment of Man and society, at the least

exactly. That's not all of it, though.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Azazel
If a true fascism would exist now, it would be one the most evil governments, after a theocratic government. I would like to note that in a true fascism, corporations would be nationalized, one should remember that, when he reads the "government+corporations=fascism" quote.

Fascism, as I said, even the 20th century form of it, could be the moral, and the logical choice, under certain circumstances.

But there is no such things as "true fascism". The Italian thinkers did not finish making their theories, and the National Socialist were simply all over the place. After all, the Italians tried to push th notion of the corporate state, so even if Corporations were "nationalized", it seems to me that in the theoreticl sense, it would be a different from of state owneship than the Socialist model, once in which citizens would won shares in it as citizen, not individual private investors seperated from the public.

[Az]

hey, I am building on the ideas that exist. Fascism as a theoretical model of government, as a philosophy, is valid, and moral, since a situation can exist under which fascism would be NEEDED, and the right of the individual wouldn't matter, because, say, the fait of all of humanity would lie on the stake. Just like capitalism could be needed under certain circumstances. I am a communist because I believe that this is what would suit best the human race, under the current conditions of population number, the developement of technologies and applied sciences, and generally speaking the state of the world.

The idea of the Corporations belonging to the state is different than the socialist idea, due to the fact that the Nation/State exists almost outside the concept of the human individual. It also encompasses agression as one of it's "core values", violence almost for violence's sake, as a bonding factor, unlike even the violence in Marxist ideas, "the class struggle", and the world revolution.

I don't think that the Nazis should be treated as a fascists, btw. They were all racial supremacy. IIRC, Fascism doesn't speak about race at all.

This btw, shows another large difference between socialism ( to it's forms ), and fascism. Fascism didn't have the proper ideological fundement, at the time Mussolini came to power at the early 20s. So it created the situation that a "technological theory" (social engineering ) was built to fit an existing situation. ( I make the distinction of 'technological theory" against "scientific theory", because a scientific theory represents an effort to explain a certain part of the world that we live in, and thus we must demand that the "scientific theory" would fit the existing situation, because otherwise, it's point is void. a "technological theory" brings a new concept to the world, that was previously unheard of, and tries to explain why and how will it work in accordance to the "scientific theories".)

[GePap]

Azazel:

First: I think you meant Mussolini coming to power in the early 20's, not Franco.

Second: I agree that in theory, Fascism isn't racist since it does not speak of the "superiority" of one nation over another, nor deny in theory a multi-racial nation. In practice though, this is iffy, as it is all to common to state that your way must be better than "theirs" and race is to easy a way to differentiate "nations".

Third: The Nation state is fundamental to Fascism; Fascism is all about the Politics of culture. To fascist, Man is defined by his culture and nation, and thus, the political systems that must be built must be there to further refine the culture, and protect it; in Communism politics serves "class" interest, as economic class is the defining identity for man but in fascism Nation (and the culture that differentiates a nation from another) is the defining identity of man. The interesting bit is that what the relation of the creation of the state and creation of the culture is: does th culture have to exist a priori to the creation of the Nation (state) or does the nation come first, creating a safe environment for the creation and furthering of an individual culture?

[Az]

oh God, DID I WRITE FRANCO?!!! I wanted to write mussolini, but kept thinking about Franco, and could he be described as a Fascist, or just another totalitarianist, ala Saddam, etc.... ugrhrhrhh

You're mostly correct in your post, btw.
Another point that I'd like to make about the fascist theories, and theoreticans: can the "Leviathan" be considered a proto-fascist work?

[GePap]

Leviathan may be an autoritharian work, but I see nothing inherently "Fascist" about it. After all, based on his work, I don't see Hobbes worrying much about the type of culture the Leviathan rules over, and for him, it would not make any one subject a less legitimate subject, or said nother way: a difference of culture and habbit between the Leviathan and the subjects would not in any way bring into question the legitimacy of Levaithan's authority: it woul, for facists.

[Az]

I am pointing out the basis of modern authoritarianism, which gave a new legitimate basis for authoritarian rule, unlike the simple heavenly will of previous authocrats of both the ancient and the mid ages.

( the argument that fascism is actually not inherently authoritarian can be made, though, but it would be rather different to prove, IMO, because the distinct crushing of the individual by Fascism is a core element of fascism. )

[GePap]

Even if Leviathan is one of the first works to provide a basis for an authoritarian government devorced from the Will of God, that still does not make it proto-fascist, anymore than the fact that Adam Smiths work is crucial to the development of capitalsm make him one of the fathers of Communism.

As for Fascism's relation to the individual: Fasicm isn't out to 'crush' indiduality, as they define it (which is always the key, definitions). To them, the only way that the 'true individual' develops is through the fascist state: to them, the idea that a human being can become whole alone, devoid of the culture if he whishes so, is foolish. Man can only wholly develop as an individual as part of the National Whole. Individual, yes, Alone, NO.

[orange]

Originally posted by GePap
Fascim isn't just about baning rap-songs (in fact, that may have nothing to do with it at all) and stopping kids from having sex: this is a comon and utterly incorrect vision of fascism.

No shit?

[Az]

good points. I agree.

[GePap]

Originally posted by orange


No shit?

Hey, you are the one who decided to call those forms of possible censorship fascist: your choice of words, not mine.

Have anything else to add?

[orange]

"Albert Speer" - a Fascist
His dream - the world described
This thread - a joke!

[Az]

Overall, I agree with you, GePap.

what there's more to discuss....hmmm. we need new people in this thread.

[GePap]

Originally posted by orange
"Albert Speer" - a Fascist
His dream - the world described
This thread - a joke!

well, too bad I am so badly versed in Speer's likes and dislikes: And as always, the initial intent of the threat usually has zero to do with the eventual outcome of it.

Azazel: I agree: if only two people are posting, and they basicaly agree, than what's there to post about? Perhaps some other poster will grace this place with their boundless wit and charm.