If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Errrr...no it isn't. Fascism is a particular set of ideas and idealogies that gain power in specific ways. It is not just "oppressive dictatorial control, including censorship and suppression of opponents.", otherwise any authoratarian regime could be described as "fascist". Fascism was a particular ideology originating with Mussolini in 1920's Italy. Read that book I recommended, its a good read.
The fact that those ways are identical to the ways all other ideologies gain power is neither here nor there, is it? Charasmatic bloke gains followers through persuasion, they use violence for him to get him what he wants. Your obsessed with the sales pitch and what he wants, I think it's irrelevent.
How does it obtain that violent control? The same way that all other political systems do. This is why they are all fundamentally the same. You've ignored what I wrote I notice, choosing to fuck about defining "facism" in regards to what it wanted to achieve and where and when it was in vogue. Total waste of time.
I don't think "society" employs anything. It can't as it doesn't exist. I think that a handful of clever men and women persuade other men and women to employ violence and the threat of violence to force their opinions (known as law, which is just one man's opinion written on paper) on everyone else in a given, arbitary location.
You thinking that theres such a thing as "soceity" is just yet more sales pitch to excuse the violent domination. I am upstairs typing this, my brother is downstairs pissing about on his mobile phone. You'd have me believe that somehow our actions are linked that a "we" exist.
In this location we are lucky, because the sales pitch for "democracy" is the rule of law and justice. Ideas that are laughable of course. The poor brainwashed fucknuts who actually run the thing day to day cling to those ideas like limpets rather than face the truth that they are just being violent on someone elses behalf.
How about adressing the point. Mrs. T was just another one of those people seeking to make everyone (in a given, arbitarily defined area) her bitch. If she really meant it, she would have jacked the job immediately after disbanding the government.
What on earth are you talking about now?
Any chance of addressing the earlier points before we wander of down tangent avenue?
Oh fuck off.
All governmental systems are the same. I see no difference between a theocracy and a nationalistic state. I know what you mean by those terms, I am just saying that it's a false analysis because of the reasons already given. While you would wank on about "cult of personality" and the aims etc, you miss the key point.
And you've still dodged the point. Not a surprise really.
You know something I don't about NLP?
History tells us different however.
No difference? :nervous:
No you don't, you never asked.
Actually I wouldn't say anything about "cult of personality". Where did that come from? Oh yeah, you're idiotic assumptions again.
You haven't got any points.
Obviously.
I'll agree with you on that on a few levels...
But fascism is quite a particular thing, fascism is authoritarian as well as totalitarianism and has state control over all aspects of your life (for example social, economic ect), fascism elevates a certain nation, group of people or race to superiority, it demands complete loyalty to a single leader, also control of the means of production.
It is much more than charisma and violence.
If you are an idiot. Look closer. If you mean what's been done to who, and under what myth, then sure. That underlying principle you keep dodging is still the same.
No. Theres no nation. Theres no god. There are no "workers" either. So it's one man using myths as an excuse and persuasive argument to gain control of another violently. You want to look at the excuses and myths, the groups that get injured and benefit. Great. Good for you. They all remain the same in nature regardless.
i'll go look in a dictionary, that's where all your thoughts come from. You never look at that weird prediliction you have to go looking at what "authorities" think and at the same time holding that you are an anarchist?
I do apologise, I should have checked in the "what anarchist's have to think (by order) book for boys." It was just an example of the kind of irrelevancy you'd want to understand and waste time looking at.
You refute 6 things but say I don't have any points. Yeah, ok mate.
Like what?
So you believe fascism, stalinism and western democracy are all interchangable terms without ideological, structural and organisational difference? Just because there are similarities between them they are one and the same?
A good analogy would be an apple and a pear. Both have a stalk, both are of vaguely similar shape - is it logical to describe an apple as a pear, and a pear as an apple?
Ideologically they are different. I agree that the myths that they use are entirely different. Structurally and organisationally they are all identical, with the same structure as all large enterprises, although with different names (to fit in with the ideology).
What McDonalds and Barrat himes do is entirely different. They are organisationally the same. In fact, they share the same structure as a group of people down the pub.
The advantage that the people in the pub have is that the movement of people within that structure is fluid and therefore more useful and no one is using a gun to keep it static.
No. They're not. You're entirely wrong on this. You're making yourself look foolish. Try doing some reading.
You should stop reading and open your fucking eyes and look at what's happening. Instead you let yourself get beguiled by political language and all that other shit.
You think a monarchy is different in organisation than a democracy or any other group of people?
Idiot.
Yes, the monarchy is different in organisation than my trade union for instance. If you can't see that, you're even more mentally disturbed than I thought.
Take the example of Blagsta's vision of the ideal society. Workers running industry collectively, on a democratic basis. No gender, racial or sexual discrimination. No centralised state. How is that organisationally/structurally the same as, say, NS Germany or the notion of a Islamic khalifate, based on exclusive racial/theological ideology (encompassing distinct gender roles, etc) and a powerful centralised state?
Me thinks you need a new dictionary.
Whislt the political movement "fascismo" was founded by Mussolini is 1919, the meaning of the word has evolved.
One of the uses is that which I have described.
fas·cism n.
often Fascism
1. 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.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
3. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
I missed where I said that.
What I said was that if you enforce what someone can or cannot say, through violence, then you are oppressing through dictat.
But you would describe both as a fruit?
Yes, lets.
Define "worker"...
And then tell me what the alternative is - a worker as opposed to what exactly?
Then explain how that differs from the current situation, and how such a society would be maintained - how would decent be managed for example.
Interesting that left out is "political discrimination", isn't it?
He takes 218 pages to get there. If you take fascism purely to mean "Oppressive, dictatorial control", then virtually every country in history has been fascist at some point - which is obviously a nonsense.
Someone that doesn't have to work for a living, that lives off the fruits of others.
Since when was the comment part of a discussion about political theory?
I suggest that you read the thread up to the point at which the comment was made.
I don't take it "purely" by that definition. You seem to be having difficulty with the fact that some words have more than one inflection.
If I describe a political movement as facist them you would be correct. I didn't. Nor did I describe a theory as such.
I agreed with klintocks comment about Aladdin's approach to racist opinions.
It is? I thought that you had a better grasps of political history than that Blagsta.
That would be an option in your "ideal" system then, would it?
What's with the constant reference to "purely"... both you and Blagsta have used it...
It's isn't "purely" a political ideology either and both of you have completely missed the point which was being made.
As you say context is relevant and perhaps you need to look at the context it was used in.
Advocating the oppression of an opinion through violence is facist tendancy - or do you disagree with that?
How exactly?
You have no leader?
All human relationships have a structure, the difference between a trade union and a monarchy would be that in a monarchy (or any other government type, which is why they are all identical) someone holds a gun to your head to make you join in and keep you in. A trade union is a voluntary organisation.
It's exactly the same, except the people in the structure would swap places as and when required. In Blagsta's example, the most charismatic would become in charge quite quickly. Getting what they want by persuading the voters it was in their interest or granting false choices. As always. Your confusing the structure (man at top, close followers jockeying for position etc etc) which remains constant through all human association, with what the different individuals are aiming for and/or achieving.
I never said they didn't try and achieve different things, or that they didn't have a different PR scheme to rope people into obeying. I said that the structure was always the same so it's pointless to even look at it. Man with big ideas + salesmanship + violence = government = failure at most things except retaining power for man with big ideas.
You can either do things voluntarily or you can have a man with a gun tell you what to do. One is freedom, the other is government. All types of government.
This one had me laughing for a while
This one wasn’t so funny but its good man, keeping with the theme being consistent
It's no more of a fascist tendency than it is a stalinist tendency, or even a financial-democratic tendency.
To say something is a "fascist tendency" is meaningless, unless you're talking about something specific to fascism.