is fascism inherently bad? is it wrong to be a fascist? how badly

>>1469059
its rather pathetic that you have to use terms like good and bad to describe a socio-economic system that may mean 1 thing to an Italian and mean something completely different to a German or Spaniard.

Delete this thread and word your post better, otherwise I know you're baiting responses and don't deserve anything more than this.

>>1469072
I'm not baiting responses.
I am making short questions simply because answering them becomes more of an open task, and therefore discussion flows more.
Despite the differences fascism has things in common with everywhere its implemented.
So instead of talking shit, you could alternatively read something before doing so. You could start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/fascism
Delete this post otherwise you're making an embarassment out of yourself.

>>1469059
>is fascism inherently bad?
Depends if you believe in free speech and liberty.
If one does, then facism can go fuck itself with a brick.

>>1469059
>Good and bad dichotomy

Wew lad

>>1469059
it's populism.

>>1469059
>is fascism inherently bad?
No.

>is it wrong to be a fascist?
No.

>how badly is it seen to be one?
It's social suicide to admit that you're a fascist the world over.

>do you agree fascism is good in principle?
Yes. I have read the doctrine of fascism, and I agree with it by and large.

>>1469059
Fascism is just another term for collectivism. Yes, fascism is bad for whoever is on the other end of the axe, but fascists never have to come to term with their evil because they collectively decide that their evil is justified.

>>1469072
Don't be a jerk. The thread is good and if you have to contribute then do mention the necessary differences in your opinion. If not then gtfo.

>>1469166
>Yes, fascism is bad for whoever is on the other end of the axe

What 'axe' are you speaking of?

Why is it that students (i.e. children) always start leftist revolutionary movements, whereas army generals (i.e. men) always start fascist coups? What does that say about the respective systems of beliefs that motivate them?

Orwell disliked military parades, but even the worst of those seem like artistic masterpieces (as Leni Riefenstahl showed, to the eternal chagrin of the pseudo-intellectuals) compared to the sheer ugliness of a demonstrating mob. Demonstrations should be banned, if for no other reason, on purely aesthetic grounds. But there are other reasons too. The demonstrators are not brave enough to pick up weapons, nor intelligent enough to write down their complaints. If I were president I'd promise to read an essay written by the demonstrators' leaders. But to ACT on it? That decision would remain mine. What else did you elect me for? This is democracy: The 51 percent calls the shots and the president goes with them otherwise he doesn't get reelected. To care for the 49 percent who didn't vote for him is not only stupid, but anti-democratic: a betrayal of his constituents (and constituents too stupid to realize when they have been betrayed). NO DEMONSTRATOR HAS EVER HAD GROUNDS ON WHICH TO COMPLAIN. I will repeat it: demonstrations are anti-democratic; a vocal minority bullying the government to overlook and act against the wishes of the civilized majority (which has already expressed its wishes THROUGH THE BALLOT). It should be written into every constitution: demonstrations are illegal. Not to speak of throwing rocks at police officers. Merely to call them names is reason enough for prison time; any kind of assault on them for a death sentence handed down on the spot, Judge Dredd-style. Now that'd be cutting-edge democracy at work: the democracy of the future.

Things to consider, on an otherwise untouchable topic!

File: 1464035289674.jpg (210KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1024x680px

>>1469215
I am trying to find words to counter argue this but I can't come up with anything except muh freedom of assembly. This is an interesting point of view, and I never thought about it before. Can you please elaborate further on the issue of demonstrations? I would genuinely like to read more, and I'm not being sarcastic.

>>1469215
>To care for the 49 percent who didn't vote for him is not only stupid
However, the Constitution represents everyone. There are points in the Constitution that represent all voters, even those who did not win the election. For example, the right to water, food, housing and a job is part of Iran's Constitution.
>a vocal minority bullying the government
What about the demonstrations that support the current administration/government?

I just think that peaceful, organized demonstrations, like walks with posters and the like, or standing just outside the congress with a hand sign, are completely fine.

>>1469273
Also, it's potentially dangerous to illegalize all demonstrations.
An authoritarian government that restricts freedom of speech could use this as a way to prevent any riots against the government, as a tool for control and retaining power.

>>1469059
It's socialism + nationalism
Literally spooks: the ideology

File: Facebook-They-are-so-awful-2e4526.png (47KB, 500x423px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 500x423px

>>1469279
>it's bad because spooks
>and spooks are spooks because spookman told me so

Stirnerfags will be the first to go.

File: 1468780612957.jpg (15KB, 157x198px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 157x198px

It's OK, if you subscribe to British Fascism, but only Mosley's brand though

>>1469294
This
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9q-cjWPsDY

>>1469294
please dont use burb to shitpost

>>1469279
Every ideology is "spooks: the ideology" considering ideology is a spook.

>>1469215
The primary purpose of a demonstration is to shift public opinion so that a minority view can become the majority one. Regardless of how one feels about gay rights they can't deny that public opinion has shifted over the past 40 years due at least in part to public demonstrations on the subject.

File: 1469533357618.jpg (76KB, 860x488px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 860x488px

>>1469215
But there has never been a military led fascist coup. The closest was the Wehrmacht establishing the Italian Social Republic on rhe liberation of Mussolini. Yet you claim army generals always start fascist coup, care to name a few?

>>1469094
well handled OP

it hasen't had any oppurtunity to evolve as an ideology such as Communism and liberalism has

>>1469059
>is fascism inherently bad?
yes
>is it wrong to be a fascist?
yes
>how badly is it seen to be one? is it because muh hitler?
not badly enough
>do you agree fascism is good in principle?
no

>>1470829
pinochet
franco

Fascism is bad because it's unnecessarily militaristic, immoral to the point of being self-defeating, destructive to governmental structures that balance power, and consolidating of power into the hands of a small, infallible party that isn't held accountable to common law.

It's also dismissive of things such as objective truth, serious intellectual inquiry, the importance of maintaining just laws within a country, the importance of having a trustworthy reputation abroad, and the long-term damage done when the people see their government acting with corruption, hypocrisy, and mere partisan self-interest.

Honestly, fascism is just exhausting.

It's trying to build a national utopia, when utopias are boring pretty much by definition.

>>1469215
>Demonstrations should be banned, if for no other reason, on purely aesthetic grounds.
keked

[spoiler]You may not be wrong, Singapore's a pretty good place after all.[/spoiler]

>>1471706
>It's bad because it's boring and exhausting

k

>>1471703
/thread

File: fascism at war.jpg (94KB, 285x733px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 285x733px

As Umberto Eco noted, the problem with fascism is that they truly believe the propaganda about fascist regimes being stronger because they are more traditional and manly, while liberal regimes are weak because of their liberalism or socialism.

As long as they keep underestimating their enemies this way, fascism will always lose.

Leftists love to criticize fascism, but much of left-wing nationalism in the postwar world, specially in the Third World but even in Scandinavia, was directly influenced by it, such as Peronism, Baathism and European corporatism.

I guarantee you that nobody in this thread even knows what fascism is.

They will not be able to tell you the moral tenets, societal role of citizens, what freedoms are available to citizens compared to a capitalist society, what their economic stance was, etc.

You're asking a gaggle of idiots. Unfortunately, that's most people in the world, so even if you went to the wrong "experts", they'd likely have nothing to offer but WW2-era propaganda answers.

>>1469059
>is fascism inherently bad?
not necessarily
>is it wrong to be a fascist?
In this day-and-age, yes
>how badly is it seen to be one? is it because muh hitler?
Very badly, and for just reasons. Yes
>do you agree fascism is good in principle?
No. The entire ideology revolves around sacrificing civil liberties and freedoms to the state and a all-powerful egomaniac. You are literally retarded if you think this is a good idea.

>>1471770
It wasn't influenced by fascism. Fascism was influenced by socialism early on, that's how it came about. They're the same thing essetially with the same tactics and methods only different propaganda

File: Get Your Shit Together Luigi.jpg (986KB, 2170x1450px) Image search: [Google]

986KB, 2170x1450px

>>1471764
That has nothing to do with Fascism and everything to do with Shitaly.

>>1471764
That has more to due with the incompetence of the Italian army during WW2 rather then the fascist ideology. Italy's minister of war said that Italy would need to wait until 1942 or something to be prepared for a war with global powers like Britain and France.

File: stalin.jpg (210KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1600x1200px

>>1469059
Fascism is inherently bad. Fascists should not be debated. They should be slaughtered.

>>1472162
>Fascists should not be debated.

Because then you'd realize you have no good arguments against Nationalism. :^)

>>1469059
Fascism is not inherently bad (when kept independent of Hitler's race bollocks) but the problem, much like Communism, is that it can never work in real life as it just about ensures the leadership will become corrupt, violent, greedy etc. etc.

Take Judge Dredd for instance. He is, undeniably, a fascist. But he works as a hero because the world he inhabits requires him to be and because he is absolutely, even insanely, incorruptible in the way only a fictional character can be.

>>1472162
Fascism is superior to communism. Come at me tankies.

>>1472171
>>1472179
Both of you should be sent to a gulag.

File: Reichstag_flag_original.jpg (83KB, 400x289px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 400x289px

>>1472179
By what metric?

>>1471666
pinochet was neoliberal
Franco was a traitor to spanish third position

Also, Árbenz was a general and a democratically elected cripto commie, your point is invalid

>>1472189
You deserve a free helicopter ride.

>>1472192
Causing less deaths. Pro tip: common war doesn't count

>>1472200
But anon. Six million.

While communism and socialism are better theoretically, they don't actually work out in effect.

Fascism on the other hand relies on exactly one thing, a good dictator. If that is present it cannot go wrong. It is not tied to race or background, it is tied to the idea of a better living for a collective. Struggling and striving to better the group at large is always rewarded, making it worth it for the common worker and the collective at the same time. Everyone isn't equal, rather they have to fill in the gaps that are open, the ones they can competently fill, essentially being cogs in a machine. They wish to secure their independence from foreign interests, they want to secure their independence from unethical or disagreeable interests of those who aren't foreign, they wish to have a collective of people, all whom agree with them, that they may happily serve and die for.

Naturally such an extreme movement will encroach on some toes, if not outright amputate the feet, but fascism isn't inherently based on genocide and execution and forcibly going against the people's will. As is with many things, to properly instate fascism the majority must actually want it, they are democratically electing to negate the opinions and rights of those whom they vehemently disagree with, for good or bad; for example, if the decision of the populous at large is to incur death penalty upon those who dare possess, manufacture, or trade pornographic material, then they are simply forcibly dealing with the minority who they could argue are also working to undermine the collective of people that is their nation.

>>1469206
Fascism always needs an enemy to unite the society against.

>ITT: "I learned history playing Civ 5"
Surprise, fascism is not necessarily dictatorship.
In fact, in most cases it had strong support from the legislative body of the country, and a strong party as well.

>>1471770
You mean liberals right? The left is almost always opposed to fascism.

>>1469059
all societies are some mixture of various forms of government. I suppose a society beset upon by enemies form all sides could benefit from a fascist government.

>inherently bad

What does "bad" mean?

You'll never be able to provide an objective answer.

File: 83a556aa-e501-11e3-_705926c.jpg (31KB, 620x413px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 620x413px

>>1471666
>pinochet
A dictator, but by no means a fascist, neoliberal as hell
>franco
Conservative traditionalist, played the Fascist Falange, and the Clerical Carlists against each other to secure his own position

The dictatorship alone is not the identifier of a Fascist, you've even had a select group of Fascists who supported the continuation of the Democratic system.

>>1469160
>The world over
The world isn't the west.

>>1470829
Except in latin america.

>>1473802

Except there hasn't been

>>1473802
anti-communism isn't necessarily fascism
t. Argentine

>>1472173
You don't really believe the "absolute power destroys absolutely" meme do you? The problem with facism is that it tends to be governed by not just one person akin to an emperor with underlings, but with a government and that those politicians are always another risk. If you had just 1 leader, there would be a good chance he would not be corrupted, it's the system itself that tends to be corrupt, but this is nothing we don't have in our modern world as well, look at my godforsaken country Germany, where politicians literally shit on public opinion

>>1469059
I am surprised that there haven't been made simulators for different political forms of life, where you have pretty much every detail from the smallest workers fears to the likelihood of the leaders giving in to corruption or what have you, you could run a lot of stuff through it, and with enough parameters to work with we'd know a statistically perfect system

>>1471878
This. The vast majority of people in the world and even on a history board such as this know nothing of what fascism is. At best they understand its material aspects. But, because of their materialist worldview, they fail to comprehend the deeper meaning. Fascism is simply the application of natural law to Man.
Egregious examples of people who don't get it:
>>1469166
Fascism is collectivist, but it is not synonymous with collectivism.
>>1469279
Materialist.
>>1471706
Fascism does not intend to create a utopia. It intends to create a nation that performs to its greatest capabilities.
>>1472305
Society will always have enemies. Fascism simply recognizes this.
>>1472308
Fascism is inherently dictatorial, because it recognizes that humans are naturally hierarchical, so for every duty there will be people on the top.

>>1474009
peron isn't a fascist?

>>1475213
>they fail to comprehend the deeper meaning. Fascism is simply the application of natural law to Man

*tips fedora*

>>1469094
>simply because answering them becomes more of an open task, and therefore discussion flows more.

No - it makes you look like an immature fool who doesn't know what the right questions to ask are.

>>1469273
>the right to water, food, housing and a job is part of Iran's Constitution.
Is that constitution honored? It sounds too good to be true.

>>1475166
The problem would be modeling just about anything involved. We can't even get schools of economics to agree, much less schools of politics modeled down to individual worker concerns. It would be basically a "pick your variables to support whatever you want to believe" simulator. It would be kind of brilliant, though, since you could use your models to "prove" to an ignorant populace that your system is "right" and get compliance from anyone too lazy to study your model. And then you could hide your "research" behind paywalls and obfuscate the matter further.

Oh wait they already do that with climate change.

>>1472202
>Literally implying that Hitler was fascist

>>1469059
It is seen as bad, but not because "Muh Hitler." The Holocaust was used as retroactive justification for claims that were already being made; namely that fascism is the root of all evil.

You see, Fascism was and is a reactionary movement, with the goal of stopping Bolshevism. As a response to the, the fourth Comintern declared that fascism was one of the final and most violently reactionary mechanisms of capitalism. Additionally, they began to describe all oppositions to the global revolution fascists, or more accurately, anything to their right.

You can see the problem immediately. Firstly, it confuses the definition of the term. Secondly, it hindered the abilities of various left wing parties to work together. As one example, the Communists and Social Democrats could have been a major obstacle to the Nazi electoral victory. But the Communists saw the SDs as being just as fascist as the Nazis, and refused to work with them.

tl;dr fascism has always been used as a cheap pejorative for "politics to my right that I don't like."

>>1469059
Fascism is simply anti-radical left authoritarianism. It's really the only consistent feature of things labeled 'fascism'. They promise some sort of radical change but change different enough from the socialist or communist vision that conservative people and businessmen are willing to work with them instead once it's clear that the status quo will not survive the economic turmoil.

Debating it as a coherent ideology is pointless. Fascism as implemented simply relies on whatever the dictator thinks is a good idea. Franco and Hitler had widely different foreign policy, Mussolini and Pinochet had totally different economic policies, Salazar (and Mussolini and Pinochet and Franco) didn't really give a shit about racial purity while Hitler was obsessed with race, etc.

It's all bullshit and I have no idea why academics are so obsessed with trying to define it as something when all of their definitions are either so broad as to be useless (see all of the "Bush was a fascist!" none sense) or too specific to one particular regime and thus not including all actual fascists.

>>1476626
>Fascism is simply anti-radical left authoritarianism. It's really the only consistent feature of things labeled 'fascism'.
Fascism is totalitarian corporatist nationalism. All of the original fascist movements held these views in common.
>Debating it as a coherent ideology is pointless. Fascism as implemented simply relies on whatever the dictator thinks is a good idea. Franco and Hitler had widely different foreign policy, Mussolini and Pinochet had totally different economic policies
That is because Franco and Pinochet weren't fascists. Pinochet was an authoritarian capitalist who stepped down in favor of democracy. Franco was a conservative monarchist.
>Salazar (and Mussolini and Pinochet and Franco) didn't really give a shit about racial purity while Hitler was obsessed with race, etc.
All fascists agree that culture is an integral aspect of human identity. True, fascist leaders disagreed on the role of genetics in culture. But they were all still nationalists.

>>1469215
Mussolini was a former socialist and a school teacher.

The answer to questions of the form "Is X inherently [moral property]?" is always no, since truth makers for moral claims don't exist.