Fascist ideology - what's it really about?

From your lack of arguments I can your a leftist. Why don't you name an economic policy from any of the fascist nations that is right of center for me? That doesn't have some Marxist tenet behind it? Not 40, just 1

 

In it's day (ie: nearly 100yrs ago), then yes, but nowadays it's more about trying to reign in the negative excesses of capitalism.

- - - Updated - - -

How about Chile, under Pinochet.

 

Yes that's very interesting, go along and play now.

 

It's known that Britain's five richest families own more than the poorest 20% of the country. One of the BNP's stated goals is to eradicate the upper classes and the fascist party would confiscate any family assets that exceed £1 million if it managed to take control of Britain, which would create a classless society. Nazi Germany was also keen on promoting workers' rights as stated in the party's original manifest and common German workers enjoyed extra holidays, better social housing and paid overseas vacations during the Nazi era. Overall, fascism is the far-left movement with socialist roots and it was Stalin who first invented the Gulag, which was imitated by the Nazi leadership to get rid of political dissidents, and Mussolini was an editor of a socialist paper.

 

Fascism 's main doctrine is autocracy . Fascism does not hold any specific economic ideas so you can have both capitalist and socialist fascists .
Fascism focuses into the national matters so it is nationalist , in combination with the absence of economic directions you can see main self proclaimed socialist countries to embrace it like say China, Juche (North Korea) and the Khmer Rouge . Many capitalist countries were or still are fascist , for example RSA during the apartheid , Franco's Spain and several South American countries when under dictatorships as well as EU which is a fascist organization .

Fascism is heavily dependent on cultural aspects , for example reformed Baath parties in the Middle East are far more progressive than their democratic or theocratic neighbors . in Spain fascism was established by farmers (if you need historical reference to this ask) so it was regressive .
Fascism can also be either populist or egalitarian , Italian fascists were populists while Greek fascist government of the same era was egalitarian.

In all it's forms and cultures fascism needs to be appealing so it will try to "preserve and advance" the matters of the nation when it sees fit in order to strengthen the grip over the civilians ( this may remind you something *cough* dronecare *cough* )

 

Pinochet was a right wing dictator. Turned that country around and voluntarily stepped down from power. Complete polar opposite then these fascists or previously discussed commies.

- - - Updated - - -

Pinochet was a right wing dictator. Turned that country around and voluntarily stepped down from power. Complete polar opposite then these fascists or previously discussed commies.

 

Baat party is fascist? They are a multi national party and I think therefore fall under the regular socialist label.

- - - Updated - - -

No fascism is national socialism. All fascists love to control their economy. Otherwise there is no standard at all.

- - - Updated - - -

"Wealth". Measured by assets minus liabilities. If you have one dollar and no liabilities you have more wealth then a lot of people.

 

I'm very curious, just where did you get the notion that fascism is about making everyone middle-class? Perhaps this is because you're unable to look at it from another perspective than your own. Has it occured to you that fascism perhaps isn't much about economics at all? For a marxist or something similar, which I presume you are, it could be hard not to think in economic terms. But please, they're not trying to establish some "borgeoise dictatorship". That's just a silly leftist strawman.

hmm.. I fit that description..

*sigh*.. Well, if youre living in a libertarian lalaland, what you say certainly does make sense. However, if we just shove aside your skewed and simplistic perspective for a bit, and look at how things really are, we'd see that Communists and fascists in fact hate eachother, and have done so since their first days, and continue to kill eachother in the streets to this very day. From your "freedom-loving" perspective, they're all just collectivists, aren't they? Has it ever occured to you that politics and ideology is too complex to be narrowed down into a silly bipolar scale like that?

No, no, no... Despite this being a forum dedicated to politics, it seems that the actual understanding of politics is actually on average lower here than elsewhere.. Communism isn't about making people willingly forgo more efficient means of production, nor is it about making people hold back their potential. People should be as effective as possible, but their wealth (created by their labour) should be redistributed equally. And then, when everyone is freed from the shackles of poverty and other existential problems, they are free to live out to their full potential, to really express themselves as they want, to be totally free, in a classless, stateless, moneyless, etc society. Granted, communism is (*)(*)(*)(*)ing unrealistic and naive, but you make it sound as if it was completely retarded and brain dead, which I have the integrity and honesty to say it wasn't.

Since you're already on the go, showing your ignorance of what communism is, you thought you would go on to do the same with capitalism eh? Capitalism does not require a loser. Capitalism is based around voluntary trades, and people only make voluntary trades if they believe they'll benefit by doing so. Id est, both parties are winners. Economics perhaps, isn't for everyone, as it can be kinda complicated, but this is really basic stuff! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4 If you have a genuine interest in learning about economics, look at this 3 minutes long video, and that channel has other videos too.

So you'd call Sweden fascist? See, you're perfectly free to make up your own nonsensical defintion of fascism, and apply it to everything which violates your anarchistic principles, but that doesn't change the fact that you're looking from a a very, very skewed perspective, which leaves you unable to actually understand how these ideologies work. Perhaps you're satisfied with being ignorant of the actual worldviews in questions, but taking that to far makes you sound really stupid, because you would be calling Sweden fascist.

Nazi Germany had quite extensive social programs I believe. That's clearly socialistic. And hey, look at the name" National socialist. It's not there just for show. I know socialists, like your self, will have trouble accepting that Hitler did in fact agree with you on some things, but it's true. But come on, if hitler said 1+1=2, would you deny it just because he said it?

Hitler was a hardcore leftist? Again, only if you're totally ignorant of what both right and left, as well as fascism, means. You know, the left-right dichotomy is a useful little thing for doing a quick analysis of politics, but it's much to shallow. And the fundamental problem it has is that politics can't be narrowed down to a bipolar scale. Do yourself the favour, and abandon it.

What principles were you thinking of now? Really, I'm interested.

 

Why don't you visit a library?

 

Hey Swedish guy, both are socialists right? Communism can't work and turns to state run capitalism? When you guys get over the labels and get down to policy let me know. Lets talk specific policies. Wage controls, guaranteed employment, socialized industry etc... The difference is a matter of degree, it is all lefterism.

Commies hate other commies too by the way. Doesn't make the white shirts any less commie. Why don't you remind the name of that multi party communist state again?

 

Communists are autocratic too. Just more so.

Communism is ownership of the means of production and leads to starvation.
Fascism is the control of the output of production and leads to obamacare.

Fascism, socialism, and communism are all forms of neo feudalism. If you ever get into specifics you won't see an inch of day light between your positions and those of English lords except maybe less nepotism, more cronyism, and adapted for the modern economy as opposed to the agricultural economy.

 

Dear Sweden,

Left here means government control of the economy, right means less control of the economy.

Hitler was a hardcore leftist. I can name 3 far left policies the nazis supported for any 1 right wing policy you can name, but I am sure you can't name one but will go back to calling me ignorant all the same.

In America, the spectrum makes sense. The euro spectrum is completely useless because it contradicts itself and you can't name a single example as an exception. Trust me on this.

Hitler was left wing authoritarian, as opposed to say Ron Paul who is right wing anti authoritarian.


Don't shower me with arguments about how I am wrong because you read a book either. Name a law or policy that proves me wrong.

 

Name one NAZI policy that wasnt left wing economically? How many industries does a country have to nationalize before they are Marxist? How many industries should they set all the wages too? How many laws forcing employers to hire who they want at the pay they decide to produce mandated products? C'mon my reader friend:

Name one economic policy that was a move to the right under the nazis. Just one. Not 10 not 5. Just 1 and don't weasel out of it by inferring I am the stupid one in this conversation.

 

Socialism is a very broad term, and has several defintions, varying by circumstance. What I object to is calling Hitler a leftist, because leftism is about much more than economics.

You sure spend a lot of your time arguing against communism without even knowing what it is. funny. How many times now have I told you that communism is actually about unrealistic amounts of freedom? And that what you're really talking about is stalinism/maoism? That communism, like socialism, is very broad terms, which have different meangins which vary by circumstance?

Except that no, not really. Even in the US, you're wrong. You're holding some minority extremist libertarian understanding of what left-right means. You know that far-right refers to nazism, even in the US? Please, just stop. And it's your spectrum which contradicts itself becuase it requires that one is willfully ignorant of the differences within the opposition. And great, you're probably basing what you say on politicalcompass, right? Well, if you want to use such a shallow and useless tool for analysing politics go ahead, but drop the pretenses of anything else. My position is that ideologies can't be easily put down on such a spectrum, neither bipolar, or two dimensional. It's you that think politics is that simple, which maybe hints at that you haven't gotten anywhere near to seeing the bigger picture.

Among companies that were privatized between 1933 and 1937, were the four major commercial banks in Germany that had all come under public ownership during the prior years; Commerz– und Privatbank, Deutsche Bank und Disconto-Gesellschaft, Golddiskontbank and Dresdner Bank. Also privatized were the Deutsche Reichsbahn (German Railways), at the time the largest single public enterprise in the world, the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A.G. (United Steelworks), the second largest largest joint-stock company in Germany (the largest was Farben Industrie A.G.) and Vereinigte Oberschlesische Hüttenwerke AG, a company controlling all of the metal production in the Upper Silesian coal and steel industry. The government also sold a number of shipbuilding companies, and enhanced private utilities at the expense of municipally owned utilities companies.

privatisation is totally leftwing, amirite?

 

Communism claims it is about freedom. Practical application is another thing.

Show how your spectrum isn't always contradictory. Far right means :

Wage controls?
Forced employment on workers?
Price controls?

Those are the 3 to match your one.

The American spectrum goes left vs right economically and then up or down based on authoritarianism. It makes sense. Pinochet is right wing authoritarian. Ron Paul right wing anti authoritarian, Mao left wing authoritarian, and bill maher left wing anti authoritarian. (Well outside of economic and race issues).

Try puting those four people on your spectrum. Ron Paul is to the right of Pinochet economically. Mao to the left of mahr. Have fun.

By the way, your source says it was part of the winding down after the depression and the privatization went to NAZI affiliates loyal to the state and subordinate to the party. Page 3 or so from your source:

http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

You can use the many examples of socialization in there for my next left wing examples.

 

Exactly, communism claims to be about freedom. Now, step two in getting a basic understanding of communism is to realise that there's different groups (!!) within the communist movement, and that some of these, like stalinism, is indeed autocratic, but others are not. Now, Im as much a communist as you are, and I agree that all attempts at communism seemingly have ended in hell, but what bugs me is that you're either ignorant or dishonest about this.

Thing is, I haven't proposed a spectrum. I've been saying all along that politics and ideologies are cimplicated stuff. I was merely pointing out to you that you were wrong, and that your spectrum is severly flawed. But regarding the nature of the commonly accepted, though not logical and consistent, left-right scale, know that it's only the left which is clearly defined, and that the right is merely "the other". On the left we have groups like anarchists, communists and socialists, and we all see that these groups are clearly releated. But on the right we have fascists, religious fundamentalists and liberals. Those groups are each as different from eachother as they are to the left, but they are grouped together under the label "right wing" merely because they are all in opposition to the left.

The problem with you spectrum is that there are soo many more dimensions than economics and freedom. Sure, it can give us a rough understanding of the practical outcomes for particular ideologies, but it tells us nothing of the philosophy behind it. Ideologies, like the name suggests, are all about ideas, and worldviews, so ignoring that part is rather stupid in my view. For certainly, the ideas behind the actions matter, and it's there that we analyse the ideologies.

 

Name one commie group that doesn't intend to dictate people. I don't care what they say, let me see the laws that will be enacted. You get fooled by the intentions of policies and give them a pass, I know they are aware of the practicalities. That is why none ever discuss specifics. Ever. Read munters profile or any of the other resident commies, or commie websites etc... No specificity and if there is it is oppression.


Don't bother me with the European spectrum and say mine is flawed if you can't even map 4 people.

Yeah I get commies, socialists and fascists don't see eye to eye in their collectivism. But they are all leftists and all want to dictate people's economic lives just to different degrees.

 

Irrelevant. Point being that privatisations are not left wing. I am claiming that nazi germany had a mixed economy, and the source supports my claim.

If intend is the key word, it applies to all communists because communists, per definition, seek absolute freedom. No, I don't get fooled. I think they're naive fools. One can understand their position and still disagree you know. One doesn't have to be dishonest about it.

I haven't bothered you with the european spectrum.. Is it too much to ask that you actually read what I write, before you respond to it? I gave a rather decent and detailed explaination as for why your spectrum is flawed. Shame not to reply to that.

Well, if you go by your flawed minority understanding of 'left', yeah.

 

Where was this grand explanation of the great flaws in our spectrum? I missed it.

Can you at least admit the flaws in yours first since we already established that with the "can it map 4 people test"?

Wait... That post? That was just you saying that yours isn't very good and ours is dumb because it is not complex enough. Well it is a spectrum not a 1000 page treatise. What do you expect?

European "anarchists" and occupy "anarchists" are also far left authoritarians. Nothing about these groups has anything to do with actual anarchy which voluntarist a are closest too but polar opposites of these people when it comes to putting policy in place.

 

Point being that you spectrum only looks at the practical outcomes of their actions, but totally ignores the ideas behind it. And since we're talking about IDEOlogies it kinda seems like a big deal. that's all.

 

Intentions are worthless and do little more to describe an ideology other then to white wash it. Intentions are usually subjective and often fraudulent or based on flawed reasoning. I prefer objective analysis as much as possible when measuring ideology. Otherwise what is the difference between miss America speeches and political ideology?

 

So essentially, we're talking about ideas but you keep on insisting that ideas aren't really that relevant? genius.

 

Intention = idea? I think you are commiting a part vs whole fallacy here.

If I intend to steal from you and spend it on myself or on charity are you still practically robbed?

Subjective intentions matters little when it is opposed to the objective reality.

 

Does the court treat a case of accidental homicide differently from an inentional homocide? Thanks for the example which shows my point perfectly. You're position is literally as stupid as treating inentional murderes the same as accidental ones.

 

I wouldn't say so, no.