People always whine about Fascism. It is true that Fascism is an overtly repressive form of government, even sadistic, it uses torture and mass killing to keep the populace in check and working. Nevertheless, if one is to indulge in a utilitarian perspective, i.e. what works to the benefit of most people involved (much the same as liberalism), then, if one is to go by historical example, it gives great dividends in the form of infrastructure. A case in point is the so-called German Wirtschaftwunder of the 1950s all of which was based on the free-of-charge capital created by the 5 mil.+ slaves who worked in Nazi Ger. during WWII.
Another aspect of Fascism is that it is ahead of it's time, without having the perfect scientific means to invoke it's utopia. Today, no one is born with genetic deficiencies thanks to pre-natal screening, the result is pretty much the same. No person of the dominant race is left to his own devices, i.e the welfare state.
Repressive measures are to this day under the sole provision of private interest (note the phenomenal rise of private securty-services; no one, the affluent in particular, trusts the police). But wait a minute, this does not serve the State; the sine qua non of Fascism. but it does; since only the affluent have a reason for voting and because Fascism can only rise from popular demand.

To sum up: Fascism is the transisitve government in which nations make up for demands in infrastructural deficiencies by chasing it's own population to the choice: the grave, or grievious hardship (unless on reintroduces slavery).

In economic terms it makes perfect sense, and that is the scary part.

so you want slave population?you sound sick.

In Europe today we have introduced slavery in all its aspects except its name. Foreign workers are manifesly pressed into spheres of either menial labor, or into institutions of ever diminishing social benefits. Being for or against slavery is an antiquitated discussion which does not solve anything since it resides in the fabric of our very existence.

What it was i wanted to say before I hit my druken stupor was that: Pleeeeeeeease do not divide the story of humanity into a stupid good vs. evil contest. I Implore!

Are you saying Facism or Nazism?

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
What it was i wanted to say before I hit my druken stupor was that: Pleeeeeeeease do not divide the story of humanity into a stupid good vs. evil contest. I Implore!

How about Greed vs Logic?

Dr. Dr. Doktor wrote:

It is true that Fascism is an overtly repressive form of government, even sadistic, it uses torture and mass killing to keep the populace in check and working.

Well gosh, when you put it that way, what were we afraid of?

Perhaps we should condense this thread with the "Why is everyone afraid of communism? thread, because communism and fascism are effectively two sides of the same coin. When you're being executed by a midnight death squad, I'm not sure if it really matters if they are rightwing or leftwing thugs.

What your saying makes sense Herr Doktor. But you must understand that there are many people opposed to these ideas. This is for good reason. Dictators (ideally) look in the best interests of the collective (read: state) progress and efficiency. It is true that WWII era Germany's industrial infrastructure was a powerhouse to behold. But at the cost of individual hapiness and Jewish slavery though this wasn't quite as significant as onced believed. I hate cliches, but Socialism is in the end the sharing of sorrows. And I wonder if its possible to get an altruistic leader. Most become corrupted by their 'power' and it truly becomes a totalitarian state.
So the trade is progress for hapiness. Do we want to give up our comforts and a signifiacant amount if freedom to greatly benefit the future generations? Well that would be the place of Ubermenschen. I don't see it happening unless of course it happens after some substantial advances and biological/sociological modifications via the Hedonistic Imperative. I personally am not willing to give up what little freedom I have to benefit the future generations a bit more. If that were the case where would it stop. We work hard to advance substantially so our descendants can do the same all the while greatly sacrificing many of the truly wothwhile, artistic, and cathartic experiences in our lives?

Originally posted by philippe
so you want slave population?you sound sick.

Try to stop smoking the reefer at least for a while. I believe the THC will subside after a few weeks of abstinence. Plus the boarder guards said their tired of Black Sabbath always blaring from your speakers when coming back from Amsterdam. (You stoner.)

I'll just post what an aquaintance had to say about the economic realities of Fascism a while back, when this topic came up.

"We will start with the first, and easiest one, Italy. Italy suffered a net enormous loss in its eceonomic strength under Musollini. It was utterly unprepared for the war, it had fuel reserves for 11 days when the war started, its economy nearly fell apart, and it had neither the education or heavy industry to produce weapons of war. The best tank the Italians produced was rivited together, meaning if it was hit by a shell, every rivet would pop and it would fall into component pieces. Italian aircraft had a disturbing habit or randomly falling out of the sky. (Including the bomber carrying Mussolini's son, killing him) The Italian economy, without help from Germany, was an utter disaster.

The German economy was far stronger of course, but why? because hitler broke the restrictions of the treaty of versailles and built a massive military machine. The byproducts of this and other economic reforms revitalised the German economy. But how was he able to pay for all these government contracts? He printed more money, but state-contolled inflation. By 1939 German industry had reached a bottleneck, resources were running out and resource owners would not accept credit anymore. The country was on the brink of total and sudden financial implosion. This was one of the reasons Germany expanded through diplomacy, and eventually went to war: to get sources of resources and factories to continue the economic strength. Germany built on borrowed time, only war could keep the economy going, and only short, victorious wars at that. I recommend the brilliant book by Mark Harrisson, 'The Economics of World War two' on this."

Originally posted by Hamlet
I'll just post what an aquaintance had to say about the economic realities of Fascism a while back, when this topic came up.

"Italy suffered a net enormous loss in its eceonomic strength under Musollini. It was utterly unprepared for the war, it had fuel reserves for 11 days when the war started

Hmmm. This might be interesting: I read an biography on Rommel which claimed that when the Germans entered Italy, they discovered rather large secret fuel depots that they were hoarding (for what, I don't know...) from the Germans.
I don't have the book anymore, so I can't quote from it.

I don't know where the author (David Irving, before he became an infamous holocaust deny-er, back when he was a respected historian) might have thought they got it from, though... :lol:

Just thought I'd pass that along.

Simon Darkshade and AllhailIndia welcome this thread Herr Doktor:goodjob: .

After all, why should'nt a few be sacrificed for the greater cause:mwaha::satan:

R I G H T, but I'll remind you that the first time I see or hear a "Heil Hitler", I'm outta here.

I leave this topic open to be laughed at, but I WILL be watching. :satan:

I would also like to add that the picture of "German Industrial Strength" is a gross distortion, Germany was outproduced By Britain (a Democracy) as well as the USA and the USSR (a communist state) throughout the war.

Facism is one of the least effective government systems in history.

Italy was a joke economically and Industrially, and Germany could and would do far better under it's current Democratic system then it ever did under the ineffient Facist and Nazi systems.

Facism would be a joke if it didn't kill so many people, that's all it was really good for, murder.

Hamlet wrote:

"We will start with the first, and easiest one, Italy. Italy suffered a net enormous loss in its eceonomic strength under Musollini. It was utterly unprepared for the war, it had fuel reserves for 11 days when the war started, its economy nearly fell apart, and it had neither the education or heavy industry to produce weapons of war. The best tank the Italians produced was rivited together, meaning if it was hit by a shell, every rivet would pop and it would fall into component pieces. Italian aircraft had a disturbing habit or randomly falling out of the sky. (Including the bomber carrying Mussolini's son, killing him) The Italian economy, without help from Germany, was an utter disaster."

That's just the problem, that fascism (and its sister ideology, communism) can like just about any political system provide some initial benefits, but sooner or later - seemingly sooner - the costs far outweigh the benefits.

Italy under Mussolini industrialized but haphazardly (as Hamlet's quote above illustrates) and of course the ideology that drove the economic phenomenon also drove Italy's desire for empire. That desire drove Italy to disastrous wars in Abyssinia, Libya, etc. that while eventually successful (disregarding for a moment the suffering they imposed on the North and eastern Africans) also revealed how ill prepared the Italian military was for modern warfare - a fact that would be borne out in WW II. The attack on France in 1940, the pathetic invasion of Greece, occupation duty in Albania and Yugoslavia, the participation in Hitler's Operation Barbarossa - all signs of a badly organized and ill-equipped army that should never have left home. But fascism created that army and drove it to ill-conceived adventures abroad.

Germany's economy in the 1930s under Hitler is frequently praised for its robust growth and development, but there are some realities often ignored:

1. It was not sustainable. Other than some American New Deal-style work programs like the Autobahn, the economic growth of this period is pegged almost exclusively to Hitler's massive preparations for war.

2. Hitler did more damage than good in the long-term development of the German economy. Someone has already mentioned the irrational cruelty the Nazis imposed on Germany's (and eventually Europe's) Jews, but from a German point of view they also did great damage to the German economy by jettisoning an entire class of (Jewish) professionals in finance, engineering, teaching, communications, etc. etc. etc. Germany effectively attacked and discarded its most productive and knowlegable sector, setting German science and development back decades - and commensurately, through forced migrations, launching American science and development forward decades. And for all that there are no indications that the vast majority of those expelled or murdered Jews would have been disloyal to Germany or even Hitler.

3. The war was not an anomoly, it is the very point of the Nazis' existence. The moment Hitler came to power on 30. January 1933, there was going to be a European war. Germany needed some preparations (meaning discarding the Versailles Treaty) and Hitler wanted to be able to have the ultimate control over where qand when this war began, but there was going to be a war. The economic growth of 1930s Germany and its recovery from the effects of the Great Depression are bound inexorably to the coming war.

Finally, Spain is another model of what happens when a fascist state comes into being. Fascism is based on the principal of a nationalist takeover of the state, resulting in a corporate (economic) state. It is sort of a modern nationalist version of Louis XIV's L'etat c'est moi!. Spain followed this path with the fascists' victory in 1939 and was the only state to stay on the path until its dictator's (Franco's) death in 1976. What was Spain like in 1976? One of the poorest and technologically most backward states in Europe, with a 1940s-style economic infrastructure, some political prisoners to boot, mass corruption, and very strained relations with all its neighbors. Sounds like a great place to live, no? Modern democratic Spain is indeed a great place to live with a booming economy, increasingly modern infrastructure, political freedoms and a member of the EU (and NATO). All of these benefits Spain has accumulated since 1976. What conclusions can be drawn from that?

Here's one: Whenever a country is ruled by an ideology, its future will be limited by the skewed vision of that ideology, with great suffering and economic stagnation, if not outright duress, resulting. In the case of fascism, the end almost always comes with a war that the fascists themselves provoked.

I'm stickin' with democracy!

Originally posted by Stefan Haertel
R I G H T, but I'll remind you that the first time I see or hear a "Heil Hitler", I'm outta here.

Thats nice.

That's just the problem, that fascism (and its sister ideology, communism)

Perhaps we should condense this thread with the "Why is everyone afraid of communism? thread, because communism and fascism are effectively two sides of the same coin. When you're being executed by a midnight death squad, I'm not sure if it really matters if they are rightwing or leftwing thugs.

What the ****??? communism is the complete opposite of fascism, us radical left -wingers hate fascists.

For the last time - the USSR was not communist.

I do not see the need for insulting communism when this thread is about fascism.

Believe me, alot of people consider me a 'communist' (I prefer Simon Darkshade description of 'Utopian Socilaist' but never mind) and my views are very much anti-fascist.

I'm stickin' with democracy!
It is my believe that communism is the only economic theory that works with democracy. Only when the people are economically equal can they equaly share power. (that is my opinion, I know many people disagree)

Anyways, yeah I despise fascism, just as the majority of people do.

"Anyways, yeah I despise fascism, just as the majority of people do."

You shall learn to love Big Brother.:p :mwaha:

To take an argument from the commies, "it wasn't real fascism or Nazism, they betrayed the revolution and went bad." ;)

"It is true that Fascism is an overtly repressive form of government, even sadistic, it uses torture and mass killing to keep the populace in check and working."

You say that as if it is a bad thing. :D

"R I G H T, but I'll remind you that the first time I see or hear a "Heil Hitler", I'm outta here."

Will a "Heil Darkshade" do?:D



Extreme right wing evil fascist dictatorship can be done properly, if you have the right people working on it, in the proper situation.:D

ComradeDavo:

The ideology of Fascism did not include hatred and mass murder, but Hitler twisted it that way. On the other hand, the ideology of Communism didn't include hatred and mass murder, but Lenin and Stalin twisted it that way. Like it or don't the USSR was Communist. Twisted, to be sure, but Communism nevertheless. Until you understand that, you will get nowhere in your efforts to rehabilitate the Communist ideology.

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade
Will a "Heil Darkshade" do?:D

Nein! Nein! Das ist inkorreckt!

You are supposed to say: "Heil myself!":mwaha:

I do understand that, but it was never communist. I have talked to my Russian friend about this, and he agrees, his country was never communist. he tells me that they (lenin etc) had planned for russia to be communist by 1980, but that never happened.

Originally posted by ComradeDavo
I do understand that, but it was never communist. I have talked to my Russian friend about this, and he agrees, his country was never communist. he tells me that they (lenin etc) had planned for russia to be communist by 1980, but that never happened.

Go here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=282012&t=6075#post282012) for my reply.

ComradeDavos wrote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's just the problem, that fascism (and its sister ideology, communism)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps we should condense this thread with the "Why is everyone afraid of communism? thread, because communism and fascism are effectively two sides of the same coin. When you're being executed by a midnight death squad, I'm not sure if it really matters if they are rightwing or leftwing thugs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What the ****??? communism is the complete opposite of fascism, us radical left -wingers hate fascists.

Sorry, but while communism and fascism may offer different answers, they are answering the same questions and have similar roots. Also, as I point out in my original thread, the two historically have just about always ended up the same way, indistinguishable from one another in structure & appearance though they took different ideological paths to get there. Communism and fascism both:

1. Developed along parallel ideological paths in the 19th and early 20th centuries in developing, industrializing societies.

2. Are heavily state-focused, both being by-products of the birth of the nation-state in Continental Europe.

3. Seek to capitalize (sorry - pun intended) on the discontent and massive social dislocation caused by industrializing economies.

4. Eschew democratic politics for the more focused dictatorships, both in a desire to unify what are seen to be fragmented "nations" (volk, naród, nép, etc.) and because both have their mythologies about only their respective group can rule the country. The journalist Michail Ignatieff describes it best when he mentioned the desire of nationalists to get the nation to sing and stomp in unison as if in a church mass. Communists want the same thing, just for a different subset.

5. Concentrate on the lower-class workers, the "proletariat". Hitler's party was, of course, the National Socialist Workers' Party, and his political literature often featured workers. Both define this group a bit differently, and indeed communists in particular came up with a multitude of possible definitions over time, but both fascism and communism looked to die Arbeiter for their political base.

6. Many prominant communists and fascists in the 20th century switched between the two ideologies, with ease. Many found it very easy to move between the two ideologies because, as I've said, their practical manifestation was so similar. The most recent example would be Milosevic in Serbia, who started out as a dedicated communist but transformed himself and his party over a decade's time into what sure looks like a fascist party to me. A Hungarian film made in the early 1970s, A Tanú (The Witness) has a scene in it where it makes light of the fact that many Hungarian fascists of the 1940s were co-opted into the communist party in the 50s, including the Hungarian fascist police thugs. This happene all over Soviet Europe.

For the last time - the USSR was not communist.

Well we've been through that one before in many other threads, some of which Flatlander Fox nicely gathered together in the most recent communism-related thread. I'm afraid the USSR was the natural outcome of the communist theories, and I've got a lot of theorists who agree with me (Lukács, Kolakowski, Nekrich, Heller, Djilas, etc.). That's as good as it gets. The USSR, Mao's China, Vietnam, Cuba, Ethiopia under Menghistu, Hungary under Kún in 1919, Tito's Yugoslavia; all ended up pretty much the same way with lots of suffering, lots of poverty and lots of dispair. And they are all, with local variations, the logical conclusion of Marx's theories. I've had the "fortune" of experiencing first hand that wonderful paradise known as communism, and I am so glad it is finally dead in Europe. Now if we can just uproot it in Cuba and Asia...

I do not see the need for insulting communism when this thread is about fascism.

I'm all for insulting both, and will make my every breath in this life an effort to discredit both. Together they have murdered(according to the recently-published Black Book of Communism, published in France, some 100 million people in the 20th century. I mentioned commuism here because, as I mentioned and as I should point out a growing number of historians are beginning to believe as well, that the two are related. Fichte and Fourier have a lot to do with one another.

Believe me, alot of people consider me a 'communist' (I prefer Simon Darkshade description of 'Utopian Socilaist' but never mind) and my views are very much anti-fascist.

Um, you may want to reconsider invoking that "Utopian" moniker. Utopia was used as a literary device by Thomas Moore (Morus) to highlight some inequities of his own day; he never meant to propose a perfect society. Indeed, as a committed Christian, he believed that a perfect society among humans was impossible anyway, at least until the 2nd Coming and Heaven's domain on Earth, etc. Voltaire also made fun of the utopian ideal in Candide, reaching similar conclusions that it was neither possible nor even desirable among humans. Charles Owen and Robert Fourier both attempted to found utopian communes in the early 19th century but both ended in pathetic disaster, despite the best of intentions. The Paris Commune was based on utopian ideals as well, but well you see where that got them. Lots of death. I'm afraid just about everyone connected to this term "utopian" was either making fun of it or, when taking it seriously, headed for real trouble and failure.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm stickin' with democracy!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my believe that communism is the only economic theory that works with democracy. Only when the people are economically equal can they equaly share power. (that is my opinion, I know many people disagree)

Yes they do, and that will suffice because this thread is on another subject.

1. Fascism ( Italian version ) is in fact a left-doctrine applied to a state-level - e.g. Mussolini nationalise many factories and so on. In fact Mussolini tself was member of Communist Party and of II International Comunist. ;)

2. Nazism theoretically is a fascism, but in fact is a form of corporatism ...

3. "Economical miracle" in 1930's was obtained by a combination of keynesian-style investments in infrastructure and corporatist concentration - something like in Japan + developing of a strong army.

4. There is a difference between dictature and tyrany ...

Regards ...

Nazism theoretically is a fascism, but in fact is a form of corporatism
Corporatism was Mussolini's idea. The difference between Facism and Nazism is more based on race ideals. That is why there were no racist laws in Italy until the late 1930s when Mussolini was sucking up to Hitler, and these were attacked by the church/king.
There is a difference between dictature and tyrany ...
No there isn't.

Fascism is based on the principle that the state is more important than its citizens. That means in is prepared to ignore personal freedoms and liberties to further the state. This to me is wrong and this is why I dislike fascism. Remember, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others."

Originally posted by MrPresident
Corporatism was Mussolini's idea.


1.Yes - but there is a practical difference : the power of Party "controler" over the factories in detriment of industrialists.
And BTW - Mussolini ideas in economy was a almost total disaster ... :)

2.Tyrany vs. dictatorship : not related with fascism - but there is a difference, even if in common language isn't. A dictator is a person which had exceptional power for a short period of time to save a country. A tyran rule only for his personal interest ...

Regards

Originally posted by Vrylakas
Voltaire also made fun of the utopian ideal in Candide, reaching similar conclusions that it was neither possible nor even desirable among humansAll is for the best, in the best of all possible worlds. ;)

Originally posted by Lt.Col. Kilgore
...And I wonder if its possible to get an altruistic leader.
Not likely - those capable of leading altruistically and well are also wise enough to stay away from power struggles and politics.

As for utopia, its validity is shown by its success in reality. Nil. Utopian ideas serve us well as ways to clarify beliefs and goals, but life is too complex for it to have any place beyond mental exercise. There will never be a utopia as long as we keep those qualities that make us human. I imagine nobody would be willing to make the trade - and that's for the best.

Originally posted by Sodak
Not likely - those capable of leading altruistically and well are also wise enough to stay away from power struggles and politics.


Altruistical doesnt mean efficient rule. ;)

And there was situation many times in history. A key rule here play the level of political culture of the respectively society and something which I call "level of desperation" ( I don't know a apropriate english term ... :( ).

For example - and I hope my message will not be banned for this - in 1930 Germany really nead a "strong hand" regime, so something what is basically a dictature. This regime anyway will take rude measure against a extremly corrupted financial sector of Germany so without any doubt many welth Jew would be affected - so probably anyway this regime would be accused of anti-semitism.

But the "red line" between a dictature and a tyrany is, IMHO, that Hitler was definately a "xenophobic-acting tyran" because he create structure like HitlerJungend - for his personal interest to fanatise young germans and that he try to deportate or kill any Jew, despite if rich or not.

And BTW - during the war Churchill act in almost a "pure" dictatorship - but when the war was ended so was his style of rule ... ;)

Regards

P.S. : Damn, my english in this message is awfull ... :(

For example - and I hope my message will not be banned for this - in 1930 Germany really nead a "strong hand" regime
Why? What was happening in Germany that could not be dealt with by the Weimar Republic. If you are thinking the depression then you should know that by the time Hitler came to power Germany was over the worst of it. So why did Germany need a strong hand?
during the war Churchill act in almost a "pure" dictatorship
Churchill was in a war cabinet not a dictatorship.
Damn, my english in this message is awfull
So is mine and its my first language.

Originally posted by MrPresident
Why? What was happening in Germany that could not be dealt with by the Weimar Republic. If you are thinking the depression then you should know that by the time Hitler came to power Germany was over the worst of it. So why did Germany need a strong hand?


I belive that you're wrong. the depression may seem over post-factum but until the New Deal in America, Hitler's action in Germany and even some governement acts in France in Britain it's a difficult to speak about a recovery ... In fact, cynical but true, only the preparations for war really ended the 1929-1933 crisis ...


Churchill was in a war cabinet not a dictatorship.


Tehnically yes - but for example control over economy is very similar in consequences with a dictatorship rule ... :(
In fact if Churchill hadn't "socialise" in such manner the war industry the labourists never be able to impose their reforms after the war.

Originally posted by Mîtiu Ioan
Altruistical doesnt mean efficient rule. ;)
...
P.S. : Damn, my english in this message is awfull ... :(
That's why I said "altruistically and well." Any kind person could probably rule altruistically and lead his people to a dismal state of affairs; I was trying to narrow down the type of person to those who could rule competently... ;)

Your mastery of english makes you understood, which is more important than details! "Practice makes perfect" is an old adage in this language...

Originally posted by Sodak
As for utopia, its validity is shown by its success in reality. Nil.

Rubbish. Most governments currently existing are founded on ideas that were once considered utopian. Democracy is utopian. The idea that we should abolish slavery used to be viewed as utopian. Everytime there is some improvement in the human condition there are people who say it's impossible because it's "utopian" and contradicts "human nature."

Fascism is unethical because it kills a lot of people and deprives us of equality and freedom. The so-called economic benefits primarily benefit the elite. Ordinary people get the Gestapo.

The Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics was never COMMUNIST. It claimed to be a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which was to make the transition from capitalism to communism. Lenin claimed that communism would not have any government. Given the history of the 20th century I think it's been proven that Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot lead to communism.

And Mussolini explicitely defined Fascism as being in opposition to "Marxian Socialism."

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Rubbish. Most governments currently existing are founded on ideas that were once considered utopian. ... Everytime there is some improvement in the human condition there are people who say it's impossible because it's "utopian" and contradicts "human nature."

:confused:
Of course gov'ts are founded on utopian ideas - but they never actually achieve that utopia, a state in which all is well. Improving the human condition is a very good thing, ideas of utopia are what drive that. I don't understand why you think I even disagree with what you wrote... The sentence immediately after what you quoted should make that clear - it serves as a tool for setting goals despite never actually being completely achieved. Utopia is impossible simply because there is always room for more improvement.

> why do people whine about Fascism
I never hear anybody whine about it. Fascism doesn't exist just in history books. Why would anybody whine about it? Just another government system that failed in the annals of civilization.

armor is that the modern uncle sam?:D
good modern uncle sam:) :cool: !

I have just realised why I whine about Fascism, because it is anti-democracy. It does not believe in individualism but that everyone and everything should work towards the state. And mainly because it does not believe in basic human rights.

Originally posted by MrPresident
I have just realised why I whine about Fascism, because it is anti-democracy. It does not believe in individualism but that everyone and everything should work towards the state. And mainly because it does not believe in basic human rights.

You say that as if they were bad things. :mwaha:

Originally posted by Simon Darkshade


You say that as if they were bad things. :mwaha:

They are only bad if you're a megalomaniacal overlord wannabe with delusions of godhood. :p

Originally posted by Switch625


They are only bad if you're a megalomaniacal overlord wannabe with delusions of godhood. :p

I take umbrage with that!
I have no delusions of godhood, being a good, God-fearing member of the Spanish Inquisition. (No one ever expects that part...)
And one is not a wannabe. I never wanted greatness or status as an evil fascist overlord. It was thrust upon moi.

:D

But what is wrong with rampant individualism being subordinated to the needs and will of the state, or with being against silly little human rights?

Fascism may be needed in a case when a country is splitting and heading towards general chaos. Let me explain why.

In most cases, democracy degenarates in to a meaningless fight for votes, where no really national leaders turn up, or what will happen to India in a few more years :mwaha:;) . People lose their faith in the systema and start going their own way and soon the country is heading towards total chaos and anarchy. Along comes a guy who says that he puts the country first and expects other s to do the same and outlines very clearly that all the corrupt politicos will end up at the wrong end of a hangman's noose, people will definitely gravitate towards him.

His opponents think that this guy is a scary demagogue and a charlatan and take him for granted until he is waaay ahead of them in opinion polls:p . His promises even reach out to the industrialists and the rich, promising a free and fair (???) econimc system where everyone can benefit and to the masses he preaches socialism, always making sure, his double game is not found out.

In this way people themselves elect a fascist/ Nazist ruler who plays on their hopes, fears and insecurity and themselves get rid of their own freedom.

Therefore, Fascism does not descend from the sky, but is inflicted by the people upon themselves:p

member of the Spanish Inquisition
No-one expects the Spanish Inquisition. Our main weapon is surprise, surprise and terror.....
where no really national leaders turn up
What if you had a President? Wouldn't this person be by definition a national leader?
Therefore, Fascism does not descend from the sky, but is inflicted by the people upon themselves I agree with was how the Nazis got to power in the 1930s. However it was not how Mussolini's facists came to power. He was appointed Prime Minister when his party only had 7% of the votes. Also I don't think the people will inflict themselves with fascism again.

Franco came to power by a Civil War, he couldn't win elections. Most Fascists don't come to power through democratic means but through coups, civil wars or other underhanded manuevers.

Originally posted by Joe R. Golowka
Franco came to power by a Civil War, he couldn't win elections. Most Fascists don't come to power through democratic means but through coups, civil wars or other underhanded manuevers.


The true was that those times was a full contest of parlamentarian system and even many human rights. In fact - there was many differences between Franco, Hitler and Mussolini for example - so is a extreme stupidity to apply the same measure for any of this ...

Regards

It abuses human rights and has labour camps and all those harse stuff. Also is not looked as a good state by other states.

Communism, Fascism, they all come from one thing; the desire for perfection.

All these governments have desired something perfect - a race of people, the state, equal shares among everyone to eliminate poverty and suffering, the economy to die for. But what people must realise is that perfection throughout a country, let alone the world, is impossible.

Every thing that a human does is bound to offend/upset/enrage another person. Giving something good to someone or a group of people will always involve not giving it to someone else. Increase funding for the care of elderly and the schools will be whinging for more money.

For perfection to be possible, everybody would have to think clearly, always hear the full story before saying anything, in fact everybody would need exactly the same opinions (and dont say democracy is the solution, because someone will always vote for the loser).

Everyone wants things the way they think they should be, and that is perfection to them. Since people want different things that totally throws the idea of world perfection out of the window.

Back to the topic, these leaders wanted things to be the way they thought they should be, and they all failed. Instead of perfection they brought mass suffering.

Due to this the following ideals I find impossible:
The perfect race
world peace
True and fair communism (where nobody owns anything on their own, because everybody owns everything)
elimination of hunger and poverty
end of racism
the true ideals of democracy (The people choose their fate, as opposed to the people choose a person to choose their fate)
Productive anarchy (which is of course, why civilization started in the first place)

Perfection is impossible, so any government that aims for perfection is bound to fail. So far only suffering has resulted.

Guys remember one thing. Fascism doesn't include the goal of a perfect race in it. That is Nazism. Nazism is Fascism with a racist element to it.

However, that said. A government of dictators who glorify war and are super nationalistic is just asking for trouble. There was one "good" dictator i can think of. That would be a Polish man during Hitlers rise in Germany prior to WW2.

His name escapes me, but the story behind this is Poland was having similar problems to Germany in the Political front. The government wasn't strong enough to get anything done. This man took contol of Poland and set it straight and proceeded to step down afterwards.

There are probably examples of this in other countries however I'm not aware of them. Sometimes dictators can be beneficial however there is always that risk of the power being abused. Dictorships are simply dangerous forms of government which usually just end up with the deaths of large portions of the population and poorness linked with wealth being for those in the government.

Thats why people don't like fascism and dismiss it

Good job Herr Doktor. :goodjob: ;)

Originally posted by Dr. Dr. Doktor
People always whine about Fascism. It is true that Fascism is an overtly repressive form of government, even sadistic, it uses torture and mass killing to keep the populace in check and working.

That's probably the funniest opening couplet I've ever read. I'll try to top it-

"People always moan about contracting Ebola Zaire. It's true that they're 90% likely to die a truly horrible death that will leave hospital staff hosing the walls down afterwards, and they're likely to take half their family and neighbourhood with them".

you are right, kafka2, that was a very funny opening.
Yours about Ebola is also funny.

"People always complain about Saddam Hussein. It is true that he capable of killing and torturing you for absolutely no reason, it also true that he is phychotic paranoid terrorist maniac who gassed the Curds and the Iranians."