BNP faces meltdown at local polls after defections and infighting

[Arakhor]

Would you mind not using so many buzzwords, Mercenary? My poor, addled brain can only cope with so many in one post.

 

[Mercenary82]

Would you mind explaining how your current parties that set up surveilance cameras everywhere are not the facists and the BNP who had nothing to do with that are?

 

[Arakhor]

Thank you. That's much clearer.

I never claimed that the Conservatives weren't morally bankrupt, but comparing the regrettable decisions of the governing parties to the non-decisions of the non-governing parties is rather silly. It's totally possible to have multiple right-wing corporatist parties in a country.

 

[Flying Pig]

Would you mind explaining how your current parties that set up surveilance cameras everywhere are not the facists ?

Setting up CCTV - the vast majority of which is set up by business owners privately - doesn't make you a fascist. Fascism comes from believing in this lot, basically

and the BNP who had nothing to do with that are

Luckily, nobody's let them near enough the train set that they've been able to screw anything up yet.

 

[RedRalph]

Fascism comes from throwing rolls of sellotape

 

[Dachs]

That joke might be a little old for this crowd, mang

 

[Ajidica]

I got it.

 

[Virote_Considon]

I thought liberalism was to do with loosening the restrictions on the individual? BNP ideology seems to be the opposite.

They do wish to loosen the restrictions on the individual. They just distinguish between such individuals based on ethnicity. Once they get rid of those they deem "not British", they wish to loosen restrictions on their citizenry. (This also applies to forma's post, I guess)

The Conservatives may be scumbags who might happily sell out their grannies for cash and titles, but they're not the fascist, neo-Nazi and legally racist party that is the BNP is.

Learn the meaning of "fascist" before you use it in your post as a descriptor, please. Due to limited time atm, it wouldn't be prudent for myself to explain it. I would say the same about "Nazi", but the "neo-" prefix renders the term effectively meaningless anyway.

Those conservatives Liberals, and Labour are the corporate whores which is basically facism. They have turned your country into a surveilance police state, not the BNP.

As with Arakhor, learn yo terminology bro as large amounts of cameras have no bearing on whether or not a political party is fascist.

Would you mind not using so many buzzwords, Mercenary? My poor, addled brain can only cope with so many in one post.

Pot; Kettle, etc. Everyone is using buzzwords. That is the only way people can understand politics themselves.

Fascism comes from throwing rolls of sellotape

Most accurate usage of terminology in this thread...

 

[Mercenary82]

As with Arakhor, learn yo terminology bro as large amounts of cameras have no bearing on whether or not a political party is fascist.
...

Facism, police state, same thing.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Facism, is not Fascism, either.
Nor are Facists police states. I am sure there are many enlightened, liberal, disembodied floating heads.

 

[Arakhor]

The BNP is certainly the most popular fascistic party in Britain, even if it doesn't tick all the numbers. And no, Mercenary, a fascist state doesn't have to be a police state.

 

[Gustave5436]

They do wish to loosen the restrictions on the individual. They just distinguish between such individuals based on ethnicity. Once they get rid of those they deem "not British", they wish to loosen restrictions on their citizenry. (This also applies to forma's post, I guess)

"Don't worry, citizen, we're taking all your rights away, but you'll get them back right after we finish exterminating "removing" the undesirables. We promise."

As we saw in the USSR, authoritarians can make all the claims they want about giving the people freedom and justice, but at the end of the day all they ever do is tighten their nooses around our necks.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Facism, police state, same thing.

No.

Facism, is not Fascism, either.

The BNP is certainly the most popular fascistic party in Britain, even if it doesn't tick all the numbers.

No they are not, because they are not in any sense of the word "fascist".

Although I do see that no-one in this thread apart from me and PCH are actually using the word to describe an ideology, and are just using it as a meaningless epithet...

"Don't worry, citizen, we're taking all your rights away, but you'll get them back right after we finish exterminating "removing" the undesirables. We promise."

As we saw in the USSR, authoritarians can make all the claims they want about giving the people freedom and justice, but at the end of the day all they ever do is tighten their nooses around our necks.

Sure seems plausable in the case of the BNP. Still doesn't make 'em "fascist"!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Fascism is one of those words which is hopelessly overloaded now. In many regards, it now essentially means the same thing as authoritarianism does.

What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments is a highly disputed subject that has proved complicated and contentious. Historians, political scientists, and other scholars have engaged in long and furious debates concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets.

Most scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power." FDR

 

[Arakhor]

Well, going by this list, the BNP certainly tick the first three boxes, though obviously they've never been anywhere near enough to power fit into most of the others.

 

[Virote_Considon]

And I quote:

Studying the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia), and Pinochet (Chile)

The list itself isn't any better, essentially just a list of common insults on the topic.

Firstly, a comparison should be brought among actual fascist groups, not fascist groups (Italian Fascists), parafascist groups (Francoists), very atypical fascist groups (Nazis) and completely non-fascist groups (Pinochet, as far as I can tell Suharto).

A better comparison would be using the Italian Fascists, the Brazilian Integralists, the BUF, and possibly the early Spanish Falange, among others. Nazis could possibly be used, but only under the pretense that they are atypical. My homeboy Perón could possibly also be used in a similar context, at a stretch.

 

[Arakhor]

How would you define fascism then, Virote? You have dismissed everything I've suggested, including my source.

 

[Dachs]

How would you define fascism then, Virote? You have dismissed everything I've suggested, including my source.

Fascism is a complete and utter change to any current system. There isn't so much of a strong state: the state is only as strong as the population, but thats because the population are the state. There is supposed to be no separation between the two. A strong military is only required in that the stronger the military compared to the military of another nation, the stronger the citizens compared to citizens in other nations. Those guys are totalitarian, not merely authoritarian. And by their thinking, their totalitarianism is justified by the idea that the citizenry are one organic mass, and therefore one fault by one is a fault to all.

Please, don't treat Fascism as a subset of the liberalist Enlightenment government system. It is not. Fascism, Communism, Anarchist societies, all cannot merely be described in the form of "this is just the current system with x, y and z tacked on as well".

Bolding mine.

 

[Arakhor]

Fine, so what does that actually mean in practice? How do you know when you're looking at a fascist state?

 

[Virote_Considon]

Fine, so what does that actually mean in practice? How do you know when you're looking at a fascist state?

'Tis a hard one, because (as with other non-liberalist ideologies) there have been so few examples, and the extent to which they've succeded in implementing their ideology as opposed to making concessions with the Liberalist system around it is debateable (for example, siding with big business - fundamental shift in ideological practice or something intended only to be a short-term "necessary evil" such as the Bolshevik's NEP?). Essentially, Mussolini's regime can be regarded as more or less typical, and there should be particular emphasis on the revolutionary rhetoric in trying to create an ideal where the citizenry and the state are combined as one, through the process of creating a kind of "new person" as the citizen; to this end, a Fascist government can be seen as one utilizing the welfare state to perhaps promote an exessive amount of programs and the such in aid of this, such as funding workers' enrollment in after-hours sports clubs, holiday clubs, cur buying schemes, etc. Such was also carried through by the Nazis (who before ~1924 [and the Munich Putsch maybe?] I'd say were somewhat atypical Fascists, but following this became somewhat more radically atypical though could still be defined within the Fascist spectrum).

Not very helpful, but as it is there's a limited pool of "Fascist" states and the ideology backing itself is only loosely coherent. Using Communism as a comparison, the Fascist ideology is a lot less clearly defined (and I'm sure those who know about Communist ideology know that it isn't exactly clear-cut itself), but Mussolini's government itself is perhaps a better representation of an attempt at it than, say, the Bolsheviks were of Communism.