Why Facism is compulsed to die

[Ser Clegane]

When Fascism rises again, and it will, the mistakes of the past will not be made again.

Should fascism rise its ugly head again, it would be a sign that mistakes of the past are being repeated...

[Meneldil]

I'm dazed by the fact some fascist people keep claiming Fascism is great and Communism is bad, will in fact the 2 are exactly the same thing.
(Although in theory, Communism is fundamentaly based on a positive ideology, unlike Fascism).

And although I see how Communism has never been implemented correctly, I don't see how it would apply to fascim. As far as I know, there's no 'Fascism Manifesto' or other written ideology. Mussolini and Hitler applied it as they thought they had to. Period.

[Meneldil]

Wasn't the word 'fascism' itself invented by the Italian fascists ?

I don't see the strong guidelines you're speaking about as real guidelines about how fascism should work, but a conglomerate of many extreme left (socialist or communist) and extreme right (conservative ideas, corporatism) ideas that were later used (or not) by the fascists

[Ironside]

IIRC, Mussolini and his pals put together some kind of ruleset. I could be wrong though.

You're thinking of THE DOCTRINE OF FASCISM by BENITO MUSSOLINI (1932)?

[Meneldil]

I found that rather interesting reading on wikipedia :

The 1919 Fascist Manifesto

[PaolinoPaperino]

From the Manifesto:
-Mussolini defines "..Fascism as an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy"
-"Fascist negation of socialism, democracy, liberalism" for the classes clash/mess/individualism they generate
-"A party governing a nation “totalitarianly" is a new departure in history. There are no points of reference nor of comparison. From beneath the ruins of liberal, socialist, and democratic doctrines, Fascism extracts those elements which are still vital. It preserves what may be described as "the acquired facts" of history; it rejects all else. That is to say, it rejects the idea of a doctrine suited to all times and to all people.....Political doctrines pass; nations remain."
-"The keystone of the Fascist doctrine is its conception of the State, of its essence, its functions, and its aims. For Fascism the State is absolute"

Check the historical and social condition in Italy after the WWI and you will find the roots of fascism. By itself fascism was an answer from an authoritarian point of view to the many problems arised in that period.. and history states it has been the winner in Italy, then adapted in other countries.

It was after, in a second phase during the 20+ years of government, that fascism tryed to create and generate an ideology. But the results were poor as noticed in 1945, once the war finished....they ended.

Common aspects with comunism? The totalitarian.
Honestly, I don't think Franco's has been the last fascist government.

[Red Harvest]

From the Manifesto:
-Mussolini defines "..Fascism as an organized, centralized, authoritarian democracy"

This oxymoron is a beauty: "authoritarian democracy." We have a sitting president in the U.S. who seems to believe that is possible.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Wasn't the word 'fascism' itself invented by the Italian fascists ?

I don't see the strong guidelines you're speaking about as real guidelines about how fascism should work, but a conglomerate of many extreme left (socialist or communist) and extreme right (conservative ideas, corporatism) ideas that were later used (or not) by the fascists

Fascism comes from latin "fascia", which means bundle or sheaf, which was the symbol used by Mussolini, and the meaning behind it was something like "sticking together", indirectly also saying that this sticking together was intended to gain strength in fighting all others, more or less. The fascist principle of chauvinism is something that has existed throughout history and rises every once in a while, but under different names, sometimes without a name. It's due to a few basic concepts of civilization including:
1. turning different groups against each others
2. forming new groupings between which conflict reasons can appear
3. accidentally creating scenarios where the rise of a competing group can be a threat to the own group
4. the lack of clear communication and understanding which often makes it seem like other groups constitute threats even when they aren't

It's common that oppressed minority groups adopt a chauvinistic ideal, as it's quite natural to go against ALL others if ALL others go against them. To some extent, both Germany and Italy had experienced problems due to their lack of unity which gave them little ability to resist foreign nations attacking them. Hitler on the social level lived through a sort of oppressed lonesome warrior childhood. While fascism is usually extremely bad, the non-fascistic societies where the fascists appear and rise are no better, as they usually are the cause of the fascism. From this realization one can draw simple conclusions about what are the most effective ways of preventing fascism from rising again. Another conclusion is that many cases of fascism/chauvinism is often to an extent justified revenge on an oppresive world, which is why it often gets so many followers, and as long as it only turns against former oppressors it's very successful. However in the nazi case, the mass-murders carried out were in no way justified and in no way a revenge, because the Jews and others who were killed hadn't oppressed the Germans in any way. The killing of Jews was a way of acquiring their money, which the Jews had earned because they since the Medieval age had been forced to specialize in banking and similar fields (which became increasingly profitable post 1900), because they were oppressed in the Medieval age. This is just one of many examples of the weakness of a total fascistic ideology. Nobody is oppressed by ALL around them, but some are oppressed by NEARLY ALL around them, but if they generalize it to a hatred and chauvinistic ideology covering ALL around them as inferior and enemies, they'll sooner or later start completely unprovoked and unjustified quarrels.

The roman empire is an interesting case. Whereas in the early stages it mostly fought opponents who had attacked the romans unprovokedly, they eventually started seeing all surrounding people as inferior and potential dangers, and decided to strike first, with the result that more and more started hating Rome. A simple principle: a nation which only defends itself and starts no unprovoked wars is extremely successful in the long term if it can survive in the short term. The roman empire was in no way completely just in the early stages, but a great number of the conquests in the earlier stages were very much justified, while they became less and less just the later in the history you go. If you have as policy to conquer all who attacked you first, you'll unfortunately soon run into problems. It might be the neighbor to your most forward positions that attacks, and then you get very undefensible borders unless you conquer several innocents to push the entire border forward. That principle, and the principle that smaller and smaller threats were interpreted as attacks, and the simple fact that the romans in many ways got corrupt and started wars for a reason like they wanted to get gloria militaris for their careers and their names to be remembered.

[Dutch_guy]

Fascism comes from latin "fascia", which means bundle or sheaf, which was the symbol used by Mussolini, and the meaning behind it was something like "sticking together", indirectly also saying that this sticking together was intended to gain strength in fighting all others, more or less

Hmm thought fascisme came from the latin woord fasces, basicly meaning hte same thing as fascia - I take it.
The symbol of fascisme was the bundle of sticks and the double axe - which the lictors used in the Roman era, a symbol of power and this symbolised his wish for another great Roman empire - under his reign.

[Rodion Romanovich]

Hmm thought fascisme came from the latin woord fasces, basicly meaning hte same thing as fascia - I take it.
The symbol of fascisme was the bundle of sticks and the double axe - which the lictors used in the Roman era, a symbol of power and this symbolised his wish for a nother great Roman empire - under his reign.

you're probably right, I don't know latin well enough to get the grammar right, but the stem of the word was at least correct

[Marcellus]

Fasces were a bundle of birch rods wrapped together with an axe into one bundle (they were held together with ribbon). They were carried by lictors behind a magistrate to show their power to punish through beating and through execution. They therefore represent strength. The binding together also represents unity. Since fascism likes to associate itself with national strength and unity, they chose a name derived from the fasces (I believe the word 'fasces' [this is actually the plural but the singular isn't used] comes from the latin word 'fas' which means something along the lines of 'it is ordained').

[Kaiser of Arabia]

I'm dazed by the fact some fascist people keep claiming Fascism is great and Communism is bad, will in fact the 2 are exactly the same thing.
(Although in theory, Communism is fundamentaly based on a positive ideology, unlike Fascism).

And although I see how Communism has never been implemented correctly, I don't see how it would apply to fascim. As far as I know, there's no 'Fascism Manifesto' or other written ideology. Mussolini and Hitler applied it as they thought they had to. Period.

No, no, no!

Fascism and Communism are not the same! Communism advocates opression of people for the greater good of naught, fascism advocates opression of the people for greater good of the state! It *has* worked, the only problem is in the nations it has worked they later either got conqured by another fascist nation, or got conqured by another fascist party, or just got screwed after all the party members died.

Eg: Dollfuß's Austria.

EDIT: Also, Nazism and Fascism are not the same, nor is Nazism a form of Fascism, nor is the reverse true. Many people fail to realize that Fascism encorperates it's own economic system that is often overlooked by people, and the two are often clumped into one category. Also, Nazism advocates race above all, whereas fascism advocates State above all. In essence, they are opposites.

Nazism encorperates a form of Socialism (eg: Modern Europe) that highly benefits the Proletariat and lower classes, Fascism is based off of corperatism. Fascism is closer to Capitalism, Nazism closer to Socialism (actually, it is Socialism).

Hippies are to Democracy what Terrorists are to Facism.

Both are useless, stupid, ignorant, smelly ****heads who ruin the nation? Very true!

We have a sitting president in the U.S. who seems to believe that is possible.

HAH! Bush is closer to a Communist than anything else. ****ing hippy that he is.

Unfortunatly scared people will always flock to the strong arm of facism for 'protection'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4453650.stm

Maybe it has something to do with Franco being the greatest leader Spain ever had? Just...maybe?

[Papewaio]

Osama Bin Laden if in power would run a state very close to that of Facism... a theological version.

Facism uses terrorism to control the people. It is a bullies wetdream.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Osama Bin Laden if in power would run a state very close to that of Facism... a theological version.

Facism uses terrorism to control the people. It is a bullies wetdream.

Heh, I like my interpretation better, although both are somewhat true

[JimBob]

This is going to be fun.

Communism advocates opression of people for the greater good of naught

That's Stalinism. If Nazism is diffrent from Facism then Stalinism is diffrent from communism. Communism advocates a society without divisions. This can of course be achieved by oppression but it does not have to be.

Maybe it has something to do with Franco being the greatest leader Spain ever had? Just...maybe?

Franco? Best? The man who overthrew an elecected democratic government who was pushing for labor reforms? The man who executed thousands of political opponents? The man who allowed the bombing of Guernica? The man who starved Madrid? Who crushed the Galician, Catalan, and Basque cultures? No sir, the greatest leader Spain ever had was the Spanish people themselves, when they ruled Spain from 1936-1939.

Both are useless, stupid, ignorant, smelly ****heads who ruin the nation? Very true!

Stereotypes are fun aren't they? Besides how did the hippies ruin the nation? When they stopped being hippies they became greedy and messed things up but that's beside the point.

HAH! Bush is closer to a Communist than anything else. ****ing hippy that he is.

Yes because communists are firmly in favor of wealthy CEOs and the wealthy getting tax breaks. That is a distinctly communist belief. I think Marx even mentioned it in the Communist Manifesto in chapter eleventy "More stuff for rich fat men makes the world shinny and happy"


Now the really fun part.

fascism advocates opression of the people for greater good of the state!

Bugger the state. Why would you want to give up your individuality and self for the good of the ruling class? How does oppression help a nation? Hitler oppressed people and Germany fell. Ideas did not flow, there was no true progress and when events turned south no one wanted to tell Hitler the truth. Oppression does not, has not, and never will work. If you disagree please explain how the oppression of the people is a) good for the people b) good for the state c) possible to make a) and b) work.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

This is going to be fun.


That's Stalinism. If Nazism is diffrent from Facism then Stalinism is diffrent from communism. Communism advocates a society without divisions. This can of course be achieved by oppression but it does not have to be.

Franco? Best? The man who overthrew an elecected democratic government who was pushing for labor reforms? The man who executed thousands of political opponents? The man who allowed the bombing of Guernica? The man who starved Madrid? Who crushed the Galician, Catalan, and Basque cultures? No sir, the greatest leader Spain ever had was the Spanish people themselves, when they ruled Spain from 1936-1939.

Stereotypes are fun aren't they? Besides how did the hippies ruin the nation? When they stopped being hippies they became greedy and messed things up but that's beside the point.

Yes because communists are firmly in favor of wealthy CEOs and the wealthy getting tax breaks. That is a distinctly communist belief. I think Marx even mentioned it in the Communist Manifesto in chapter eleventy "More stuff for rich fat men makes the world shinny and happy"


Now the really fun part.

Bugger the state. Why would you want to give up your individuality and self for the good of the ruling class? How does oppression help a nation? Hitler oppressed people and Germany fell. Ideas did not flow, there was no true progress and when events turned south no one wanted to tell Hitler the truth. Oppression does not, has not, and never will work. If you disagree please explain how the oppression of the people is a) good for the people b) good for the state c) possible to make a) and b) work.

I'm not advocating Fascism, I'm correctiong incorrect posts

Oh, and the leadership before Franco consisted of 3 inbred hicks under a donkey. Or at least, that's about how intellegent they were. Greatest rulers...hah, you made a good joke there! If they were so great, then why was there a civil war there? I mean, if the government was so great, why would people need to overthrow it?

And also, why, if Franco was so horrible (which he wasn't), then why are there monuments all over Spain for him?

Stereotypes are fun aren't they? Besides how did the hippies ruin the nation? When they stopped being hippies they became greedy and messed things up but that's beside the point.

How did hippies ruin the nation. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN AMERICA? (or, if you live here, have you ever opened your eyes?) We live in the most degenerative, filthy, corrupt, immoral society in the west, with the exceptions of France, Canada, and Holland/Belgium (what, is there REALLY that much of a difference? Geeze) They caused the loss in Vietnam (strike one), the massive drug culture (strike two), and all those "open-minded" folks out in San Fransico and Massachusetts (strike three).

[Uesugi Kenshin]

Kaiser don't forget Vermont, we luckily have a lot of those people here, although the rednecks and others make it a bit hard to get things like Civil Unions through.

[JimBob]

Oh, and the leadership before Franco consisted of 3 inbred hicks under a donkey. Or at least, that's about how intellegent they were.

Eh? What did they do that was so unintelligent?

If they were so great, then why was there a civil war there? I mean, if the government was so great, why would people need to overthrow it?

The nation had just come out of a series of terrible depressions and economic meltdowns caused by the former King's poor handling of economic matters. Economically much of the country was in ruin and people were pissed. Some power hungry men like Franco wanted control and so seized it, convincing angry people to direct their hate at the current leadership who had only recently taken power and had not truly had time to turn around the situation. How did Hitler take power? Or Lenin?

And also, why, if Franco was so horrible (which he wasn't), then why are there monuments all over Spain for him?

\
Same reason there are monuments to Stalin.

We live in the most degenerative

We're slipping back towards monkeys?

filthy

That would be the factories that slip past the EPA and the asshats who dump waste. Last I checked the hippies were not in favor of pollution.

corrupt

The corruption has been around since long before the hippies. I seem to remember a fellow by the name of Rockefeller.

immoral

What is moral? I am firmly in favor of sex. I take the Hemingway morality: if it feels good when you're done, it is the right thing.

They caused the loss in Vietnam (strike one)

Actually they got us out of a hopeless war. We lost because we never commited to finishing off North Vietnam. That is the Pentagon's fault. They ignored the realities of the situation and adopted a strategy that was doomed to failure. Besides last I checked not all of the people who protested 'Nam were hippies. There were alot of average people who didn't know why we were there and didn't want us there. (Ball one).

the massive drug culture (strike two),

1) Soft drugs aren't that bad.
2) Drugs have always been around, hippies didn't start nothin'
(Ball 2)

and all those "open-minded" folks out in San Fransico and Massachusetts (strike three).

OH MY GOD! THOSE TWO MEN JUST TOUCHED EACH OTHER! THEIR BEING TOGETHER AND MAKING EACH OTHER HAPPY RUINS ANY CHANCE I HAVE OF HAVING A STABLE HAPPY REALATIONSHIP!
Dude seriously. What is wrong with gay marriage? Let them be together, you don't have to watch, you don't have to participate. Let them do their thing, you do yours, I'll do mine, and we will all be happy. Don't try to force what you believe is right and wrong on others.