demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Aug 24, 2023 20:23:40 GMT
Why, because that term did not exist? Freon Because fascism as a political philosophy/ideology began in the 20th Century following WW1 (arguably in reaction to WW1 and the economic consequences of it).
It's like trying to go back in time and claim the Diggers were communists. Ideologies like fascism and communism grew out of a particular set of circumstances (WW1 and industrialization respectively).
EDIT: Liberalism too just so I'm not leaving anyone out (the Enlightenment and the expansion of trade).
|
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,101
|
Post by Odysseus on Aug 24, 2023 20:25:10 GMT
Militarism takes many forms.
Used to be that the commies were the most militaristic nations on earth. Nowadays, their numbers are greatly reduced and even China is no longer so militaristic. For example, when was the last time they invaded another nation?
Which is not to say that Western nations and their allies cannot be militaristic as well.
And every nation that wishes to exist in humanity needs some militarism to survive. Sad, but true.
So it's a sliding scale, and that scale is often heavily influenced by one's political inclinations.
Tiresome, I know, but WTF.
Agreed. Thus, militarism is not enough to qualify a government as fascist. Obviously the checklist doesn't only list militarism. But again, if a monarchical and fascist government are indistinguishable according to said checklist, then the checklist is not sufficient to identify fascism.
Just curious: What's your definition of Facism?
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 20:39:27 GMT
Would you agree that the checklist I provided DOES argue that Hitler was a Fascist? Obviously, I think so. Can it be used to argue Hitler was a fascist? Sure, but I don't think there's any debate about whether or not he was. Is there?
The point is that you can use it to argue lots of people are fascists. Not really, and not what I meant when I said it was devoid of context. For example, how did Mussolini and Hitler use religion? It wasn't just a common use of religious terminology and messaging. The Nazis - at least some of them (Himmler in particular) - were busy creating an entire mythology.
Also, missing the context of the U.S. political system.
Well, make that argument. How much farther did he go on the supremacy of the military? I'd suggest no farther than any other president in modern history. What about sexism? One of those is about suppression of homosexuality, but Trump appointed Richard Grennell to very high profile positions in his administration, including being the first openly gay person appointed to a Cabinet level position.
There's lot of things I don't like about Trump. Some of them are the same things I didn't like about previous presidents as well. But fascist? Gonna need a stronger argument here.
Exactly my point. This can't just be a superficial claim. Gonna need some meat.
That's fair. I didn't do that. I try in here to keep things simple. I find the deeper I go, the more skeptical they get. And frankly, you were not my initial audience. You jumped in, and attacked, as if the messaging I would have used for you, is the same I would use for others. Finally, I am not here to convince you. This is not persuasive speech. I am making the forum aware of my position, and why. Nothing more. Let's be clear on why we are actually here. It's not the same for everyone. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 20:40:58 GMT
Why, because that term did not exist? Freon Because fascism as a political philosophy/ideology began in the 20th Century following WW1 (arguably in reaction to WW1 and the economic consequences of it).
It's like trying to go back in time and claim the Diggers were communists. Ideologies like fascism and communism grew out of a particular set of circumstances (WW1 and industrialization respectively).
EDIT: Liberalism too just so I'm not leaving anyone out (the Enlightenment and the expansion of trade).
I cannot agree with you on this. As long as we have good records, there is no reason we cannot apply that term farther back in time. Our argument ultimately is about how that term is defined, and I define it less contextually than you do. Freon |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 24, 2023 20:43:44 GMT
It may be involuntary from Freon. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 20:44:06 GMT
Wrong question. Is he more like them, then leaders who were NOT fascist. Yes. Freon Better. But "like fascists" (in certain areas) does not make one a fascist. Doesn't it? Freon |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 20:45:10 GMT
It may be involuntary from Freon. I can agree with that. But it does not change that I don't know who you are referring to. I know it's an insult to someone, but I don't keep track of your silly names for people. Freon |
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 24, 2023 20:50:06 GMT
It may be involuntary from Freon. I can agree with that. But it does not change that I don't know who you are referring to. I know it's an insult to someone, but I don't keep track of your silly names for people. Freon It wasn't me that used the nickname "Useless" on this thread that has you confused. Don't you even remember who you were conversing with? |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Aug 24, 2023 20:55:00 GMT
I cannot agree with you on this. As long as we have good records, there is no reason we cannot apply that term farther back in time. Our argument ultimately is about how that term is defined, and I define it less contextually than you do. Freon It's revisionist and not in a good way IMO.
The circumstances that communism, fascism and liberalism grew out of didn't exist prior to those periods and trying to apply those ideologies to peoples and movements before those circumstances existed is ahistorical.
Just to go back to the Diggers whom I mentioned earlier. They talked about equality of property and common ownership of land during the English Civil War, but they were an agrarian society, so projecting communism - which grew out of industrialization - back onto them doesn't really work. (Not sure Marx would take too kindly to the suggestion either).
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 20:56:20 GMT
I can agree with that. But it does not change that I don't know who you are referring to. I know it's an insult to someone, but I don't keep track of your silly names for people. Freon It wasn't me that used the nickname "Useless" on this thread that has you confused. Don't you even remember who you were conversing with? I made an error. Thank you for making me aware of it. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 24, 2023 20:59:12 GMT
Agreed. Thus, militarism is not enough to qualify a government as fascist. Obviously the checklist doesn't only list militarism. But again, if a monarchical and fascist government are indistinguishable according to said checklist, then the checklist is not sufficient to identify fascism.
Just curious: What's your definition of Facism?
You know, we had a whole thread on it. Two actually. I posted it there, I believe. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 21:00:09 GMT
I cannot agree with you on this. As long as we have good records, there is no reason we cannot apply that term farther back in time. Our argument ultimately is about how that term is defined, and I define it less contextually than you do. Freon It's revisionist and not in a good way IMO.
The circumstances that communism, fascism and liberalism grew out of didn't exist prior to those periods and trying to apply those ideologies to peoples and movements before those circumstances existed is ahistorical.
Just to go back to the Diggers whom I mentioned earlier. They talked about equality of property and common ownership of land during the English Civil War, but they were an agrarian society, so projecting communism - which grew out of industrialization - back onto them doesn't really work. (Not sure Marx would take too kindly to the suggestion either).
But that is why I like that list I link. It's not contextual. It addresses the activities of the leader, alone. Those who use those strategies, especially to a high degree, is considered fascist. What word would you prefer we use? I don't think authoritarian is strong enough. The psychology of an authoritarian can be varied, but a fascist, is rather specific. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 24, 2023 21:00:16 GMT
Better. But "like fascists" (in certain areas) does not make one a fascist. Doesn't it? Freon No more than being the size of André the Giant would make me French. If I were the size of André the Giant. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 21:02:25 GMT
No more than being the size of André the Giant would make me French. If I were the size of André the Giant. But if you speak French and are proud of cheese, then you might be French. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like one, reasonable to be considered one. Freon |
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 24, 2023 21:04:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mercy for All on Aug 24, 2023 21:06:12 GMT
No more than being the size of André the Giant would make me French. If I were the size of André the Giant. But if you speak French and are proud of cheese, then you might be French. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like one, reasonable to be considered one. Freon Might be. Might be Belgian or Swiss. Might be a French-speaking Dutch person. Consider that if I traveled to a place like Uzbekistan, the people there would likely not be able to distinguish me from an American by culture, language, etc. But I'm not American. |
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 21:13:10 GMT
But if you speak French and are proud of cheese, then you might be French. If you look like a duck, walk like a duck, quack like one, reasonable to be considered one. Freon Might be. Might be Belgian or Swiss. Might be a French-speaking Dutch person. Consider that if I traveled to a place like Uzbekistan, the people there would likely not be able to distinguish me from an American by culture, language, etc. But I'm not American. In that example, you are correct, but I don't think that's the case with Donald and Fascism. Freon |
|
demos
Legend
Posts: 9,199
Member is Online
|
Post by demos on Aug 24, 2023 21:16:26 GMT
But that is why I like that list I link. It's not contextual. It addresses the activities of the leader, alone. Those who use those strategies, especially to a high degree, is considered fascist. What word would you prefer we use? I don't think authoritarian is strong enough. The psychology of an authoritarian can be varied, but a fascist, is rather specific. Freon But it's not just about the leader alone; to quote Robert Paxton:
"Examined more closely, however, some of these familiar images induce facile errors. The image of the all-powerful dictator personalizes fascism, and creates the false impression that we can understand it fully by scrutinizing the leader alone. This image, whose power lingers today, is the last triumph of fascist propagandists. It offers an alibi to nations that approved or tolerated fascist leaders, and diverts attention from the persons, groups, and institutions who helped him. We need a subtler model of fascism that explores the interaction between Leader and Nation, and between Party and civil society." ( The Anatomy of Fascism)
So, if we are just talking about one leader/person (Putin comes to mind), then authoritarian or autocratic may be the better term.
|
|
Paleocon
Legend
We spent 50 Years fighting the USSR just to become a gay, retarded version of It.
Posts: 7,336
|
Post by Paleocon on Aug 24, 2023 21:19:49 GMT
Agreed. Thus, militarism is not enough to qualify a government as fascist. Obviously the checklist doesn't only list militarism. But again, if a monarchical and fascist government are indistinguishable according to said checklist, then the checklist is not sufficient to identify fascism.
Just curious: What's your definition of Facism?
Fascism, Paxton says, is a dynamic process, rather than a fixed ideology like socialism or communism. There are five steps on Paxton’s road to hell, and not all fascist parties made it past the second step:
1. Ideological formation and the creation of a party with quasi-military cadres. Talk of national humiliation, lost vigor, and the failures of liberalism and democracy.
2. Entry of the party into national politics. Intimidation of rivals, and planned acts of “redemptive violence” against suspect minorities and radical rivals.
3. Arrival in government, often in alliance with conservatives.
4. Exercise of power, in concert with institutions and business. The regime expands its control at home: restricting the press and democratic processes, corporatizing business, and collectivizing the people. Abroad, it asserts itself militarily.
5.Radicalization or entropy: Some fascists go down in a Götterdämmerung, but most die of boredom.
Today's Democrats and their allies align to items two through four pretty well. Count BLM and Antifa and you have your "quasi-military cadres" in item 1.
|
|
|
|
Post by freonbale on Aug 24, 2023 21:51:26 GMT
But that is why I like that list I link. It's not contextual. It addresses the activities of the leader, alone. Those who use those strategies, especially to a high degree, is considered fascist. What word would you prefer we use? I don't think authoritarian is strong enough. The psychology of an authoritarian can be varied, but a fascist, is rather specific. Freon But it's not just about the leader alone; to quote Robert Paxton:
"Examined more closely, however, some of these familiar images induce facile errors. The image of the all-powerful dictator personalizes fascism, and creates the false impression that we can understand it fully by scrutinizing the leader alone. This image, whose power lingers today, is the last triumph of fascist propagandists. It offers an alibi to nations that approved or tolerated fascist leaders, and diverts attention from the persons, groups, and institutions who helped him. We need a subtler model of fascism that explores the interaction between Leader and Nation, and between Party and civil society." ( The Anatomy of Fascism)
So, if we are just talking about one leader/person (Putin comes to mind), then authoritarian or autocratic may be the better term.
Let me be clear that I do NOT look at Fascism as purely a Donald thing. It's everyone who supported/supports his fascist ideology. Even in this very thread, I made that accusation. Again, that's why I like that link I post. It is clear (at least to me) about not just what he sells, but how he sells it, and who is buying. And it tells me that fascism (as I define it) is supported by a good 25% of the Republican party, though it has been given different names, so they either do not know they are fascist, or they actually feel more PATRIOTIC for their support. It's really sick and twisted. But autocratic and authoritarian do not fully describe the mechanisms of the autocracy and authoritarianism. It's the HOW of him being autocratic and authoritarian, that makes him fascist. I see fascism as a specific flavor of those two terms. They are too vague, on their own, and do not convey the insidiousness of the actual implementation. And I think it critical that we expose that implementation, else how can we guard against it by future generations. Freon |
|
