On the rise of fascism.

[blake 10]

Contribution to the discussion.

 

The Doctrine of Fascism. This extract is taken from an essay by Mussolini, which constitutes the official version of an article first published in the Encyclopedia Italiana in 1932.

 

Straight from the horse's mouth.

 

 

 

 

On founding Fascism Mussolini hoped to ride to power on the grievances of the masses -or at least of the lower middle class.

 

However, he soon learned that a quicker route lay in pandering to the neuroses of Italian conservatives. So Fascism in Italy became in every respect -save propaganda- a right-wing movement. For Italy’s conservatives, Mussolini stood as a shield against a host of evils subsumed under the headings of socialism and pacifism.

.

 

Two significant features of fascist regimes are their methods of utilizing the existing machinery of power and their intervention in the economy.

 

 

Note: Fascism intervenes in an economy as an inevitable result of its exaltation of the state. "Fascist economics may have been, improvised, short- sighted, inequitable and erroneous, but they existed". (European Fascism, S. J. Woolf .Italian Fascism and the Economy. S. Lombardini-The Nature of Fascism .S.J. Woolf.).

 

A case might be made for banning the term Fascism from political vocabulary.For like other words- reactionary, anarchy, radical-it has been so misused.

 

It’s impossible, to sum up, fascist regimes in any simple way. In western Europe, fascism and Nazism possessed their own private armies. In central and eastern Europe, the fascist paramilitaries could not hope to rival the army.

 

 

 

 

It’s MHO that fascism of the old variety is never likely ever to take root again- I hope.

 

Mussolini and Italy's fascism was/were not racist compared to Hitler and the Nazis. And in fact Mussolini may not have even been a racist at all.

 

also Franco, was not a racist like Hitler was.

 

people think that racism is an integral part of fascism but I'm not so sure. Although Italy and Spain were totally appalling fascist regimes, they look good when you compare them to Nazi Germany.

[Jason crock 10]

Adolf Hitler had a bad press. I'm not condening him in anyway but he was popular with the German youth at some point. He was a despicable human being but had very populist views which resonate with even dumb ass Americans today.

[blake 10]

Hitler was only popular in Germany for a short number of years, maybe 1935-40 and do not forget out of all of the fascist leaders of that era, he had by far the shortest tenure of power. Mussolini had 20 years, Franco 40. Hitler only got 12.

[Cyclone 10]

I don't believe you can.

If the balance of evidence is close then you have a choice, and if the evidence points to something you don't want to believe, then you can choose to ignore evidence (and sometimes that choice is subconscious).

 

Prove me wrong and choose to believe that the Earth is flat. You might say that you believe it, but really you know that it is not true.

 

It's harder with objective things, it's difficult not to believe in gravity for example. But subjective things are easier, when the decision rests on nothing other than your opinion, you CAN change it. However the more deeply invested you get the less likely you are to change it.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 08:07 ----------

 

It presents a false dichotomy: suppress intolerance or ignore it.

The proper answer is to eliminate the environment in which it can prosper.

 

Tolerating it, ie taking no action against it, is ignoring it.

[Harrystottle 10]

"A political philosophy, movement, or regime led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism".

 

Most of this could be applied to Stalin's Russia. A dictator with complete power? Check.

Forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism? Check.

Regimenting all industry? Check. Very fond of their five year plans for industry, they were.

Emphasising and aggressive nationalism? Certain Stalin did in the war, not sure about before it.

Racism? I don't know if it was or not.

 

So like I say, you could apply most of that to communism, especially the forcible suppression of opposition and regimentation of industry.

 

Interestingly, you could apply large parts of it to some political thought and action in the UK today, with slight variations.

I'll have a think.

Edited August 31, 2017 by Harrystottle

[Cyclone 10]

While communism is a system based around a theory of economic equality and advocates for a classless society, fascism is a nationalistic, top-down system with rigid class roles that is ruled by an all-powerful dictator. Both communism and fascism originated in Europe and gained popularity in the early to mid 20th century.

 

From here, and it then does a side by side comparison.

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Fascism

 

Also apparently not uncommon to hear Stalin's Russia called Red Fascists.

 

Red fascism is a pejorative term used to describe Stalinism as being similar to fascism. Accusations that the leaders of the Soviet Union during the Stalinist period acted as "Red Fascists" were commonly stated by Trotskyists, left communists, social

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism

[Hairyloon 10]

Tolerating it, ie taking no action against it, is ignoring it.

 

If I might invite you to consider the "Brexit" thread, where you can observe the resident Remaniacs tolerating the Brexiteers.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 09:46 ----------

 

"A political philosophy, movement, or regime led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism"...

Racism? I don't know if it was or not.

 

I move that we strike "racism" from the definition. The dictionary had it as "often", which makes it an optional extra and that just adds confusion.

 

Interestingly, you could apply large parts of it to today's left as well, with slight variations.

Yes, well "left" as in "left behind" is on a completely different axis to "left" as in "left field". They are confusing terms in politics and I'd really rather they were not used.

[dutch 68]

I don't believe you can.

If the balance of evidence is close then you have a choice, and if the evidence points to something you don't want to believe, then you can choose to ignore evidence (and sometimes that choice is subconscious).

 

Prove me wrong and choose to believe that the Earth is flat. You might say that you believe it, but really you know that it is not true.

 

---------- Post added 30-08-2017 at 19:33 ----------

 

 

In order to have respect for democracy you must first have a democracy worthy of respect.

 

Hairyloon, with all my respect to you, I know you are looking for something and you are asking very intelligent questions.

You start with "I don't believe you can". All believe or disbelieve is just in the mind. People can be free from mind and its believes or stay stuck in it.

The evidence comes when you are free, all children are born neutral, its the parents and society, friends, that tell them what to believe in later as the physical mind develops. It rarely happens that someone reaches that freedom from mind again later. What makes humans unique from animals is that we start thinking we are someone/thing.

Only thing is that we are not our mind that believes or disbelieves in things, we are free democratic conscious individuals worthy of respect.

This may sound very confusing, it did to me thirty years ago when someone mentioned this to me. But I started looking and investigating in what is real and what is illusion. Fascism is a believe and just an illusion. Still someone else can believe in fascism and start torturing or pestering or even killing me for not joining his believe (isis). If you reach that democratic freedom within yourself where fascism has become nothing other than something people believe in, just like crazy insane religions do. It may still affect your life like the Nazis did but you will have reached a point that no matter what others do below you physically, they cannot touch your consciousness. Fascist can only stay at the physical level, when you have found that your consciousness and awareness is not physical you are free from all believe religion and politics.

When you meet others who know this also a respectful democracy happens on its own accord without effort.

[petemcewan 27]

Hairyloon,

It is a fair point: you must tolerate it insofar as you cannot suppress it through force, only through persuasion.

 

Forty years ago I went to Lewisham (Battle of Lewisham ) to persuade the NF of the error of their ways -they weren't prepared to listen. I wasn't armed with the works of Karl Popper -or Trotsky ( Trotsky wrote quite extensively against Fascism). I just knew in my heart of hearts, " They Shall Not Pass ".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2017/aug/12/flares-and-fury-the-battle-of-lewisham-1977

Edited August 31, 2017 by petemcewan

[Hairyloon 10]

Hairyloon,

 

 

Forty years ago I went to Lewisham (Battle of Lewisham ) to persuade the NF of the error of their ways -they weren't prepared to listen. I wasn't armed with the works of Karl Popper -or Trotsky ( Trotsky wrote quite extensively against Fascism). I just knew in my heart of hearts, " They Shall Not Pass ".

 

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2017/aug/12/flares-and-fury-the-battle-of-lewisham-1977

 

Meeting force with force is not suppression.

[Cyclone 10]

If I might invite you to consider the "Brexit" thread, where you can observe the resident Remaniacs tolerating the Brexiteers.

Did you think that 'tolerate' meant that you couldn't disagree with or argue against?

Have the people who voted remain claimed to be espousing tolerance particularly? Are you implying that brexiteers are fascists and not due any tolerance? I really don't know what point you're trying to make.

Racism? I don't know if it was or not.

 

I move that we strike "racism" from the definition. The dictionary had it as "often", which makes it an optional extra and that just adds confusion.

I don't think we get to change the definition.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2017 at 12:17 ----------

 

I think Dutch has achieved his goal of being without mind.

[dutch 68]

 

I think Dutch has achieved his goal of being without mind.

 

Not without, I said free from.