-
Friendly reminder: The politics section is a place where a lot of differing opinions are raised. You may not like what you read here but it is someone's opinion. As long as the debate is respectful you are free to debate freely. Also, the views and opinions expressed by forum members may not necessarily reflect those of GBAtemp. Messages that the staff consider offensive or inflammatory may be removed in line with existing forum terms and conditions.
The 14 characteristics of Fascism
- Thread starter Deleted member 586536
- Start date
- Views 2,796
- Replies 48
- Likes 4
eloberate on how I'm being a conspiracy theorist. or is it because you don't like my rhetoric, which is based in both facts and logic. Something that should be your supposed strong suit.
well . every time something happen , instead of trying to find solutions , the first reflex of most people is to try to find and accuse someone or something and focus more on what or who did the bad thing or move than actually trying to find solutions and testing ideas to help with them .
how many people got caught for small amount of weed , and had to pay a heavy price , for us to after way too many years , start to do something about it .
im not even gonna start a debate about all the school shooting happening and how its more talk than actions .
i see campaigns for mental health , i suffer from a couple , and honestly getting help concretely is impossible , stop talking about it and do something , we have in Canada one of our biggest company that got a day where they get money and pay for people to talk about it , but concretely they don't do much , i even worked for them .
or just going to throw money at a problems hoping itll fix itself .
then your going to make an argument, and not back it up? at best that's cowardly.
At worst I don't even want to think about it.
How many times have I gone on at lengths to back up my arguments?
Once more for the very deluded: you backing it up with your opinion doesn't necessarily equal logic and especially not facts.
To you and the common culprits goodbye and good luck surviving in this oh so evil world.
Wrong
Doesn't make them right.
It's not. The education system in the USA is designed to make complient fools.
Fascism was the system of Italy at the time, and preceded the fall of the Weimar system. The successors took into consideration taking Italys model, but chose to go for their own system. The two are quite distinct.
The quote you've provided doesn't even adress national socialism.
This is quite an interesting sequence of rationalisations.
And you choose to believe them because they agree with eachother....
Appealing to authority is not reasoning.
So capitalist want to f you over but the education system is your friend?
Well it might one day happen to you that you come across people who have worked in academic institutions and can tell you from experience that it is all about major a**kissing.
Demonstrate the contradiction.
Money is not power.
Yes
Fascism per definition is that the rulers present themselves as legitimate. This doesn't work if people don't accept you as such.
Doesn't mean that they are not popular. Taking power by force is not exclusive to any system I am aware of (just as a sidenote)
Your point being?
For f sake, make a decision and let me know at the very top of your post.
Really?
https://files.libcom.org/files/Robert O. Paxton-The Anatomy of Fascism -Knopf (2004).pdf
https://ratical.org/ratville/CAH/fasci14chars.html
Political scientist Dr. Lawrence Brit
Robert Paxton
are my sources.
They identified the core tendencies of fascism, and are widely accepted in consensus.
Again your not backing ANY of your statements.
I asked you to prove that I was conspiracy theorist.
You gave me this in response.
Point out the conspiracy. Detail it. Again, if your a facts and logics person. You should be able to disprove me easily. Unless neither of your arguments are based in that.
Well, the governments can't just arrest people for having fascist ideas. I'm not sure I'd want to live somewhere like that.
lol if you knew the things going on in my mind , fascist wouldn't be close to a problem vs what i could do if it was without consequences . a human cant really be free in a "society" , we are too different and complex .
it'll will always end in a whole lots of segregation .
am all for letting everyone do whatever they wants , but there is no official moral code lol , id like a palce where you could go and just beat up aweful people , but again , that would be my version of aweful people . not everyone will have the same definitions , a pedo would probably wont beat a pedo , me , id like to just remove each tooth one by one with pliers with a nice kick in the face in between each teeth .
The lines become less blurred with philosophy. I'm not sure I'd be much different if I were to live without consequences, I'm a pacifist but owe 1k+ in speeding fines.
Fascism grew exponentially in Italy and Europe during the inter-war period. Appealing to embittered populations of the greatest nationalistic states, Fascism offered an alternative to a failing democracy, a defence against the threat of Socialism, and a solution to the economic and cultural crises of a weak and failing state.
The 1920s saw strong anti-democratic movements develop across much of Europe, attracting support from both left and right in opposition to Liberal politics; democracy was young, and not yet established, with Parliamentary politics regarded with suspicion from many as an upper-class ‘front’. ‘National’ forms of Socialism began to spring up in response to economic crises and mass unemployment; a reactionary form of defence against the left-wing trade unions and the fear that Bolshevik socialism would spread across Europe destroying the traditions and customs of the nation.
Furthermore, the fledgling democratic systems across Europe saw a huge rise in narrowly-minded, inexperienced, and singularly focussed political parties, which fragmented the political systems and failed to adequately represent the interests of much of the population; the result was an increasingly falling confidence in parliamentary politics and democracy, and a pursuit of an ideological alternative.
Fascism thrived in those areas where a failing political system was aligned with a foreign ethnic group, that could be identified in a dominant economic or cultural position; fostering feelings of hatred from social groups who laid the blame of the nations social and political ills at the feet of a cultural scapegoat.
Marxist historians see the appeal of fascism as a capitalist structure. As socialism begun to represent a very real threat towards capitalism, many turned towards the rising fascist movements in defence of property. The strength of the Marxist interpretation lies in placing the rise of fascism within the context of the social struggles of the twentieth century.
However, the ‘Weberian’ interpretation looks towards a reactionary element within the pre-industrial ruling class; as an anti-modern movement, fascism attracted the traditionalists, nationalists and landowning elite in a last ditch defence against modern ideologies of democracy and liberalism.
The difficulty in ascribing to any one interpretation lies in the nature of the ideology itself; Fascism was in nearly every respect a reactionary solution to a perceived weakness of the state, be it economic, social, cultural or political. It is argued that modernization led to a cultural and religious vacuum within societies, resulting in a cultural despair and anomie; the essence of fascism, Hannah Arendt argued, lay in its ability to play off these fears to make real an abstract ideological understanding of the world.
Despite political reforms following the First World War the propertied classes of Italy had retained much power in the Liberal Italian Governments executive branches and bureaucracy; local authorities retained a vested interest in property and land, and had long remained staunchly opposed to the rise of Socialism. Severe food and coal shortages, rising inflation and unemployment, and increasingly common food riots and industry strikes during the early 1920s revealed an Italian state in crisis. There was an increasingly popularised view that Italy was being treated as a lesser power by much of Western Europe and rapidly acquired the psychology of a defeated nation.
Early Fascist movements attracted the young, demobilized officers of the war, but also revolutionary Syndicalists and demoralised elements of the Socialist Party; united under a banner of intense patriotism and nationalism and a hatred of liberalism, Socialism, Catholicism, and a failing bureaucratic parliamentary system, they were fashioned into armed groups of the local fasci.
A growing militancy and increasingly radicalised Italian Socialist Party calling for collectivisation seemed to echo the Bolshevik revolutions in Russia. In response to the alarming rise of Socialist radicalism, Italy’s Liberal Governments sought to gain the support of the recently enfranchised worker and peasantry populations; yet liberal social reforms alienated the propertied classes who saw the reformed state as “conniving with the Bolshevicks”. Increasing numbers of the petty-bourgeois, land owners and employers turned to the militant Fascist Squads, promising political support in exchange for defence against the perceived Socialist threat.
The Liberal Party was initially passive in dealings with the Fascists, choosing to stand by as they clashed with their rivals in the Socialist Party, and then latterly in an active role as they sought to leverage the Fascist Squad violence in a parliamentary coalition.
Early Fascist violence was generally well organised and systematic, almost exclusively an anti-Socialist reaction and rarely targeted against any Liberal Party constituencies and provinces. The Fiume incident caught the imagination of the nation as a new ‘politics of action’, backed by a military coup, furthered a resentment against the weakness of the Liberal governments. Combined with a modest military career, Mussolini was in an influential position that allowed him to claim representation of much of the Italian citizenry and soldiery, and the knowledge to speak influentially on matters of politics and foreign affairs.
Fascist movements remained largely insignificant in much of Eastern Europe; the Romanian Iron Guard and the Hungarian Arrow Cross being notable for their relatively more popular support and longevity. In Hungary, the early-Fascist movement gained popularity as a counter-revolutionary reaction to the communist regime of 1919, attracting extreme nationalists, the far-right and increasingly racist sections of the population. In Spain, while never reaching the same levels of popularity as Italian and German Fascism, feelings of fear and resentment against an increasingly vocal working-class and a perceived inefficient political class, led to Fascist movements which claimed to defend conservatism against both Communism and liberalism. Economic recession in France and financial scandals of the republican politicians allowed the French nationalists to discredit both the ruling elite and Jewish capital interests; anti-Semitism and fierce nationalistic sentiment led to the quasi-Fascist movements such as Le Faisceau. Britain saw hostile reactions to parliamentary rule in the form of Black-shirt demonstrations and rallies; the ideologies of the totalitarian state were an attractive proposition to those elements of society who felt most victimised by a weak state and Liberal capitalism.
In Germany, the democracy of the Weimar Republic had suffered from considerable economic constraints, both domestic and international, which greatly limited the possibilities of positive political action. Democratic politics broke down quickly, leaving little but the politics of propaganda. In Germany, hyperinflation and six million unemployed caused a depression that lasted through much of the inter war period. Germany was burdened with considerable handicaps, not least the economic, social, and political cost of a lost world war: reparations had to be paid; obligations to the war victims, both financial and social, continued and the Weimar Republic lacked the widespread public support that a strong government needed to push through the unpleasant policies needed to recover.
Hyper-inflation was one of the most devastating events in German history, the net result was a political disaster for Germany’s two Liberal parties. Proletarian riots and working-class strike action were answered by the forming of numerous ‘Home Guards’ throughout German towns and villages; a fresh political force that fostered self-reliance and rallied patriots under a struggle for national liberation from the perceived socialist menace.
Fighting against socialism became increasingly intertwined with nationalist sentiment. German nationalism increasingly became a rhetoric of racial divides, as non-German elements of society were blamed for the collapse of the nation; Socialists, Poles and Jews became enemies of a national renewal.
The ‘politics of action’ became a populist reaction to the perceived failings of the State; economic collapse and soaring inflation in countries wracked by the devastation of the First World War pushed political populations towards the ever increasingly radicalised left and right. Fascism brought a rhetoric of activist, heroic and militaristic resolution to economic problems: where the economy could be stabilised through an ‘iron will’, while presenting few actual solutions to the problems; private property was never seriously challenged, yet no longer reigned supreme; unions were smashed but employers’ associations permitted to remain: workers and employers were appeased, at a time when memories of mass unemployment were all too fresh. The Keynesian economics that led a consumer-based rebuilding of the economy and high employment in Britain were incompatible with the Italian and German states; were while employment grew, wages were kept low. Four years of war had destroyed the monetary foundations of nineteenth century capitalist Europe; while the apparent rapid progress of the Soviet Union and its Five Year Plan shook the status quo of the pre-war period. The war had bred a desire to return to the established stability for Europe’s bourgeoisie, while at the same time fostering promises of higher standards of living and respect to the working-class recruits returning home from war. Wounded nationalist feelings, fierce patriotism and a recent history of extreme human misery and economic collapse became a fertile ground for Fascist recruitment.
Fascism grew in popularity by leveraging the fear and misery of the most patriotic elements of a nation, and offered militant solutions to a weak, failing, democratic state. Unlike Socialism, it promised to destroy neither the bourgeois nor the politicised working-class and it fostered feelings of victimisation and retribution within a nation that affirmed a cultural divide that could be blamed for all of a nations’ failing.
Bibliography.
Bosworth, R., Mussolini, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)
Cheles,L., et al., The Far Right in Western & Eastern Europe, (Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited, 1995)
Davies, p., & Lynch, D., The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, (London: Routledge, 2002)
Elazar, D,S., The Making of Fascism: Class, State, and Counter-Revolution, Italy 1919-1922, (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2001)
Fritzche, P., Germans into Nazis, (London: Harvard University Press, 1998)
Kershaw, I., ed, Weimar: Why did German Democracy Fail?, (London: The Bath Press, 1990)
Laqueur, W., Fascism: A Reader’s Guide, (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1991)
Mazower, M., Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century, (London: Penguin Books, 1998)
Overy, R. J.., The Inter-War Crisis 1919-1939, (Harlow: Longman Group Ltd, 1994)
Passmore, K., Fascism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
Williamson, D.G., The Age of the Dictators: A Study of the European Dictatorships, 1918-53, (Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007)
The 1920s saw strong anti-democratic movements develop across much of Europe, attracting support from both left and right in opposition to Liberal politics; democracy was young, and not yet established, with Parliamentary politics regarded with suspicion from many as an upper-class ‘front’. ‘National’ forms of Socialism began to spring up in response to economic crises and mass unemployment; a reactionary form of defence against the left-wing trade unions and the fear that Bolshevik socialism would spread across Europe destroying the traditions and customs of the nation.
Furthermore, the fledgling democratic systems across Europe saw a huge rise in narrowly-minded, inexperienced, and singularly focussed political parties, which fragmented the political systems and failed to adequately represent the interests of much of the population; the result was an increasingly falling confidence in parliamentary politics and democracy, and a pursuit of an ideological alternative.
Fascism thrived in those areas where a failing political system was aligned with a foreign ethnic group, that could be identified in a dominant economic or cultural position; fostering feelings of hatred from social groups who laid the blame of the nations social and political ills at the feet of a cultural scapegoat.
Marxist historians see the appeal of fascism as a capitalist structure. As socialism begun to represent a very real threat towards capitalism, many turned towards the rising fascist movements in defence of property. The strength of the Marxist interpretation lies in placing the rise of fascism within the context of the social struggles of the twentieth century.
However, the ‘Weberian’ interpretation looks towards a reactionary element within the pre-industrial ruling class; as an anti-modern movement, fascism attracted the traditionalists, nationalists and landowning elite in a last ditch defence against modern ideologies of democracy and liberalism.
The difficulty in ascribing to any one interpretation lies in the nature of the ideology itself; Fascism was in nearly every respect a reactionary solution to a perceived weakness of the state, be it economic, social, cultural or political. It is argued that modernization led to a cultural and religious vacuum within societies, resulting in a cultural despair and anomie; the essence of fascism, Hannah Arendt argued, lay in its ability to play off these fears to make real an abstract ideological understanding of the world.
Despite political reforms following the First World War the propertied classes of Italy had retained much power in the Liberal Italian Governments executive branches and bureaucracy; local authorities retained a vested interest in property and land, and had long remained staunchly opposed to the rise of Socialism. Severe food and coal shortages, rising inflation and unemployment, and increasingly common food riots and industry strikes during the early 1920s revealed an Italian state in crisis. There was an increasingly popularised view that Italy was being treated as a lesser power by much of Western Europe and rapidly acquired the psychology of a defeated nation.
Early Fascist movements attracted the young, demobilized officers of the war, but also revolutionary Syndicalists and demoralised elements of the Socialist Party; united under a banner of intense patriotism and nationalism and a hatred of liberalism, Socialism, Catholicism, and a failing bureaucratic parliamentary system, they were fashioned into armed groups of the local fasci.
A growing militancy and increasingly radicalised Italian Socialist Party calling for collectivisation seemed to echo the Bolshevik revolutions in Russia. In response to the alarming rise of Socialist radicalism, Italy’s Liberal Governments sought to gain the support of the recently enfranchised worker and peasantry populations; yet liberal social reforms alienated the propertied classes who saw the reformed state as “conniving with the Bolshevicks”. Increasing numbers of the petty-bourgeois, land owners and employers turned to the militant Fascist Squads, promising political support in exchange for defence against the perceived Socialist threat.
The Liberal Party was initially passive in dealings with the Fascists, choosing to stand by as they clashed with their rivals in the Socialist Party, and then latterly in an active role as they sought to leverage the Fascist Squad violence in a parliamentary coalition.
Early Fascist violence was generally well organised and systematic, almost exclusively an anti-Socialist reaction and rarely targeted against any Liberal Party constituencies and provinces. The Fiume incident caught the imagination of the nation as a new ‘politics of action’, backed by a military coup, furthered a resentment against the weakness of the Liberal governments. Combined with a modest military career, Mussolini was in an influential position that allowed him to claim representation of much of the Italian citizenry and soldiery, and the knowledge to speak influentially on matters of politics and foreign affairs.
Fascist movements remained largely insignificant in much of Eastern Europe; the Romanian Iron Guard and the Hungarian Arrow Cross being notable for their relatively more popular support and longevity. In Hungary, the early-Fascist movement gained popularity as a counter-revolutionary reaction to the communist regime of 1919, attracting extreme nationalists, the far-right and increasingly racist sections of the population. In Spain, while never reaching the same levels of popularity as Italian and German Fascism, feelings of fear and resentment against an increasingly vocal working-class and a perceived inefficient political class, led to Fascist movements which claimed to defend conservatism against both Communism and liberalism. Economic recession in France and financial scandals of the republican politicians allowed the French nationalists to discredit both the ruling elite and Jewish capital interests; anti-Semitism and fierce nationalistic sentiment led to the quasi-Fascist movements such as Le Faisceau. Britain saw hostile reactions to parliamentary rule in the form of Black-shirt demonstrations and rallies; the ideologies of the totalitarian state were an attractive proposition to those elements of society who felt most victimised by a weak state and Liberal capitalism.
In Germany, the democracy of the Weimar Republic had suffered from considerable economic constraints, both domestic and international, which greatly limited the possibilities of positive political action. Democratic politics broke down quickly, leaving little but the politics of propaganda. In Germany, hyperinflation and six million unemployed caused a depression that lasted through much of the inter war period. Germany was burdened with considerable handicaps, not least the economic, social, and political cost of a lost world war: reparations had to be paid; obligations to the war victims, both financial and social, continued and the Weimar Republic lacked the widespread public support that a strong government needed to push through the unpleasant policies needed to recover.
Hyper-inflation was one of the most devastating events in German history, the net result was a political disaster for Germany’s two Liberal parties. Proletarian riots and working-class strike action were answered by the forming of numerous ‘Home Guards’ throughout German towns and villages; a fresh political force that fostered self-reliance and rallied patriots under a struggle for national liberation from the perceived socialist menace.
Fighting against socialism became increasingly intertwined with nationalist sentiment. German nationalism increasingly became a rhetoric of racial divides, as non-German elements of society were blamed for the collapse of the nation; Socialists, Poles and Jews became enemies of a national renewal.
The ‘politics of action’ became a populist reaction to the perceived failings of the State; economic collapse and soaring inflation in countries wracked by the devastation of the First World War pushed political populations towards the ever increasingly radicalised left and right. Fascism brought a rhetoric of activist, heroic and militaristic resolution to economic problems: where the economy could be stabilised through an ‘iron will’, while presenting few actual solutions to the problems; private property was never seriously challenged, yet no longer reigned supreme; unions were smashed but employers’ associations permitted to remain: workers and employers were appeased, at a time when memories of mass unemployment were all too fresh. The Keynesian economics that led a consumer-based rebuilding of the economy and high employment in Britain were incompatible with the Italian and German states; were while employment grew, wages were kept low. Four years of war had destroyed the monetary foundations of nineteenth century capitalist Europe; while the apparent rapid progress of the Soviet Union and its Five Year Plan shook the status quo of the pre-war period. The war had bred a desire to return to the established stability for Europe’s bourgeoisie, while at the same time fostering promises of higher standards of living and respect to the working-class recruits returning home from war. Wounded nationalist feelings, fierce patriotism and a recent history of extreme human misery and economic collapse became a fertile ground for Fascist recruitment.
Fascism grew in popularity by leveraging the fear and misery of the most patriotic elements of a nation, and offered militant solutions to a weak, failing, democratic state. Unlike Socialism, it promised to destroy neither the bourgeois nor the politicised working-class and it fostered feelings of victimisation and retribution within a nation that affirmed a cultural divide that could be blamed for all of a nations’ failing.
Bibliography.
Bosworth, R., Mussolini, (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002)
Cheles,L., et al., The Far Right in Western & Eastern Europe, (Harlow: Longman Group UK Limited, 1995)
Davies, p., & Lynch, D., The Routledge Companion to Fascism and the Far Right, (London: Routledge, 2002)
Elazar, D,S., The Making of Fascism: Class, State, and Counter-Revolution, Italy 1919-1922, (Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2001)
Fritzche, P., Germans into Nazis, (London: Harvard University Press, 1998)
Kershaw, I., ed, Weimar: Why did German Democracy Fail?, (London: The Bath Press, 1990)
Laqueur, W., Fascism: A Reader’s Guide, (Aldershot: Scolar Press, 1991)
Mazower, M., Dark Continent: Europe’s Twentieth Century, (London: Penguin Books, 1998)
Overy, R. J.., The Inter-War Crisis 1919-1939, (Harlow: Longman Group Ltd, 1994)
Passmore, K., Fascism, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002)
Williamson, D.G., The Age of the Dictators: A Study of the European Dictatorships, 1918-53, (Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2007)
Just in case anyone is actually interested lol, sorry its not referenced but originally it was footnoted, which doesn't translate well in a forum 
Okay you know what?
Why do you think it's wrong? Is it based in anecdotal evidence?
Do you not know how the scientific process works? Like... seriously? Because tl;dr
the scientific process has built in error checking. You can't just spit out a study. it has to be repeatable
Okay ignore the 365 pages I sent you to read. I've read all your articles and bs before and combed through them. You just read my sentences and go "that's wrong"
holy fuck
Okay. so you've been essentially just ignoring me. got it. you didn't bother to read ANY of the information I sent to you.
"Another supposed essential character of fascism is its anticapitalist,
antibourgeois animus. Early fascist movements flaunted their contempt
for bourgeois values and for those who wanted only “to earn money,
money, filthy money.”36 They attacked “international finance capitalism”
almost as loudly as they attacked socialists. They even promised to expro-
priate department-store owners in favor of patriotic artisans, and large
landowners in favor of peasants.37
Whenever fascist parties acquired power, however, they did nothing
to carry out these anticapitalist threats. By contrast, they enforced with the
utmost violence and thoroughness their threats against socialism. Street
fights over turf with young communists were among their most powerful
propaganda images.38 Once in power, fascist regimes banned strikes, dis-
solved independent labor unions, lowered wage earners’ purchasing power,
and showered money on armaments industries, to the immense satisfac-
tion of employers. Faced with these conflicts between words and actions
concerning capitalism, scholars have drawn opposite conclusions. Some,
taking the words literally, consider fascism a form of radical anticapital-
ism. 39 Others, and not only Marxists, take the diametrically opposite posi-
tion that fascists came to the aid of capitalism in trouble, and propped up
by emergency means the existing system of property distribution and
social hierarchy."
This part right here. in bold. does this not counter your claim that it's national socialism
Socialism is a threat to capitalism, and capitalism is a threat to socialism. Your claim that it was national socialist, despite the fact we are talking the exact same fucking country, and the same country WENT after socialist, DID NOT DO ANY Socialist polices. It cannot possibly be national socialism. Because national socialism, wouldn't go after it's own peers.
That is fascism.
If this is somehow too difficult for you to understand. Let's simplfy it.
If socialism is a counter to capitalism.
Then capitalism must be a counter to socialism.
If it was national socialist.
Then it would support socialist policies
Evidence points that it did not support socialist polices
evidence points that it support capitalist polices
conclusion: this cannot be socialism. as the nationalist part, is a modifier of it.
It killed socialists first the moment to power.
ergo, it must mean that socialism countered that idealogy
It supported captalism not for "the free market" but because it was "weak"
Conclusion:
it must be an authoritarian version of captalism.
If the people were ultra nationalist
If we also know that Ultra nationalism is linked to Nazi's
if we know that it's authoritarian.
If we know the political opponents were killed
if we know that the media was controlled
(there's more if's. but I'm not going to list them all since this is already long enough)
conclusion:
it must be fascism.
Disproven by your own rhetoric by peers. buying power
vote with your wallet
If money didn't have power, then none of these would apply. This would not be the rhetoric spoken.
I choose to believe them because they are the professionals on this field. I would trust my doctor more than I would trust a politician. I choose to trust them even more because many of them have agreed on what it is. And what they agreed upon, is science. Science isn't directly facts. It's the methodology behind finding them. With consensus happening only because it's repeatable, which means it may likely be factual.
I've been pulling from every source I possibly can on the matter. This isn't even shit taught in schools. These people aren't brought up in k-12. I had to look and find and learn these things on my own. This isn't a gotcha as you'd hope. because this specific part, this specific "what makes up fascism" wasn't taught in schools.
Fascist doesn't care if they are legitimate or not. They care about power.
"Well it might come one day that a black person beats me up. And then they're all assholes right?"
Anecdotal evidence doesn't work.
Last edited by Deleted member 586536,
I think of fascism as a social disease, a reaction to fears of a cultural or systematic revolution, linked to fears of personal death or oblivion. It's obviously sustained in a racist or xenophobic view of the world that exists within its supporters, in which there's a war between races or peoples. To answer the fear of change, fascist leaders may arrive and claim: look at all this they want to do to us / they have done to us, we need to stand together against our common enemy. In the case of Germany, I haven't read about it, but I can't shake the feeling that it is also a late reaction to the transformation of the country from rural to urban and industrial, where massive numbers of diverse people were brought together into cities and naturally had to deal with certain cultural differences. Also the kulturkampf, to reduce the role of the church in the state - which might have displeased traditionalists and some conservatives. This beyond the acknowledged reaction to communism and to foreign economic oppression.
Last edited by Dark_Phoras,
That's a fairly accurate assessment.It definitely helps to understand the cultural and economic situation of Germany and Italy at the end of the 19th Century. Both were deeply nationalistic, and both had been largely oppressed, by Prussia and Austria-Hungary respectively.
Possibly the most striking aspect of Fascism, for me anyway, is the lack of a centralised ideological foundation. There was no 'Communist Manefesto', for Fascism, and as it is so often driven by a demagogue it can be very hard to pin down what the ideological pillars actually are.
the closed thing is mein kampf. but that's still an extreme stretch. Since it's basically just hitler screaming over and over what he hates. Not a exploration of thought, not a critical look. Just angry rage.
Absolutely. The difference is that Marx wrote the Communist Manefesto before Lenin then adopted, and adapted, that ideology for the Bolsheviks. Mein Kampf was written after Mussolini was already developing Fascism as a form of governing
Last edited by Risingdawn,
That might be the start of it. There are different scientific specialisations and they don't all work exactly the same, but it is not uncommon that you state your reasoning why you are exploring a certain subject matter. Often it is to continue works from others, but it can be in relation to your own work and might very well be just an anecdote.
Then you design a working theory around falsifiable claims. Following that you might be expected to demonstrate the current state of research of that particular matter, if there is any. In relation to this it might be expected of you to work within the frame of preceding works and demonstrate this frame. You state your approach, the data you have produced, the analysis, conclusion and suggestion for further research.
Now your conclusion must be falsifiable. In principle it does not matter who falsifies this, it can be your neighbours dog. Making science to an institutional affirmation contest is the perversion of science. Also check out this movie where a scientist is payed by the tobacco to produce data. Crazy right?
Depends on the field.
Because it is
I've read the quote in that post and it doesn't talk about national socialism. You understand that there are different words because they mean different things. Also this:
Control+F 'national socialism'... no nothing.
That is wrong, the national socialist parties did make travel to exotic countries possible for normal working class people, and that was a historic first. The confusion might be because the KPD (communist) was forced out by the NSDAP who won the election. The KPD was for global socialism while the NSDAP was for socialism on a national level. This doesn't rule out the use of capital/currency, as well as wages and such.
Maybe this will help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces
It is about unity.
Money can be a tool of power.
That is bullshit anyways.
So what?
And couldn't be possibly be paid by capitalists who want to F you over.
Your doctor is forced to say everything what comes from his authorities, deviating can ruin his financial life.
Well then you are easily defeated by an army of agreeing liars.
For science it is not important what method was applied as long as it demonstrates the truth. Consensus in institutions is dictated by those who finance it/force it.
So it must be right. Bless your heart.
Ah, and the things you can find they aren't influenced by capitalists who want to f you over. Well they can't think of everything I guess, thats just over their heads.
They care about openly taking power in contrast to some other actors that care about this being obscure.
Your point being?
It works better than getting fooled by actors that care for your demise.
Last edited by Creamu,
Similar threads
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
But other than PC and Amiga ports I don't think Time Soldiers had any game system ports after the Master System -
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Ohhh just noticed that myself I bet it makes the Master System port look amazing by comparison lol
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
If you want a good system to port it to, at least have a good programmer and knowledge.+1 -
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
I didn't know they made an MSU cart for the Genesis.... I knew about the SNES one and the library for that is rather large but the Genesis one has very few games+1
-
-
@
SylverReZ:
An FPGA could probably replicate the chip's functionality without buying donor parts.+1
-
-
-
@
Psionic Roshambo:
Like not emulating the entire SNES but just a loader and the enhancement chips perhaps even slightly overclocked like FX-2
-