Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 86

Thread: Fascism: Would it work.

  1. #51
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Just about every Democratic nation in history has failed because the people are too ignorant to spend the Nation's money for the greater good.
    Democratic governments have only had a resurgence in Western civilization from the ancient Greeks only in the last 300 years, and before that the trend has been for governments to become more democratic rather than less so.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Only because of the war.
    Nations go to war all the time, and if a fascist government cannot survive a war, then it is a failure.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Yeah, that was Hitler, but a large part of that was because of the fact Hitler was a mad man, not because he was a fascist.
    And yet the people of that nation could not get rid of a fascist dictator despite said dictator being a madman, which shows another weakness of a fascist government.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Then I guess 95% of the Governments in history were Tyrannical.
    Yes, they were.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Also, I could name you plenty of democracies where the people did have a say in the Government that were Tyrannical.
    That is true. However, such democracies tend to be less tyrannical than fascist governments, especially democracies in which the power of the people is checked, but not prohibited by, an established constitution that allows for regular changes in government.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Is that why he called in the army to put down the whisky revolt?
    Indeed. The quelling of the Whiskey Rebellion was not an act by a tyrannical, dictatorial government. It was done to halt an unjustified rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was enacted by farmers who were angry at a federal excise tax on whiskey, which was a major source of income for farmers who would use their extra crops to make whiskey so it would last longer and even use it as a form of currency since whiskey would last longer than their crops. They were outraged over the tax and tried to revolt. However, Hamilton and Washington were able to stop it.

    This was because Washington, who was elected President via a democratic process, did not mandate the tax by fiat without regards to opposition, which is what a fascist government would be able to do. Rather, Alexander Hamilton recommended the whiskey tax to Congress to help pay down the federal debt the U.S. incurred for the Revolutionary War. The House of Representatives and the Senate, both democratically elected chambers of the legislature, debated the measure, wrote bills, passed a bill in both houses, compromised the bills between the two chambers, wrote a final single bill, passed a vote in both houses on that, and presented it to George Washington, who signed it into law.

    The rebels shouted that they were suffering taxation without representation; that is untrue - they were being taxed with the people being represented via the House of Representatives and the states being represented via the Senate. Therefore, they were not suffering tyranny like they did under the British Empire, in which Parliament did not allow the colonies any representation in the House of Commons nor the House of Lords.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Again, the two are very similar, and I would also like to point out that many fascist governments did not have dictators, e.g. Japan.
    Yes, Imperial Japan did have dictators. While they technically had a monarchy, in truth Japan was ruled by the military. So while the Empire of Japan did not have a singular dictator, it had a group of dictators in the leaders of the military establishment who were the ones who effectively made policies for Imperial Japan.
    Last edited by samsmart; 05-25-10 at 10:29 PM.

  2. #52
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-27-10 @ 03:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    84

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Democratic governments have only had a resurgence in Western civilization from the ancient Greeks only in the last 300 years, and before that the trend has been for governments to become more democratic rather than less so.
    Yes, but your forgetting that the only reason that fascist governments existed at all was because Democracy had failed in those nations where fascism came to power, and people wanted a change in order to ensure stability, and often times it was the people who instated the fascist dictator. I would remind you that Hitler came to power through the democratic system.

    Nations go to war all the time, and if a fascist government cannot survive a war, then it is a failure.
    As a matter of fact, there were plenty of fascist nations that did not go to war, and I'm sorry, but merely losing a war does not prove that the Germans were incapable of fighting one effectively, and is hardly a justification for saying that all fascist governments will always be incapable of fighting wars.

    Yes, they were.
    And ya know what, the French revolution was more harmful than many of them.

    And yet the people of that nation could not get rid of a fascist dictator despite said dictator being a madman, which shows another weakness of a fascist government.
    So what, we typically can't get rid of bad presidents right away either. Besides a fascist government does not necessarily always have to be run by a life long dictator, it could be run by an administration that would chose a new chairman every now and then. Sort of like China.


    That is true. However, such democracies tend to be less tyrannical than fascist governments, especially democracies in which the power of the people is checked, but not prohibited by, an established constitution that allows for regular changes in government.
    How about democratically elected Hugo Chavez an Ahmadinajad.
    Indeed.

    The quelling of the Whiskey Rebellion was not an act by a tyrannical, dictatorial government. It was done to halt an unjustified rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was enacted by farmers who were angry at a federal excise tax on whiskey, which was a major source of income for farmers who would use their extra crops to make whiskey so it would last longer and even use it as a form of currency since whiskey would last longer than their crops. They were outraged over the tax and tried to revolt. However, Hamilton and Washington were able to stop it.
    There was no need for the whiskey Tax, the citizens had full right to be angry. This is an example of democratic tyranny.

    This was because Washington, who was elected President via a democratic process, did not mandate the tax by fiat without regards to opposition, which is what a fascist government would be able to do. Rather, Alexander Hamilton recommended the whiskey tax to Congress to help pay down the federal debt the U.S. incurred for the Revolutionary War. The House of Representatives and the Senate, both democratically elected chambers of the legislature, debated the measure, wrote bills, passed a bill in both houses, compromised the bills between the two chambers, wrote a final single bill, passed a vote in both houses on that, and presented it to George Washington, who signed it into law.
    Perfect example of how tyranny can be legislated in a democratic society.

    Yes, Imperial Japan did have dictators. While they technically had a monarchy, in truth Japan was ruled by the military. So while the Empire of Japan did not have a singular dictator, it had a group of dictators in the leaders of the military establishment who were the ones who effectively made policies for Imperial Japan.
    There was still a plurality of rulers, and the government had the support of the people.
    Last edited by John2.0; 05-25-10 at 10:52 PM.

  3. #53
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    ... but merely losing a war does not prove that the Germans were incapable of fighting one effectively, and is hardly a justification for saying that all fascist governments will always be incapable of fighting wars.
    Considering that they were fighting two superpowers on two fronts and were outnumbered 5 to 1, they fought surprisingly well. If they hadn't wasted so many resources on the Final Solution, they may have done even more damage before their inevitable defeat.

  4. #54
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Considering that they were fighting two superpowers on two fronts and were outnumbered 5 to 1, they fought surprisingly well. If they hadn't wasted so many resources on the Final Solution, they may have done even more damage before their inevitable defeat.
    And perhaps if they hadn't gone to war with anyone, and hadn't killed off so many people in concentration camps, they would still be around...
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  5. #55
    Student Simba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Along the coast of South Carolina.
    Last Seen
    06-22-10 @ 05:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    280

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Only seems to work in Israel with American support.

    *winks*

  6. #56
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Yes, but your forgetting that the only reason that fascist governments existed at all was because Democracy had failed in those nations where fascism came to power, and people wanted a change in order to ensure stability, and often times it was the people who instated the fascist dictator. I would remind you that Hitler came to power through the democratic system.
    Yes, and you're forgetting that the only reason why we don't have any long-running fascist governments is because people and their culture naturally evolve and differ faster than a dictatorial government, meaning that the fascist government eventually loses support of the majority of people and falls. And while Hitler did come to power through a democratic system, he only maintained power through oppression via the military, the Waffen-SS, and the Gestapo.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    As a matter of fact, there were plenty of fascist nations that did not go to war, and I'm sorry, but merely losing a war does not prove that the Germans were incapable of fighting one effectively, and is hardly a justification for saying that all fascist governments will always be incapable of fighting wars.
    Then, likewise, just because an economic crisis happens during the history of a democratic government is no justification that democratic governments are unable to weather through or prevent an economic crisis.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    And ya know what, the French revolution was more harmful than many of them.
    I won't argue that. But then again, it could be argued that the French revolutionary government became a fascistic government in itself by pursuing such bloody tactics against counter-revolutionary elements. It was not until the factions of the French Revolution stopped using violence as a political solution and allowed opposition to it a voice in politics and government that it truly became a democracy.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    So what, we typically can't get rid of bad presidents right away either.
    No, we cannot get rid of a bad President right away. However, we do have limited terms, and term limits, for President mandated in our Constitution. This allows for a peaceful change of government within our constitutional democratic republic.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Besides a fascist government does not necessarily always have to be run by a life long dictator, it could be run by an administration that would chose a new chairman every now and then. Sort of like China.
    However, China has a one-party system that officially endorses the Communist Party of China, which means they have a dictatorial party controlling the government. Until members of opposition parties are allowed representation in the Chinese government, it is no better.


    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    How about democratically elected Hugo Chavez an Ahmadinajad.
    Indeed.
    Would you have endorsed them if they came to power through a military coup to control their governments?

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    There was no need for the whiskey Tax, the citizens had full right to be angry. This is an example of democratic tyranny.
    That is absolutely not the case. The tax on whiskey was to help pay down the debt, and it was not tyranny because the people elected their Representatives democratically. And the U.S. government does not endorse a particular political party and suppresses opposition to it. Therefore, it is not tyranny.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    Perfect example of how tyranny can be legislated in a democratic society
    Then what's the difference between "tyranny" and "legislating"? Because apparently you see none.

    Quote Originally Posted by John2.0 View Post
    There was still a plurality of rulers, and the government had the support of the people.
    But the people had no way to change the government if it lost the support of it's people. None of the military was elected to it's position to rule over the people, and because they were the military they could use force of arms to prevent a change should the people demand one. And, again, it lost the war. And the Japanese reaction to their defeat in World War 2 was that their nation renounced the use of the military and armed conflict to resolve disputes with other nations in their new constitution. In order to ensure that the military would never put the people of Japan in such dire straits as it did during World War 2 and it's aftermath, the Japan banned a military force for their government. That says how much the people really liked having a military fascist dictatorship in charge of them.
    Last edited by samsmart; 05-25-10 at 11:27 PM.

  7. #57
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    And perhaps if they hadn't gone to war with anyone, and hadn't killed off so many people in concentration camps, they would still be around...
    Indeed. Germany lost a lot of their educated people, especially scientists and engineers, because of the policies their dictatorial government implemented.

  8. #58
    Devourer of Poor Children
    DrunkenAsparagus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    DC
    Last Seen
    01-20-16 @ 04:07 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    4,496

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    Yes. And their policy failures bring about the kind of conditions in which people demand a strong State-- whether it be a Fascist State or some other system.
    The Great Depression was mostly brought on by a Federal Reserve who had an inflationary monetary policy in the 1920s which fueled a huge stock market bubble, cut off the money supply after 1929, and in 1930 the US enacted a large tariff. Much of Europe was devastated by WWI. People demand a strong state when they think a weak one was at fault, but this is often not actually the case

    Quote Originally Posted by Korimyr the Rat View Post
    They were much better in the Forties than they were in the Thirties-- as was the United States after FDR's sweeping shifts in US economic policy.
    I could go on about how the New Deal lengthened the Depression. The stock market didn't really recover until the late 1940s.
    "Doubleplusungood"

    George Orwell

  9. #59
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Laramie, WY
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 02:02 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    18,709
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    And perhaps if they hadn't gone to war with anyone, and hadn't killed off so many people in concentration camps, they would still be around...
    The war with France and the war with the Soviet Union were inevitable. War with the United States and Britain could have been avoided, and if they had successfully pressured Japan into leaving us alone, they would have had allies against the Russians; the Soviets would have invaded Poland eventually if the Nazis hadn't beaten them to it.

  10. #60
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-27-10 @ 03:08 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    84

    Re: Fascism: Would it work.

    Yes, and you're forgetting that the only reason why we don't have any long-running fascist governments is because people and their culture naturally evolve and differ faster than a dictatorial government, meaning that the fascist government eventually loses support of the majority of people and falls.
    No, the only reason we don't have a long running fascist government is because the leaders did not provide any way for another leader to take power after their own death. They usually just handed the government over to a King, the people never had anything to do with it. Again, what Fascist government was ever overthrown by the people?

    Then, likewise, just because an economic crisis happens during the history of a democratic government is no justification that democratic governments are unable to weather through or prevent an economic crisis.
    Just about every Democratic government has failed, and the United States is on the path to failure as well. We actually do have examples of fascist governments that did not fail.

    I won't argue that. But then again, it could be argued that the French revolutionary government became a fascistic government in itself by pursuing such bloody tactics against counter-revolutionary elements. It was not until the factions of the French Revolution stopped using violence as a political solution and allowed opposition to it a voice in politics and government that it truly became a democracy.
    This again proves that the people have the ability to be just as tyrannical as a King or dictator.

    No, we cannot get rid of a bad President right away. However, we do have limited terms, and term limits, for President mandated in our Constitution. This allows for a peaceful change of government within our constitutional democratic republic.
    So, China has this ability too.

    However, China has a one-party system that officially endorses the Communist Party of China, which means they have a dictatorial party controlling the government. Until members of opposition parties are allowed representation in the Chinese government, it is no better.
    Hey, guess what, China is doing just fine.

    Would you have endorsed them if they came to power through a military coup to control their governments?
    Not necessarily.

    Then what's the difference between "tyranny" and "legislating"? Because apparently you see none.
    So, if Congress one day votes to kill the Jews off, is that "tyranny", or is it the "will of the people".

    That is absolutely not the case. The tax on whiskey was to help pay down the debt, and it was not tyranny because the people elected their Representatives democratically. And the U.S. government does not endorse a particular political party and suppresses opposition to it. Therefore, it is not tyranny.
    You yourself said that the whiskey tax was a heavy burden on the income of the farmers, making it tyranny.

    Let me ask you this, if congress did vote to instate "taxation without representation", would that be tyranny?

    But the people had no way to change the government if it lost the support of it's people.
    Why do the people need to be able to change the government? And who says the people would govern any better?

    And the Japanese reaction to their defeat in World War 2 was that their nation renounced the use of the military and armed conflict to resolve disputes with other nations in their new constitution. In order to ensure that the military would never put the people of Japan in such dire straits as it did during World War 2 and it's aftermath, the Japan banned a military force for their government. That says how much the people really liked having a military fascist dictatorship in charge of them.
    Don't you mean that the United States forced the Japanese military to disband, and also played a vital role in drafting Japan's constitution?
    Last edited by John2.0; 05-25-10 at 11:55 PM.

Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 45678 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •