• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Fascism without racism? without socialism?

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Some people refer to the old South American right-wing dictatorships as "Fascist". I will assume for a moment that this isn't just being hurled around as an idle insult. Some have described NAZIs (National Socialists) as Fascists. Is that a "rectangle and square" comparison? By that I mean that "all NAZIs are Fascists, but not all Fascists are NAZIs". Can Fascists follow an economic policy that's "good for business"? Can economic, but not political freedom exist under Fascism?
 
I refer to n.korea and Soviet union as fascists. It's easy to understand once you look at their policies (a ruling *class* with special treatment, hyper nationalism, and the expectation to sacrifice for the nation)...

What makes this socialist? Because they make the empty claim that they are? Do you think Syria is really a democratic republic just because it claims to be one?

Actions > words
 
By that, I mean that "all NAZIs are Fascists, but not all Fascists are NAZIs". Can Fascists follow an economic policy that's "good for business"? Can economic, but not political freedom exist under Fascism?
Fascism has little or nothing to do with economics except that it generally uses bad economic times as ammunition for its rise. If a country has a bad economy under capitalism, fascists might exalt socialism in order to gain power. If a country has a bad economy under socialism, fascists would exalt capitalism to gain power.

Fascism is all about using fear in order to trick people into giving power to a strong authoritarian savior. A Fascist uses demagoguery to try and match the emotions of the people he's trying to manipulate. He sees their angry and scared and he projects their anger. Bad economic times leave a country ripe for exploitation, but the most important weapons of fascism are Nationalism, Racism, and Religion. When people are scared they hunker down and retreat to safety. They're more likely to surround themselves with familiar people and familiar places. People they think they can trust because they know them or they share a common history.

The Fascist stokes fear of outsiders in order to make people hunker down into tribes of angry irrational like-minded followers. In 1930's Germany Hitler used the Jews who were coming to Europe from the middle east as the scapegoats. He told Germans that these Jews were undermining their culture, and taking their jobs. That Germans were a great people, but their rightful place of superiority was being undermined by this surge of immigrants. In today's world Trump is using Mexicans, Muslims and the LBGTQ community as his scapegoats.

The imaginary enemies he's creating may be different, but the idea is the same. Exploit people's irrational fears and then make yourself into a strong man that will protect them from the very thing that you made them scared of in the first place. In their fear, they will give you more and more power to defend them, but no matter how much power the Authoritarian leader acquires it's never enough because there's always a new threat he's exploiting to protect you from.

The far right in this country would happily install Trump as a Dictator if they thought they could get away with it. If elections continue to go their way they'll start to believe they can get away with it.
 
Fascists use Privatization as a tool to achieve and maintain control of a country's economy. Communists in contrast use Nationalization as a tool to achieve and maintain control of a country's economy.
 
I think the term fascist has evolved into meaning "Dictator Racist"..... due to ignorant people who don't know anything. And I understand why that has happened.... it's because of Europe's political dynamic. Both the "right" and "left' political spectrum of Europe lean economically left.... and what separates them is one side is more nationalistic than the other. So they always call the right wing "the Fascists" as a pejorative. So now we have the term fascist associated with racist nationalism.


Fascism has a lot in common with "Democratic Socialism" economically, accept is more nationalist than globalist.

Leftists try to separate themselves from fascism as much as possible, but they can't escape that fascists are economically left wing. They are National leftists, instead of globalist/humanist leftists.


The current government of China is a good example of modern fascism.
 
Fascists use Privatization as a tool to achieve and maintain control of a country's economy. Communists in contrast use Nationalization as a tool to achieve and maintain control of a country's economy.

No... Even though Fascists did privatize things for funding, they were still overwhelming in control of the country's economy through nationalization. All fascists movements came out of a country that had a significant amount of nationalization already, like china, like Germany.
 
I think the term fascist has evolved into meaning "Dictator Racist"..... due to ignorant people who don't know anything. And I understand why that has happened.... it's because of Europe's political dynamic. Both the "right" and "left' political spectrum of Europe lean economically left.... and what separates them is one side is more nationalistic than the other. So they always call the right wing "the Fascists" as a pejorative. So now we have the term fascist associated with racist nationalism.


Fascism has a lot in common with "Democratic Socialism" economically, accept is more nationalist than globalist.

Leftists try to separate themselves from fascism as much as possible, but they can't escape that fascists are economically left wing. They are National leftists, instead of globalist/humanist leftists.


The current government of China is a good example of modern fascism.
I think what you are missing is that socialism/communism is an incomplete utopian philosophy with an undescribed structure. The goal of communism is for the people to own it, not a centralized authority.

The term dictatorship of the proletariat doesnt mean an actual centralized dictatorship, it is literally used to contrast with a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, aka capitalism, which is also not a centralized dictatorship in any way.

There is nothing in communist theory that describes anything involving government structure or even how laws would be past. Ideally it sounds more like a direct democracy, which would be more possible if the majority of people were slaving away all the time but had an idealistic system where everyone would have time to pursue knowledge and politics, not just grinding away at their job to meagerly sustain themselves.

In most real life examples, it's just a front for dictators that goes against almost all the principles of actual communist theory, which may be completely impractical until full automation.
 
I think what you are missing is that socialism/communism is an incomplete utopian philosophy with an undescribed structure. The goal of communism is for the people to own it, not a centralized authority.

The term dictatorship of the proletariat doesnt mean an actual centralized dictatorship, it is literally used to contrast with a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, aka capitalism, which is also not a centralized dictatorship in any way.

There is nothing in communist theory that describes anything involving government structure or even how laws would be past. Ideally it sounds more like a direct democracy, which would be more possible if the majority of people were slaving away all the time but had an idealistic system where everyone would have time to pursue knowledge and politics, not just grinding away at their job to meagerly sustain themselves.

In most real life examples, it's just a front for dictators that goes against almost all the principles of actual communist theory, which may be completely impractical until full automation.

Of course they go against communist theory.... because that is how power works. Power corrupts, and when you give an institution supreme power, it will get corrupted..... Especially in socialism and communism, because you'll have the most ruthless among people to be able to stay on top, otherwise they'll be stabbed in the back.
 
Of course they go against communist theory.... because that is how power works. Power corrupts, and when you give an institution supreme power, it will get corrupted..... Especially in socialism and communism, because you'll have the most ruthless among people to be able to stay on top, otherwise they'll be stabbed in the back.
I know power corrupts is a classic phrase, but I think its backwards. The corrupt seek power and are willing to do anything to get it, subverting those with good intentions, and inevitably gaining power.

But most of these institutions were anti-communist from the start. After the Soviet revolution trotsky supposedly wanted real communism for the people, but ruthless Lenin murdered all of his compatriots and set up a dictatorship from the ground up right away. The system didnt corrupt him, he created a corrupt system. Same for Mao and Kim. It was never communism, nobody got corrupted. the architects were evil from the start and never had any intention of sharing anything.

This isnt just a flaw of communism that never existed. Democratic institutions can fall to dictatorship at any moment, like Germany. It's about the individual actors, the people, and the power hungry. Any system can fall. You cant call it a failing of communism when communism never existed to fail. Except for in name only (like Syria's "democratic republic" lol)

Communism has a different kind of problem. It demands a proactive and educated population that doesnt currently exist in our grinding lifestyles. Just like both democracy and republic were failures until our forefathers put the best parts of both together, we need to incorporate the best socialist ideas with the best capitalist ideas in order to progress: regulated capitalism. The goliaths of industry are too big and detached from their community's survival, thus creating an unsustainable liberitarian vision. We need to exercise control for our own sustainability while maintaining the flexibility of markets. The government should not be a player in the game, but every game needs rules.
 
Chile under Pinochet was a fascist state.

Fascism is economic/political system, in which private ownership does exist, but is subservient to the state's requirements and needs. Meaning companies can make economic decisions to attempt to be the most profitable but will be expected to follow what the state needs. Some business's will be under the direct control of the government (as in the Copper industry in Chile and small to mid size business's will often have a lot of economic freedom (up until they attract the attention of larger more connected business's.

Racism and ultra nationalism are just tools for the state to unify the population under the state. The racism of course will be directed at a marginal group that has little political or economic power. If there are no racial groups to direct that energy towards any other potential internal group. The ultra nationalist aspect would be directed at potential outside forces (other countries, typically next to it). This is not a required aspect of fascism, just a means of control.

In my opinion, today Russia and China are more typical examples of fascist states. Russia today typifies all of the characteristics of a fascist state. China has moved quite a bit away from a communist state, as it has a very large capitalist sector in its economy, with a large degree of freedom for small to medium enterprises. Only the large and strategically important sectors have government ownership or guidance
 
Back
Top Bottom