• 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!

A question for righties on fascism

Unitedwestand13 said:
Aren’t the terms “liberal” and progressive” used in a derogatory manner?
Click to expand...

Sometimes, but those are actual words in the language with definitions. Lefties call themselves liberals and progressives. They dont call themselves lefties.
 
Craig234 said:
Usually, it is for me, but not here.
Click to expand...

Then choose a better word. It sure sounded condescending.

There are problems with 'Republicans', 'trumpistas', and 'conservatives', so hopefully 'righties' is ok.
Click to expand...

There is no problem with Republican or Conservative. Those are defined labels.

As to the topic, the main problem for me with Fascism is its justification of violence to achieve its aims.
 
jonny5 said:
Then choose a better word. It sure sounded condescending.
Click to expand...

Then suggest something, I might not agree - that's already the fourth word.

There is no problem with Republican or Conservative. Those are defined labels.
Click to expand...

There are problems. I've had trumpistas and others say they aren't Republicans, and I think the word 'conservative' has been twisted so that the radical right libertarians can sound 'respectable' with the word - I don't agree with it.

As to the topic, the main problem for me with Fascism is its justification of violence to achieve its aims.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your opinion.

How do you see violence in Fascism relative to other systems? Every system uses force in some way to keep power.

What do you approve of in Fascism, if violence is your only objection?
 
AmNat said:
If fascism is tyrannical, then every state is tyrannical. All governments limit the freedom of those who wish to act contrary to state interests, but fascist states impose less of a burden on normal people than liberal states (to say nothing of communist states).
Click to expand...

So you think liberal democracies and fascists states are equally tyrannical, huh? What is this "burden" of a liberal state on normal people?
 
AmNat said:
It would be most accurate to say that fascism and communism were both responses to the alienation caused by modernity. Ordinary people, those who aren’t naturally radical, eventually choose fascism once it becomes clear that one of the two extremes will inevitably prevail.

If fascism is tyrannical, then every state is tyrannical. All governments limit the freedom of those who wish to act contrary to state interests, but fascist states impose less of a burden on normal people than liberal states (to say nothing of communist states).
Click to expand...

Not at all sure about that. Communist states require almost nothing from its people other than a willingness to absorb pain meted out by a top heavy and corrupt centralized government that literally does all the citizenry's thinking for it. The running joke about the Soviet Union for decades was that all the government had to do was make sure the masses got their vodka even if they had to stand in line for it and it was all good. Communism simply requires a willingness to roll over. Oddly enough Communism is only the second worst form of governance ever invented....Royalty being the worst. Not at all a surprise that the two worst are frighteningly similar in some ways.

Fascism requires that the citizenry maintain a manic fervor, commanded to it by the Fascist. It can usually be exhausting as is Trumpism. Trump is utterly compelled to roil his base constantly for example. While followers tend to be compliant, ultimately unless the big payoff the Fascist has been promising is realized fairly quickly in relative terms there is just so many times you can trip their power buttons to ever higher levels of tweaked before they just run out of gas. Least we forget, Mussolini and his mistress ended up hung by their heels in the square, her skirts around her neck, a rather undignified position you would expect they did not anticipate.

Liberal democracy including our Constitutional Republic without question requires the most of its citizens. It requires a citizenry that understands its government and remains vigilant and engaged from between the ears, not from the gonads. At present our citizenry is neither cognizant enough about how its government is designed to work, assigning to it all sorts of nonsense both from the Left and the Right and our participation in it as citizens is much too much about gonads with much to little engagement from between our ears.

In addition, we have not been vigilant enough about the dangers of adopting technologies without understanding there socio-economic implications. Rampant access to broadcast media in the form of 1,000 channels and the Internet have served to drive wedges even deeper as the immediacy and constancy of their presence is something for which we were and still are totally unprepared. We have chosen to accept as knowledge or information or news material that is at best entertainment, at worst propaganda (entertainment with an intent).

At any rate, without question, Communism requires the least of the citizenry really only requiring the citizen to suffer silently, something human beings are particularly good at doing. Fascism requires that the citizen maintain manic levels of fervor, certainly more difficult that suffering silently. Liberal Democracy requires real citizen participation and understanding of its government processes else it slips away most likely to less free forms like quasi-Royalty or Fascism.
 
Last edited:
Craig234 said:
Then suggest something, I might not agree - that's already the fourth word.



There are problems. I've had trumpistas and others say they aren't Republicans, and I think the word 'conservative' has been twisted so that the radical right libertarians can sound 'respectable' with the word - I don't agree with it.



Thanks for your opinion.

How do you see violence in Fascism relative to other systems? Every system uses force in some way to keep power.

What do you approve of in Fascism, if violence is your only objection?
Click to expand...

Conservatism is the mainstream right wing ideology in the USA, as is liberalism to the left, thus they both adequately target the groups youre aiming at. Rightie would also be fine as we get the point, but dont act like youre trying to be nice.

As to the topic, I dont approve of anything in fascism because its fundamentally authoritarian and violent, which inherently does not recognize freedom and free will. Democracy and Republics use force, but only after people have agreed to be subject to it. Fascism does not seek consent of the governed first.
 
jonny5 said:
Conservatism is the mainstream right wing ideology in the USA, as is liberalism to the left, thus they both adequately target the groups youre aiming at. Rightie would also be fine as we get the point, but dont act like youre trying to be nice.
Click to expand...

It wasn't nice or not nice, it's simply a neutral label for a group. "Conservative" is inaccurately nice, "Republicons" is accurately not nice. This wasn't to get into an argument about the label, though you are determined to do that.

As to the topic, I dont approve of anything in fascism because its fundamentally authoritarian and violent, which inherently does not recognize freedom and free will. Democracy and Republics use force, but only after people have agreed to be subject to it. Fascism does not seek consent of the governed first.
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering the question with your opinion.
 
Craig234 said:
So you think liberal democracies and fascists states are equally tyrannical, huh? What is this "burden" of a liberal state on normal people?
Click to expand...

Liberal states don’t allow their citizens basic freedom of association. You can’t choose who to live around, be around, or send your kids to school with, because the government decided that it’d be unfair to minorities for people to have that freedom.

jnug said:
Not at all sure about that. Communist states require almost nothing from its people other than a willingness to absorb pain meted out by a top heavy and corrupt centralized government that literally does all the citizenry's thinking for it. The running joke about the Soviet Union for decades was that all the government had to do was make sure the masses got their vodka even if they had to stand in line for it and it was all good. Communism simply requires a willingness to roll over. Oddly enough Communism is only the second worst form of governance ever invented....Royalty being the worst. Not at all a surprise that the two worst are frighteningly similar in some ways.

Fascism requires that the citizenry maintain a manic fervor, commanded to it by the Fascist. It can usually be exhausting as is Trumpism. Trump is utterly compelled to roil his base constantly for example. While followers tend to be compliant, ultimately unless the big payoff the Fascist has been promising is realized fairly quickly in relative terms there is just so many times you can trip their power buttons to ever higher levels of tweaked before they just run out of gas. Least we forget, Mussolini and his mistress ended up hung by their heels in the square, her skirts around her neck, a rather undignified position you would expect they did not anticipate.

Liberal democracy including our Constitutional Republic without question requires the most of its citizens. It requires a citizenry that understands its government and remains vigilant and engaged from between the ears, not from the gonads. At present our citizenry is neither cognizant enough about how its government is designed to work, assigning to it all sorts of nonsense both from the Left and the Right and our participation in it as citizens is much too much about gonads with much to little engagement from between our ears.

In addition, we have not been vigilant enough about the dangers of adopting technologies without understanding there socio-economic implications. Rampant access to broadcast media in the form of 1,000 channels and the Internet have served to drive wedges even deeper as the immediacy and constancy of their presence is something for which we were and still are totally unprepared. We have chosen to accept as knowledge or information or news material that is at best entertainment, at worst propaganda (entertainment with an intent).

At any rate, without question, Communism requires the least of the citizenry really only requiring the citizen to suffer silently, something human beings are particularly good at doing. Fascism requires that the citizen maintain manic levels of fervor, certainly more difficult that suffering silently. Liberal Democracy requires real citizen participation and understanding of its government processes else it slips away most likely to less free forms like quasi-Royalty or Fascism.
Click to expand...

Fascism requires intense fervor only in the beginning. In the long term, fascist countries depoliticize their populations. Look at Spain, by the 70’s it’s population thought about politics less than nearly any other country in Europe.
 
AmNat said:
Liberal states don’t allow their citizens basic freedom of association. You can’t choose who to live around, be around, or send your kids to school with, because the government decided that it’d be unfair to minorities for people to have that freedom.
Click to expand...

Of course you can. You just can't tell other people where they can't live. The only nugget of truth in that is that you can't have segregated schools, and if you call not being allowed to force black kids into second class schools tyranny, you have big problems.
 
Craig234 said:
Of course you can. You just can't tell other people where they can't live. The only nugget of truth in that is that you can't have segregated schools, and if you call not being allowed to force black kids into second class schools tyranny, you have big problems.
Click to expand...

Getting beyond the semantics, people have no practical ability to choose what sort of neighborhood* (demographics wise) you want to live in, unless you're willing to spend large amounts of money and accept a long commute every day. Yet plenty of people are willing to accept those things to live in a white neighborhood, which shows that the natural demand is there, and only held back by tyrannical laws. A just society would not artificially restrict the privilege of a cohesive community to the upper and upper middle class.

*In fact, realtors and landlords can't legally disclose demographic information, even in response to a direct request. That's how totalitarian our laws are.
 
AmNat said:
Getting beyond the semantics, people have no practical ability to choose what sort of neighborhood* (demographics wise) you want to live in, unless you're willing to spend large amounts of money and accept a long commute every day. Yet plenty of people are willing to accept those things to live in a white neighborhood, which shows that the natural demand is there, and only held back by tyrannical laws. A just society would not artificially restrict the privilege of a cohesive community to the upper and upper middle class.

*In fact, realtors and landlords can't legally disclose demographic information, even in response to a direct request. That's how totalitarian our laws are.
Click to expand...

Yes, your deluded, bigoted view is that there are just naturally occurring 'white neighborhoods' that you are cruelly denied access to, rather than the issue being you wanting to tell black and brown people that they are not allowed to live where THEY want - as usual for right-wings, YOU Are tyrant while you play victim to tyranny. You think the existence of such bigotry - the "demand" for white neighborhoods - legitimizes your discrimination to people. It's disgusting.

No wonder you'd like 'fascism' which makes hatred toward, discrimination against, and removal of the targeted group official policy.
 
Craig234 said:
Also, I'd like for the thread to stick to the topic - not get into 'no, the left is fascist, no you are' nonsense.
Click to expand...

Sorry but that's going to be impossible.

IMPOSSIBLE

Most likely 100 or nearly one hundred percent of Trump loyal Republicans have been told that fascism is of the Left, that Hitler and Mussolini were liberals on the Left and that Nazism and all other forms of fascism are Left Wing.

An entire GENERATION, at least the last decade's worth, have been indoctrinated with this weapons grade piece of historical revisionism, much the way entire generations of Russians, Arabs and later, Germans, were indoctrinated with lies from "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

The only difference is, the author of The Protocols was too cowardly to identify himself, but the most popular pimps for the current Big Lie are Dennis Prager, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Dinesh D'Souza, Jonah Goldberg, Alex Jones and Michael Savage.

This Big Lie is bigger than Flat Eartherism, chemtrail conspiracy theories, 9/11 Trooferism, Young Earth Creationism and anti-vaxxerism put together.
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, your deluded, bigoted view is that there are just naturally occurring 'white neighborhoods' that you are cruelly denied access to, rather than the issue being you wanting to tell black and brown people that they are not allowed to live where THEY want - as usual for right-wings, YOU Are tyrant while you play victim to tyranny. You think the existence of such bigotry - the "demand" for white neighborhoods - legitimizes your discrimination to people. It's disgusting.

No wonder you'd like 'fascism' which makes hatred toward, discrimination against, and removal of the targeted group official policy.
Click to expand...

I like fascism because I'm for freedom. I know that, as a progressive, you're against freedom, and neither understand nor desire to understand those who are for it.
 
AmNat said:
I like fascism because I'm for freedom. I know that, as a progressive, you're against freedom, and neither understand nor desire to understand those who are for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, by denying gays the freedom to marry, the right to people of color to live in 'your' neighborhoods or go to 'your' establishments, serve customers in groups you don't like, and otherwise protecting your 'freedom' to deny others freedoms, you are for "freedom". (Whether all of those specifics fit you personally doesn't matter, it's the general principle of the mindset you and others show).
 
Craig234 said:
Yes, by denying gays the freedom to marry, the right to people of color to live in 'your' neighborhoods or go to 'your' establishments, serve customers in groups you don't like, and otherwise protecting your 'freedom' to deny others freedoms, you are for "freedom". (Whether all of those specifics fit you personally doesn't matter, it's the general principle of the mindset you and others show).
Click to expand...

Homosexuality is a separate question. While there is a strong correlation between the legalization of gay marriage and the loss of free speech, the main reason for banning gay marriage is that it's a lie.

As for the rest, ordinary people should be allowed to choose who to associate with and who not to. Nothing prevents other groups from having their own neighborhoods, schools, etc.
 
AmNat said:
Homosexuality is a separate question. While there is a strong correlation between the legalization of gay marriage and the loss of free speech, the main reason for banning gay marriage is that it's a lie.

As for the rest, ordinary people should be allowed to choose who to associate with and who not to. Nothing prevents other groups from having their own neighborhoods, schools, etc.
Click to expand...

Hey, I think you're on to something, and I have a name for your new national policy:

"Separate but equal"! We could at least try it. Who knows? For freedom!
 
Craig234 said:
Hey, I think you're on to something, and I have a name for your new national policy:

"Separate but equal"! We could at least try it. Who knows? For freedom!
Click to expand...

As the great George Wallace said:

"It's people—our fine American people, living their own lives, buying their own homes, educating their children, running their own farms, working the way they like to work, and not having the bureaucrats and intellectual morons trying to manage everything for them. It's a matter of trusting the people to make their own decisions."
 
AmNat said:
As the great George Wallace said:

"It's people—our fine American people, living their own lives, buying their own homes, educating their children, running their own farms, working the way they like to work, and not having the bureaucrats and intellectual morons trying to manage everything for them. It's a matter of trusting the people to make their own decisions."
Click to expand...

Which, as it turned out, was mutually exclusive to the rights granted to Americans under the United States constitution.

I see you also tried to run away without answering the question, so I'll repeat it---you claimed no fascist regime murdered millions of its own people. Are you denying the Holocaust occurred?
 
AmNat said:
Liberal states don’t allow their citizens basic freedom of association. You can’t choose who to live around, be around, or send your kids to school with, because the government decided that it’d be unfair to minorities for people to have that freedom.

:lamo



Fascism requires intense fervor only in the beginning. In the long term, fascist countries depoliticize their populations. Look at Spain, by the 70’s it’s population thought about politics less than nearly any other country in Europe.
Click to expand...

When the government murders you for having the "wrong" politician opinion you learn to be very quiet about your beliefs. That doesn't mean you don't have them.
 
AmNat said:
I like fascism because I'm for freedom. I know that, as a progressive, you're against freedom, and neither understand nor desire to understand those who are for it.
Click to expand...

Fascist regimes rival only communist ones in the lack of freedom which exists in their society
 
Tigerace117 said:
Fascist regimes rival only communist ones in the lack of freedom which exists in their society
Click to expand...

I'd like to give a shout out to theocracy.



Woot?
 
Craig234 said:
There are problems with 'Republicans', 'trumpistas', and 'conservatives', so hopefully 'righties' is ok.

There are bad things about fascism (fascism, not the phony right-wing propaganda abuse of the word like 'Democratic fascists), other than the Holocaust. Franco invented 'Fascism' in Italy; Franco was fascists in Spain as well. Arguably Pinochet in Chile.

Question is, can you say why fascism was bad other than the holocaust? In other words, what was wrong with Franco and Mussolini? Was Hitler all that bad other than the Holocaust, providing 'strong leadership' and economic recovery and 'making Germany great again'?

We Americans with other views assume it's broadly known fascism is bad, and not only because one fascist country committed the holocaust. I'm curious to confirm whether that's correct.

So, righties, do you have good things to say about Mussolini and Franco? Mixed feelings? Or criticisms, and if so, what are they regarding fascism, authoritarianism?
Click to expand...

Fascism is a term that is used fast and loose by many people these days, especially left wingers.

A few years back, right here in America, we had whistle blowers being prosecuted, and the DOJ going after the members of the media under the guise of national security.

We had a department of the government being weaponized by suppressing conservative political groups.

Fascism was alive and well before Trump came into the office.

Leonard Downie nailed it when he quoted:

Exposing “waste, fraud and abuse” is considered to be whistle-blowing. But exposing questionable government policies and actions, even if they could be illegal or unconstitutional, is often considered to be leaking that must be stopped and punished. This greatly reduces the potential for the press to help hold the government accountable to citizens.
 
RetiredUSN said:
Fascism is a term that is used fast and loose by many people these days, especially left wingers...

Fascism was alive and well before Trump came into the office.
Click to expand...

:lol:

Is fast and loose like alive and well?
 
AmNat said:
As the great George Wallace said:
Click to expand...

The George Wallace who had the sense to repent and beg forgiveness and later tell black civil rights marchers who oppose what you stand for he loved them, unlike you.
 
Craig234 said:
The George Wallace who had the sense to repent and beg forgiveness and later tell black civil rights marchers who oppose what you stand for he loved them, unlike you.
Click to expand...

Wallace, Thurmond, Buckley, most of the conservatives of the 50's and 60's caved in the end.

One problem with a movement to protect normal people, is that the the leaders are too susceptible to social pressure. Still, that doesn't invalidate anything he said back then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom