Facism and its characteristics

CM · Post by CM » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:24 am

Proportional representation would be great for everybody niot just the US. Sadly saying that it allows right wing loonies into government. Like in Switzerland and Denmark.

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:27 am

[QUOTE=CM]Proportional representation would be great for everybody niot just the US. Sadly saying that it allows right wing loonies into government. Like in Switzerland and Denmark.[/QUOTE]
Well, they surely represent some kind of persons... I mean a lot of persons..

A country needs a fair (but small) number of loonies sometimes to swing the boat the right way when no one else dares to.

CM · Post by CM » Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:40 am

Well the right way is not always the best for the world. But Back on topic the US could very easily become a facist state.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Fri Feb 04, 2005 12:17 pm

The way the US government works it could be a proportional government of sorts. The serious problem blocking it from that is that the minor parties here don't get any respect. Even in a proportional government they likely wouldn't get many seats. Green, Libertarian, and Reform(if they are still a party even) would likely be the only parties to get seats and they would likely get only a few.

Also, more on topic. The US government could become fascist. I don't think it is now though. It's not great, but not fascist. I doubt this will happen as I think the next president will likely be vastly different than Bush. That's just my guess though.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:18 pm

Not if another Bush wins. Hey they are on their way to be like the Kennedy's.

Chanak · Post by **Chanak** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 12:34 pm

We're all going to hell in a bucket. I'm pessimistic, and think a dose of anarchy would be a good tonic to cure our governmental ills. Much like Mark Twain's Appetite Clinic. Bored with food? Pasta not exciting anymore? Eat shoe leather for a few weeks - pasta will then become a delicacy.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:02 pm

Ok just asking your americans what have you heard on the grapevine about another Bush seeking office? I heard on BBC that rumor had it 2008 would be Jeb vs. Hiliary.

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:12 pm

I fear the day we see Jeb v. Hillary! Jeb is about as charismatic as Mr. Potato head so I think Hillary would win. I can't stand her. Not that Jeb is any better though.. Are there any good politicians out there?

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:27 pm

It seems as if a president has to be some kind of father- or (if hillary is indeed in) mother-figure. What IS that?

jopperm2 · Post by **jopperm2** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:34 pm

Someone that if they tell you what to do, you do it not out of fear, but respect. I assure you neither candidate is that IMO.

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 2:46 pm

Fascist leaders are respect amongst their followers, feared among their enemies. That's a difference (to go back to topic a bit) between fascism and us. We don't need to fear our leader if we don't like him.

Vicsun · Post by **Vicsun** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:49 pm

[QUOTE=ik911]Fascist leaders are respect amongst their followers, feared among their enemies. That's a difference (to go back to topic a bit) between fascism and us. We don't need to fear our leader if we don't like him.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what country you're referring to when you say 'we', but Bush does scare me.

Probably not the fear you're talking about, but it's a start.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 3:50 pm

[QUOTE=ik911]Fascist leaders are respect amongst their followers, feared among their enemies. That's a difference (to go back to topic a bit) between fascism and us. We don't need to fear our leader if we don't like him.[/QUOTE]

I think that is how you define "enemies". I would seriosly doubt that facists leaders automatically are feared by all that oppose the leader (ie is an enemy)
Maybe it is their actions that are feared (military action, deportation etc), maybe it is their allies (the stronger ally of a smaller facist country) - but I don't belive nor think it is neasecarily the leaders.

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Sat Feb 05, 2005 8:54 pm

[QUOTE=Xandax]I think that is how you define "enemies". I would seriosly doubt that facists leaders automatically are feared by all that oppose the leader (ie is an enemy)
Maybe it is their actions that are feared (military action, deportation etc), maybe it is their allies (the stronger ally of a smaller facist country) - but I don't belive nor think it is neasecarily the leaders.[/QUOTE]
Yes, so you have to indirectly fear your leader if you oppose him. Both fascism and democracy have freedom of speech when it comes to opposing the ones in power, but the difference is that in a democracy, more value (or a different value) is attached to it.
With fascism you can freely speak about what you think of your leader, but you'll have to face the consequences more directly.

CM · Post by CM » Sat Feb 05, 2005 9:18 pm

Ik911 that aint true. In facism if you say the wrong thing you die. Thus people are not free to say what they want, Because they will be killed. Freedom of speech does not include death.

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:33 am

[QUOTE=CM]Ik911 that aint true. In facism if you say the wrong thing you die. Thus people are not free to say what they want, Because they will be killed. Freedom of speech does not include death.[/QUOTE]
That's a misunderstanding.
First you'll be given a warning, or two if they liked you. Or they'd lock you up as a political threat. But they wouldn't just kill you. (at least that's what the Nazis did.)

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:41 am

[QUOTE=ik911]That's a misunderstanding.
First you'll be given a warning, or two if they liked you. Or they'd lock you up as a political threat. But they wouldn't just kill you. (at least that's what the Nazis did.)[/QUOTE]

That is purely speculations, and thus you can't claim that.
No where is it written in the "rules", that if living in a facists society (or any other dictatorial society) then you must get warnings when speaking out against the leader(s).

It would depend fully on the given situation, but what is characteristic of fascisme is that they will not accept people speaking against it, so actions will be taken.

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 8:03 am

[QUOTE=Xandax]That is purely speculations, and thus you can't claim that.
No where is it written in the "rules", that if living in a facists society (or any other dictatorial society) then you must get warnings when speaking out against the leader(s).

[/QUOTE]
It's the way it was. Opposition was imprisoned. Actually that was the "rule". Or they would be beaten up. To set an example, you see?
A lot were killed, but not all.

[QUOTE=Xandax]It would depend fully on the given situation, but what is characteristic of fascisme is that they will not accept people speaking against it, so actions will be taken.[/QUOTE]

Yes.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 3:50 pm

ik911 wrote:It's the way it was. Opposition was imprisoned. Actually that was the "rule". Or they would be beaten up. To set an example, you see?
A lot were killed, but not all.

Ik, whether a person with regime critical views would get killed immediately or be warned first and them imprisoned, is not a core issue to the definition of fascism, and thus it is irrelevant for a discussion about fascism in general. You can't claim that opposition is handled in exactly this or that way, unless you are describing a specific state. What was a "rule" in one fascist state is not a rule in another. You should try not to oversimplify so much in your reasoning.

With fascism you can freely speak about what you think of your leader, but you'll have to face the consequences more directly.

It is nonsense to claim that you have freedom of speach if the consequences are punishment in the form of threats, imprisonment, torture or murder. It is like saying "we have the freedom to commit murder in Europe, you just have to face the consequences".

ik911 · Post by **ik911** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 4:25 pm

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Ik, whether a person with regime critical views would get killed immediately or be warned first and them imprisoned, is not a core issue to the definition of fascism, and thus it is irrelevant for a discussion about fascism in general. You can't claim that opposition is handled in exactly this or that way, unless you are describing a specific state. What was a "rule" in one fascist state is not a rule in another. You should try not to oversimplify so much in your reasoning. [/QUOTE]
1. I took Nazi-Germany in mind as a near-perfect example of fascism.
2. This discussion is about the characteristics of fascism, and dealing with regime-opponents in this way is certainly a characteristic.

[QUOTE=C Elegans]It is nonsense to claim that you have freedom of speach if the consequences are punishment in the form of threats, imprisonment, torture or murder. It is like saying "we have the freedom to commit murder in Europe, you just have to face the consequences".[/QUOTE]
Well, there's a certain freedom we have, that we are unaware of. If you commit murder, you can still flee from the police. Our freedom is that we can't be tracked at all times, everywhere.