Facism and its characteristics

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=ik911]You all just didn't seem to read what was between the brackets and I presumed you did...[/QUOTE]

You still don't understand. What's in the brackets does not change the meaning of your reasoning. You wrote:

But they wouldn't just kill you. (at least that's what the Nazis did.)

What's in the brackets in a condition, not a falsification of your first statement. Thus, it does not change the meaning of your statement.

And please explain to me how this sentence change your statement that "fascist states have freedom of speech".

[ik911]

It means your vocal chords weren't cut through the moment you were born, you silly.

[giles337]

hmmm. I've been reading this thred with some interest, and although I am not going to get too 'into it' (for fear of getting over-excited, and flaming someone for their views) I will attempt at least to steer this thread back onto topic

I do think that comparing Bush to Hitler, Pot Pol, or any other facist dictator is slightly unfair, at the moment at least. Bush is commiting atrocities (greater or lesser, that's personal) in a completely different style. If anything, Bush is trying to create ultimate capitalism, with a social elite controlling the poor, and appears to be going to all ends and means to achieve this. A parallel that can be drawn between Bush and facism, is the brainwashing (for want of a better word) or at least pressing, of what would seem to be "facist" ideals, or more right wing punishments, his obvious support for the death penalty is just one example. Bush, has created unemployment, and is cutting funding for higher education. IS this an attempt to stop the "unworthy" joining hsi soial elite? Only time will tell. But for now, thats my tuppence 'orth. [/RANT]

[Xandax]

@IK911: remember, people can only read what you write, not the intended meaning.

Anyways - lets try and keep language civil as well.


Back on the freedom track, seeing as we have concluded that it is infact *not* a characteristic of facísts governments to give out warnings (or two if they like you) when speaking against them. I'm most certainly not even sure it was the case in Nazi germany, because I'm sure for each account that can be found to support the warning-theory another can be found where people were simply removed and put in work camp, beat up to an inch of their live or something else entierly. I'll just not bother to actually start looking it up in my books or on the web.

On the freedom thingy, then ....
Freedom of (something) requiers that there is no retribution when used, in my view. Freedom indicates that one is *free* to do so, which is under no penalty.
There is retribution in a facist state when speaking your mind.
Thus there are no freedom of speech in facist (or most any totalitarian) rule.

There are not freedom of murder in democracies either. That is why there are legislations against it.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=ik911]It means your vocal chords weren't cut through the moment you were born, you silly. [/QUOTE]

How is this an argument for your statement "freedom of speech exist in fascist states?". It is merely repeating the incorrect definition of freedomthat you have posted previously.

Also, it is not an answer to my question, my question was how is parathesis you claimed changed the meaning of your posts. Please reread my post.

Calling me "silly" is not an argument at all, it's an ad hominem, and it's against the forum rules.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=Xandax]@IK911:
On the freedom thingy, then ....
Freedom of (something) requiers that there is no retribution when used, in my view. Freedom indicates that one is *free* to do so, which is under no penalty.
There is retribution in a facist state when speaking your mind.
Thus there are no freedom of speech in facist (or most any totalitarian) rule.

There are not freedom of murder in democracies either. That is why there are legislations against it.[/QUOTE]

Speaking your mind about muslims or delicate questions (often involving foreigners or religous matters) gets you killed, or at least threatened in Holland.
(Pim Fortuyn, Theo v. Gogh)
There is retribution in <Holland> when speaking your mind. (yes, it isn't actually the government doing the killing. instead it's the politicians and influential persons getting killed, but is that a difference?)
Thus there are no freedom of speech in <Holland>.

Is that correct? I'm basically using your own arguments here...

@CE: I don't know, really. I'm innocent. Anything I say is a wordgame to you, it seems. You have that right. I like playing with words, language and logics. That doesn't mean that there's no truth in it...

[InfiniteNature]

Actually there were warnings, way before people started disappearing, particularly of Hitler's nature what he planned etc., its just that people really didn't believe it, and he was rather a tricky bugger.

Just to take a contrary role, does a government's policy have to be fascist to be a fascist government.

A supposed democracy might have the rule of law, have policies against discrimination, but be at odds with the society in which it is put in. In other words the laws are window dressing, and the society is doing the lynching and the killing.

Couldn't speaking your mind in such a situation also get you killed, especially if your mind or opinion is sufficiently different from the norm?, or even just a certain reactionary group of the norm?

And even if the laws state differently if the people in the government look the other way wouldn't that be a equivalent government?

Then too there might be a freedom to murder, based on our perception, say to use the US example, the killing of Indians, which might even be officially sanctioned by a supposed democracy, I forget the price of what was paid for scalping. Or a unsanctioned societial rule which for example allows the killing of 'towel heads'.

I mean wasn't the Soviet Union's government the freeest system in the world, at least on paper anyway.

[C Elegans]

Ik, nobody have ever claimed Freedom of speech must be absolute. If I kill you because I think you have said something stupid, that does not change the laws in our countries. The government cannot have control over every act that every single citizen committ, but it can punish the person who killed Fortyun or you.

In fascist states, society has systemised limited expression for everybody.

Again, you seem to have problems with distinguishing between specific and general, and this time you also seem to have problem distiguishing between individual and social level.

Of course there is a difference between a single incidence of society failing to protect a citizen from violence committed by another citizen, and deliberate, systematic repression from goverment to the entire population.

At at private, individual level anything can get you killed. Sleeping can get you killed because you may choke on your tougue, does that mean you are not free to sleep in Holland? Bathing can get you killed, you may drown - does that mean you don't have freedom to take a bath?

[QUOTE=ik911]@CE: I don't know, really. I'm innocent. Anything I say is a wordgame to you, it seems. You have that right. I like playing with words, language and logics. That doesn't mean that there's no truth in it...[/QUOTE]

You don't know what and you are innocent of what? Calling somebody else silly is an ad hominen, of that you are not innocent.

Yes, I have noticed you like wordgames and "logic"-games, and you can play as much as you like, it is your right. I dislike it for the following reasons:

1. You demonstrated in the other thread that you do not master logics, you use it incorrectly and then claim you have "proven" something.
2. Having a discussion with somebody who make up his own definitions of words, makes it impossible to communicate since we can't even agree on the basics, ie what are we talking about. It's improductive and dull to get stuck on semantics all the time.
3. Playing overshadows your ability or willingness to give valid arguments for your reasoning and statements.

I simply lost interest in chatting with you, it's not fun. I don't enjoy wordgames and quasi-philiosophy, I like serious discussions.

[ik911]

I take that as a compliment, my dearest C.

You attach much value to logic, and I do not. IMHO, Logics are a restraint to thinking. I like logics, but I don't crave them.

Back to topic: I have the feeling that about everything involving a leader is close to fascism, the way it's presented in this thread.

[oozae]

I know this is a few pages back but I wanna get it out some people who were too well connected were imprisoned but not killed, wierd but true.

[CM]

Ik911 you just trolling or what? Seriously you are getting bloody annoying.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=CM]Ik911 you just trolling or what? Seriously you are getting bloody annoying.[/QUOTE]
No, I'm serious: Communism got linked to fascism, Democracy (that's what the thread started with), Nazism, Despotism...

I just realized that, actually.

(Only Anarchy can't be associated with it, it seems)

Isn't that at least mentionable?

[CM]

One characteristic does not mean two things the same. Its like saying since i am human and so are you. We are both the or linked together extremely closely.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=ik911]No, I'm serious: Communism got linked to fascism, Democracy (that's what the thread started with), Nazism, Despotism...

I just realized that, actually.

(Only Anarchy can't be associated with it, it seems)

Isn't that at least mentionable?[/QUOTE]

You're the one that is linking them together.
As CM sais, because common traits exists, dosen't link them together, neither means the are the same. And countless examples could be placed in order to support that, but I'll not really bother, because it has no bearing on your argumentation.

Seems to be the: IMHO, Logics are a restraint to thinking. kicking in, imo.

[ik911]

Wait a moment...

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed
to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

(You could've done a search on Google, but this quote fits in the thread, anyway)

Comparing it to medieval monarchies as I know them, based on the French and English history of medieval times, told by many stories and books and all, I find striking resemblance.
1. The medieval king was honoured with songs, stories about his courage, statues and the likes.
2. People working like slaves (serfs) torture and the likes were regarded as entertainment or at least necessary.
3. Heathens, Witches, Traitors were food for the gallows.
4. Huge armies and Knights in shiny armour fought over land and loot.
5. Ladies could only acquire a high status through marriage with a noble or royal man.
6. There was practically no media, or at least not as we know it. All notices were made by the government.
7. Soldiers were always patrolling the streets, armed with pointy lances and swords.
8. The Church was one of the Ruling Powers before the trias politica was invented.
9. No real industrial business as we know it, but we can compare the corporations with land-owners who were protected by their king, indeed.
10. Peasants and normal people knew not of such a thing as labor unions, and revolts were violently struck down.
11. Only monks got proper education, and only if they were dedicated to God (and therefor indirectly to the king). There were some scientists and alchemists and academia, but their role was very very limited.
12. Again, the soldiers that patrol the streets, being able to torture their (often innocent) suspects, until they would confess of their witchcraft or heressy, theft, murder etc. etc.
13. Being a friend of the king was an obsession with all of the dukes and lords. It would get them promotions, advantages and bonusses.
14. There were no elections in that time. However, heirs to the thrown had a increased chance of getting killed.

The flash-movie that the thread started with, 'manipulated' the 14 points in exactly the same fashion.

(Hèhè, wouldn't it be typically me to be saying 'America is a monarchy' right now? No I won't...)

[Xandax]

Well - seeing as fascisme is a more modern day "invention" it would not be unlikely that it have drawned inspiration from the old tried-by-fire despotisme.
You could even compare it to a warlord ruleling tribes a long time ago, and still finds similarities.
Many government types/methods have similar traits, however, that dosen't mean they are the same nor share the same outlook on many things.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=Xandax]Well - seeing as fascisme is a more modern day "invention" it would not be unlikely that it have drawned inspiration from the old tried-by-fire despotisme.
You could even compare it to a warlord ruleling tribes a long time ago, and still finds similarities.
Many government types/methods have similar traits, however, that dosen't mean they are the same nor share the same outlook on many things.[/QUOTE]
Yes, you got a point there, but it does mean it's too easy to compare the USA government based on (only) 14 characteristics, because you can also fit a medieval monarchy into it, and as far as I'm concerned, if you think of 14 characteristics describing one thing, and they can be applied to both democracy as something swinging all the way round to monarchy or despotism...
It's just not exclusive enough it seems...

[CM]

Ik911 it applies to democracy only because democracy has those 14 points. It respects human rights. There is freedom of speech etc etc. Facism does not.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=CM]Ik911 it applies to democracy only because democracy has those 14 points. It respects human rights. There is freedom of speech etc etc. Facism does not.[/QUOTE]

What? Reread your own post. You say it applies to democracy and then you say it respects human rights....

(By the way, freedom of speech doesn't add to your argument because it is a right. It's like saying: I'm really healthy because I like fruit and apples...)

[CM]

Ik911 the 14 apply with the fact that democracy does the opposite. It respects human rights. It has freedom of speech. The media is free etc. Democracy is the opposite of those 14 points.