Facism and its characteristics

[C Elegans]

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.

1. Discussions with other people cannot be held on the basis on definitions that are in your mind. Also, you should not use a specific subtype of a broader concept and generalise from that. You must generalise from the broader concept of "fascism" not the specific subtype "Nazi Germany". It should also be noted that Nazi Germany is not usually viewed as the prototype, perfect example of fascims, some political scientists hold the view that the nazism was not a fascism but an offspring of fascism.

Core characteristics of fascism are totalitarianism (including propaganda machine and terror dictorship), corporatism and segregation.

2. That is not what I opposed to. I opposed to your claim that fascist regimes do not immediately kill off people with opposing you but warn them and imprison them, and that this distinction was associated to the very definition of fascism since you claimed imprisonment was a rule.

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.

What do you mean? Unaware of? Do you know the definition of "freedom" or "freedom of speech"?

Freedom to do something does not only mean "I can choose to face the consequenses". You must realise how non-sensical your reasoning is if you claim everything is freedom. You are free to commit murder, you can try to flee from the police. If you are caught, you can try to escape prison. If you are sentenced to death, you can try to flee, etc.

This in not freedom. Freedom is usually defined as the ability to act and think without externally imposed threats and restraints. "Freedom of speech" is a political term which defined as the right to in language, express all your opinions and thoughts whatever they may be, without political restraints.

I don't mean to be rude Ik, but instead of playing around with words and attribute your own home-made meaning to them, some reading on the topic of policial science/philosophy of ideas would do you good if you are interested in this type of subjects.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]<snip>
2. That is not what I opposed to. I opposed to your claim that fascist regimes do not immediately kill off people with opposing you but warn them and imprison them, and that this distinction was associated to the very definition of fascism since you claimed imprisonment was a rule.

<snip>[/QUOTE]

I agree and this was what I tried to point out in my view as well.


@IK911: You can't take a singular facists government and draw conclusions on the very nature of facisme from it. You can possible take numerous states and compare, and draw conclusions on facsisme based on the comparison.
But going into specifics like
"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."
withouth much "evidence" is simply, well .. wrong.
It would be like saying that one of the characteristics of democracy is that you effetively have a 2 party system as a rule. Because, hey that is the way the is in some "democratic" countries.... however you see, that is also a faulty conclusion, because the conclusion is that you need multiple parties. Similar with facisme. It isn't that some people were warned in some specific facist (or nazist as is the case here) government, thus they were warned as a rule as a characteristic of facisme. It was the actions of being opposed to the government which lead to actions taken against them.
Oversimplification isn't a good foundation to debate from in my view.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=Xandax]I agree and this was what I tried to point out in my view as well.


@IK911: You can't take a singular facists government and draw conclusions on the very nature of facisme from it. You can possible take numerous states and compare, and draw conclusions on facsisme based on the comparison.
But going into specifics like
"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."
withouth much "evidence" is simply, well .. wrong.
.[/QUOTE]
So I presume you have evidence that they were killed, or isn't that the point you're making..?
Yes, it wasn't in the rules, it was a 'rule'. Like if you walk through a crowd of jews with a swastika on your jacket. It's not stated anywhere that you'll be beaten up. It's how it goes.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=ik911]So I presume you have evidence that they were killed, or isn't that the point you're making..?
Yes, it wasn't in the rules, it was a 'rule'. Like if you walk through a crowd of jews with a swastika on your jacket. It's not stated anywhere that you'll be beaten up. It's how it goes.[/QUOTE]

I don't need "evidence", because I'm not claming generalized statements as rules

However - as I wrote, it is similar to claiming that a rule/characteristic to democracy would be to have a 2 party system, simply because some (democratic) countries effectively run a 2 party system. Where in fact the characteristic is quite different, but the implementation is 2 party system.

Claiming that because (some) people - an undefined, grey mass - was given warning(s) - undefined, abstract and unproven warnings - in Nazi germany, that it is a characteristic of facists government is oversimplification and in my view a faulty conclusion.
There are simply way to many unknown factors involved in trying to claim something like that.
It is not like people stood on a corner, said something and got a warning, and if they did so again they would be removed/killed. It is oversimplifications, because the aspect is much more complex then that.

Once again - a characteristic of facisme is that you aren't permitted to speak out against the government/people, not that you will get a warning if you do.
I'm sure you can find countless of examples on this if one were to dig into the mechanics and life of Nazi germany or infact any other dictatorial societies as well. This characteritic is also for any other totalitarian governemnt type as well, and not singular for facisme.

The "warning" part however, is something I can't really see you can claim as a characteristic.

(oh - and yes - it isn't freedom of speech if you can speak but will get killed/imprisioned for it. Freedom means you can do it withouth reprecusions, so we don't have freedom of murder either.)

[ik911]

[QUOTE=Xandax]
Claiming that because (some) people - an undefined, grey mass - was given warning(s) - undefined, abstract and unproven warnings - in Nazi germany, that it is a characteristic of facists government is oversimplification and in my view a faulty conclusion.
There are simply way to many unknown factors involved in trying to claim something like that.

Once again - a characteristic of facisme is that you aren't permitted to speak out against the government/people, not that you will get a warning if you do.
I'm sure you can find countless of examples on this if one were to dig into the mechanics and life of Nazi germany or infact any other dictatorial societies as well. This characteritic is also for any other totalitarian governemnt type as well, and not singular for facisme.

The "warning" part however, is something I can't really see you can claim as a characteristic.
[/QUOTE]
It is because propaganda and intimidation are characteristic traits. And through these two, the people were warned for doing stuff the government wouldn't agree with.

[C Elegans]

IK, you don't seem to understand the distinction I and Xandax are trying to make between generalised and specific incidences.

First, you wrote:

Both fascism and democracy have freedom of speech when it comes to opposing the ones in power

CM replied:

And you claimed he was not correct:

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.)

So, in summary if you read your own post, you use your idea of what the nazis did as a model for the entire concept of fascism, and claim CM is wrong because what he posted does not fit into nazi Germany, it fits into the general definition of fascism. You are using a a particular example, nazi Germany, and generalise it to the general concept, fascism. This is not correct. It's like generalising the features of a salmon to fish. Because salmon has pink meat, cod is not a fish since it has white meat. This is what you are doing. You say that because nazi Germany gave warnings and did not kill people immediatly, fascist states does not kill people immediately but give warnings.

[CM]

To add a facist state is something like Stalin's Russia or Pol Pot in Cambodia. Or various leaders in Africa. They want power and nothing more. For themselves or in the case of the US for the country. They do not care about individual freedoms nor about international law and norms. Thus the US bombs schools and hospitals in Iraq and are willing to go to war with Iran.

Facism differs from country to country, region to region. Pincohet may be described as a facist leader, but he was supported by the West.

[ik911]

@CE: I was using the Nazi-model to demonstrate that CM's statement ('In facism if you say the wrong thing you die') was generalized and therefor wrong.
@CM: wasn't Stalin's Russia Communistic?

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=ik911]@CE: I was using the Nazi-model to demonstrate that CM's statement ('In facism if you say the wrong thing you die') was generalized and therefor wrong.
<snip>[/QUOTE]


By making another generalized and wrong statement? (That it is a rule/characteristic of facist states to give a warning or two before "dealing" with you?)
Not a good way to argument for ones case/opinnions.


Stalin's Russia was labled as communistic due to the economical system, but it had a great number of common traits with facisme.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=ik911]@CE: I was using the Nazi-model to demonstrate that CM's statement ('In facism if you say the wrong thing you die') was generalized and therefor wrong.[/QUOTE]

But CM stated that "in fascism you say the wrong thing you die" as a response to your claim that "Both fascism and democracy have freedom of speech when it comes to opposing the ones in power".
I agree with Xandax here; defending by overgeneralisation by referring to somebody else's overgeneralisation is not a good argument

I still think the biggest error in your reasoning is that you use your home-made definition of "freedom of speech", as I described above.

[CM]

Xandax and CE said whatever i wanted to say.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=Xandax]By making another generalized and wrong statement? (That it is a rule/characteristic of facist states to give a warning or two before "dealing" with you?)
Not a good way to argument for ones case/opinnions.


Stalin's Russia was labled as communistic due to the economical system, but it had a great number of common traits with facisme.[/QUOTE]

No, it wasn't in the RULEbook or something. Back in the days, it was how it went in Nazi-Germany. And it isn't a characteristic to warn one before 'dealing' with that one.
It also said between the brackets (important nevertheless) [quote="self](at least that's what the Nazis did.)[/quote"]

[CM]

Regardless IK911, a facist regime has no rules and does not care for dissidents. They die very very quickly. There are no rules nor any rule book that is why it is seen as the more abhorrent system of govt compared to dictatorships or a communist style of govt.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=ik911]No, it wasn't in the RULEbook or something. Back in the days, it was how it went in Nazi-Germany. And it isn't a characteristic to warn one before 'dealing' with that one.
It also said between the brackets (important nevertheless)[/QUOTE]

I fail to see how this changes the flaws in your reasoning.

You think fascist states has freedom of speech, it's just that the consequences of this "freedom" is different from democratic states. You also think fascist states has a "rule" which is to not kill people immediately if they critisise the regime, but instead warn people and imprison them.

To support your claims, you have hitherto given irrelevant examples:
"Like if you walk through a crowd of jews with a swastika on your jacket. It's not stated anywhere that you'll be beaten up. It's how it goes." and used invalid arguments. Can you give us some vaid arguments?

[ik911]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]I fail to see how this changes the flaws in your reasoning.

You think fascist states has freedom of speech, it's just that the consequences of this "freedom" is different from democratic states. You also think fascist states has a "rule" which is to not kill people immediately if they critisise the regime, but instead warn people and imprison them.
[/QUOTE]
ARGH!!!

I'm not thinking every fascist state has a goddamn rule not to kill people! CM posted that if you oppose your government, you get killed. I gave the example of the Nazis (being fascist) who didn't necessarily killed the opposers. They imprisonned them.

And you all just keep going on about that for 2 whole pages or something!

[/ARGH]

[CM]

Well let that be a lesson to you When on SYM phrase your words exactly how they are meant to be read. No assuming the other person knows what you are thinking.

Now be a good little boy and concede defeat

[ik911]

You all just didn't seem to read what was between the brackets and I presumed you did...

How foolish of me.

[CM]

Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. You said that in brackets but went on to defend the same point regardless.

[ik911]

[QUOTE=CM]Assumption is the mother of all **** ups. You said that in brackets but went on to defend the same point regardless.[/QUOTE]
Yes, because I had no idea what you were talking about..
Next time I'll place 'example' at the beginning, the middle and the end of my post, okay?

[CM]

Look no need to get testy. Be specific in what you say. The other person does not know what you are thinking nor how you read your words. You need to be specific and phrase your comments correctly so they are not misinterpretated. Its just a piece of advise.