There is nothing inherently 'evil' about facism

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

...Or any other political system for that matter.

Facism is, to simplify it down to bare bones, a system in which every decision made is done for the overall benefit of the nation. This is opposed to communism, where every decision is done for the overall benefit of the all-encompassing worker class.

Facism could be an alluring prospect because it offers security and prosperity. A facist nation is in theory better capable of defending itself and its' interests, and can directly influence its industry to produce things that the nation needs, rather than waiting and hoping on market forces.

Is facism viable, though? Like any extremist political system, it appears to be unsustainable. Facism would most likely not work for an extended period of time. Elements of it, however, can and indeed have been used to great effect (Patriotism, Imperialism, Cultural assimilation) in the past and present.

A lot of the time, when somebody calls person or policy 'facist', what they really mean is 'totalitarian' (Which I would also argue is not inherently 'evil'), which is when the state attempts to control what you see, hear and know through propaganda or silence.

Before anybody invokes Godwin, I would like to point out that Italian and German facism was a) extremist (which never ends well) and b) rooted in scientific theories which have since been debunked (eugenics, for example). Yes, it resulted in terrible events, but that is cause to bash the leaders, not necessarily the system. Modern democracies are capable of some very questionable moral acts as well, but we don't often use that as evidence to suggest that democracy is a terrible system, do we?

Before anyone asks, no, I'm not a facist. I do like to argue, though.

Uh... duh?

We... know?

~Sylv

Saladfork:
Facism is, to simplify it down to bare bones, a system in which every decision made is done for the overall benefit of the nation.

In theory. In reality however it works quite differently. Pro-life campaigners for instance work solely from a religious sentiment, and so did many other clerical-fascist movements like in Slovakia and Hungary.

They claim to work on behalf of the country or a greater good, but often that's just a front for an other motivation.

Of course not! Benevolent fascism is the obvious best mold for a government. If someone with your ideas was in charge, anyway.

I remember a long time back on the R&P forum we had someone who was openly a Fascist (made a point to say Hitler did it wrong and all that). It was quite interesting actually.

Personally I am not convinced that if I had been born a century earlier I wouldnt be an Imperialist.

Saladfork:
...Or any other political system for that matter.

Unless they carry the explicit goal to harm humanity. I think Supervillainism or something along those lines would be inherently evil, though such ideas don't have wide support for now. =P

Saladfork:

Facism is, to simplify it down to bare bones, a system in which every decision made is done for the overall benefit of the nation. This is opposed to communism, where every decision is done for the overall benefit of the all-encompassing worker class.

I'd say this depends entirely on what the facist autocrat feels is for the benefit of the nation. Mussolini thought working to create an Empire would be beneficial but if Italy is to see benefits of this policy they certainly take their time.

Saladfork:

Facism could be an alluring prospect because it offers security and prosperity. A facist nation is in theory better capable of defending itself and its' interests, and can directly influence its industry to produce things that the nation needs, rather than waiting and hoping on market forces.

The problem with the defence issue is that strategic military power relies on economic force. A facist nation could win tactical victories, but the long haul would leave it isolated due to its ambitions and then destroyed.

Saladfork:

Is facism viable, though? Like any extremist political system, it appears to be unsustainable. Facism would most likely not work for an extended period of time. Elements of it, however, can and indeed have been used to great effect (Patriotism, Imperialism, Cultural assimilation) in the past and present.

As an economic system it does not appear viable, and as the strength of humanity is ultimately measured here it would seem a senseless option unless extraordinary circumstances were to arise, like prolonged alien invasion.

Saladfork:

A lot of the time, when somebody calls person or policy 'facist', what they really mean is 'totalitarian' (Which I would also argue is not inherently 'evil'), which is when the state attempts to control what you see, hear and know through propaganda or silence.

No, totalitarian would mean that the government tries to control or regulate every aspect of the lives of its populace. This is a costly and unproductive unless society is overcome with disorder.

Saladfork:

Before anybody invokes Godwin, I would like to point out that Italian and German facism was a) extremist (which never ends well) and b) rooted in scientific theories

Pseudoscientific hypothesis* - And if you do not feel that totalitarianism is extremist then what made these extremist in relation to facism?

[quote="Saladfork" post="528.344105.13809551"]
which have since been debunked (eugenics, for example). Yes, it resulted in terrible events, but that is cause to bash the leaders, not necessarily the system. Modern democracies are capable of some very questionable moral acts as well, but we don't often use that as evidence to suggest that democracy is a terrible system, do we?

Critics of democracy do, and authoritarianism is a core aspect of Facism. The issue of selecting leaders then comes into play, and we have tried many things in the past three millennia in the west to pick out just the good dictators, but we haven't had much success with it.

Istvan:

Pseudoscientific hypothesis* - And if you do not feel that totalitarianism is extremist then what made these extremist in relation to facism?

Actually, I do think totalitarianism is extreme, unsustainable and ultimately ineffective. I'm just saying that it has advantages as well (i.e. ability to root out dissidents/enemy agents).

Istvan:

Saladfork:

Facism could be an alluring prospect because it offers security and prosperity. A facist nation is in theory better capable of defending itself and its' interests, and can directly influence its industry to produce things that the nation needs, rather than waiting and hoping on market forces.

The problem with the defence issue is that strategic military power relies on economic force. A facist nation could win tactical victories, but the long haul would leave it isolated due to its ambitions and then destroyed.

Saladfork:

Is facism viable, though? Like any extremist political system, it appears to be unsustainable. Facism would most likely not work for an extended period of time. Elements of it, however, can and indeed have been used to great effect (Patriotism, Imperialism, Cultural assimilation) in the past and present.

As an economic system it does not appear viable, and as the strength of humanity is ultimately measured here it would seem a senseless option unless extraordinary circumstances were to arise, like prolonged alien invasion.

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Facist Germany's economy was one of its' largest strengths, and it was used quite effectively to fuel the war machine. I admit I am less familiar with facist Italy, though.

Certainly I don't see any reason in theory why it would stifle economic growth and development.

Istvan:
I'd say this depends entirely on what the facist autocrat feels is for the benefit of the nation. Mussolini thought working to create an Empire would be beneficial but if Italy is to see benefits of this policy they certainly take their time.

True. In theory the dictator should be able to make effective and beneficial decisions but that is by no means a sure thing in practice.

Saladfork:

Actually, I do think totalitarianism is extreme, unsustainable and ultimately ineffective. I'm just saying that it has advantages as well (i.e. ability to root out dissidents/enemy agents).

No disagreements here. Would require a large and global emergency before I would approve like with the alien invasion scenario but it can have its merits.

Saladfork:

I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Facist Germany's economy was one of its' largest strengths, and it was used quite effectively to fuel the war machine.

This is not quite true, Germany was able to divert far larger proportions of its resources to rearmament than its democratic allies, but its economic power was by no means exceptional. In fact I would note its inferiority owing to a number of factors, corruption, interference by Hitler in design processes and poor leadership up until Speer resulted in an erosion of Germany's advantage to the allies on the economic front.

They were also slow to mobilize their economy, as Nazi cultural policies were not too favourable to women taking over in the factories to free up manpower for the frontlines. The reason they could continue for so long without much hardship at home owes more to the fact that Germany could drain occupied countries for resources (which she did quite extensively)

So in summary, the German economy wasn't that strong, but it was focused almost entirely on the war effort, which gave Germany an advantage until the allies could direct their efforts better, which resulted in the Nazis being overrun.

Saladfork:

I admit I am less familiar with facist Italy, though.

Italy was run with similar thoughts but on a much tighter budget. Leadership on all but the top level was also extremely poor in comparison with Germany, leading to further undermining of Italian strength due to the poor direction of her resources. She did have an extensive public works programme running during the 1930s aiming at self-sufficiency rather than industrialization.

Saladfork:

Certainly I don't see any reason in theory why it would stifle economic growth and development.

It comes down to the leadership but overall a free market to some degree is preferrable in peacetime as far as economic strength is concerned.

Saladfork:

True. In theory the dictator should be able to make effective and beneficial decisions but that is by no means a sure thing in practice.

Indeed, had dictatorship proved itself the more effective form of government for developed nations it would seem strange that it has completely failed to last there.

Well, yeah. A united people with no class system, fighting against a common enemy, is not evil. Lately I've seen Fascism as Utopian style of government in which it would only be able to work on two conditions.

1) Humanity being united. All humans find a way to understand one another and unify (The basic Newtype formula).
2) A common enemy of man. Like an alien species that are hostile towards Humans
Fascism done incorrectly can lead to totalitarianism, as we know from history.

Saladfork:
I'm not sure what you're getting at there. Facist Germany's economy was one of its' largest strengths, and it was used quite effectively to fuel the war machine.

Oh boy, do I hate it when people pull this argument.

Of course Germanys economy was strong. They had a fucking war to fight, for fucks sake. Every person was either taking foreign lands or producing ammunition to help take foreign lands. A "strong" economy in a world war is not a fucking wonder, its a certainty.

Reminds me of people who say Hitler wasnt all bad because he managed to get unemployment down to 0.1%. No shit Sherlock, everyone was melting down metals or dying on a front or getting gassed if they could not work.

I have nothing to contribute to the OT though. Carry on. The whole "hurr isnt it a miracle Germany had a strong economy back then and no unemployment Hitler must have done something right" thing just pisses me the fuck off.

I'm pretty sure the Roman Empire was one of the few good examples of Fascism. They had their problems, Caligula for example, but during the height of Rome, they united more of Europe then any other nation afterwards, they were incredibly advanced, to the point if you compared a Roman house and an early Medieval house, the Roman one would be primitive but habitable, the Medieval one would be next to uninhabitable.

Fascism is a fickle thing though, get the right person in and you could have something next to Utopia, get the wrong person in and it could be hell on earth. The closest thing to a fascist government done right would probably be a Meritocracy, that way you could avoid someone like Kim Jong-Il who doesn't know how to run a nation and would rather claim he invented the Hamburger and Golfs perfectly instead of solving the problem of his people starving to death and if it's a Meritocracy done right, the Level headed, sane person, would always be chosen over the insane one.

Witty Name Here:
The closest thing to a fascist government done right would probably be a Meritocracy, that way you could avoid someone like Kim Jong-Il who doesn't know how to run a nation and would rather claim he invented the Hamburger and Golfs perfectly instead of solving the problem of his people starving to death and if it's a Meritocracy done right, the Level headed, sane person, would always be chosen over the insane one.

I agree, but the problem with a meritocracy, especially when deciding on who should lead, is the question of who decides who has which merits and which are ideal in a leader.

Seekster:
I remember a long time back on the R&P forum we had someone who was openly a Fascist (made a point to say Hitler did it wrong and all that). It was quite interesting actually.

Teddy, an yes, they were very interesting

Fascism ( /ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a radical authoritarian nationalist political ideology.[1][2] Fascists seek rejuvenation of their nation based on commitment to an organic national community where its individuals are united together as one people in national identity by suprapersonal connections of ancestry, culture, and blood through a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through discipline, indoctrination, physical education, and eugenics.[3][4] Fascism seeks to purify the nation of foreign influences that are deemed to be causing degeneration of the nation or of not fitting into the national culture.[5] Fascism promotes political violence and war as actions that create national regeneration, spirit and vitality.[3][6] Fascists commonly utilize paramilitary organizations for violence against opponents or to overthrow a political system.[7] Fascism opposes multiple ideologies: conservatism, liberalism, and two major forms of socialism-communism and social democracy.[8] Fascism claims to represent a synthesis of cohesive ideas previously divided between traditional political ideologies.[9] To achieve its goals, the fascist state purges forces, ideas, people, and systems deemed to be the cause of decadence and degeneration.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

-Radical
-United in ancestry and blood
-Totalitarian dictatorship
-Indoctrination
-Eugenics
-Purify of foreign influences
-Promotes violence and war
-Purging forces, ideas and people

Nope, I can't spot anything that's inherently evil.

...Or any other political system for that matter.

Except for Sharia law.
And Stalinism.

When used in its broadest sense, the term "Stalinist" refers to socialist states comparable to the Stalin-era Soviet Union (i.e., those characterized by a high degree of centralization, totalitarianism, the use of a secret police, propaganda, and especially brutal tactics of political coercion). According to Encyclopædia Britannica, "Stalinism is associated with a regime of terror and totalitarian rule."

And a lot of other political ideologies, actually.

Thats pretty much the argument for any system of total government. If those in power are both competent and benevolent they nearly always work better than Republics and Democracies. Theres one issue with it though; they rarely are. Even if you get the lucky the first time, the next guy that gets in power may not have the interests of the people at heart, or he may simply be a fool.

Saladfork:
snip

image
don't think I'm going to touch this.

most people do "evil" things for a reason they think is "right".

very few run around cackling like a crazed villain in a cartoon...and you can usually spot those ones quite easily.

there has been plenty of times recently when even people in the west haven't been sure if we've been on the "right" side.

we are at the point now where we could literally talk our way into world war three either in the middle east or with china. we are electing people to prominent positions of power and popular influence who arguably rampant ideologies and/or corrupt and/or "in the pocket of big business" and/or inept and/or stupid. meanwhile the people with all the money are directing an economic policy and employment rights and working hours/age agenda the basic aim of which is a "race to the bottom" as we try and compete with comparative slaves wages in emerging economies some of which have only just started to "wake up" like Brazil.

i don't think its time to be making an argument in favour of any kind of totalitarian government.
i'm sure they'd love that argument to be made tho :)

if anything quite the opposite.

we need to be asking serious questions (and flexing our democratic muscles) about where we want to be going as people because political ideology aside i have long thought that one of the only true measures of a government or a governments policies should be its record on social mobility and aiming to "out bad" other nations is not what we should be trying to do or arguing for regardless of political affiliations.

there has to be another way.

Seekster:
I remember a long time back on the R&P forum we had someone who was openly a Fascist (made a point to say Hitler did it wrong and all that). It was quite interesting actually.

You mean Demented Teddy? I disagreed with her views but i liked her as a poster, she wasn't bigoted or plain stupid like many of the other people who have come here with extreme views. It's a shame she got banned, she wasn't a bad apple.

Personally I am not convinced that if I had been born a century earlier I wouldnt be an Imperialist.

If i were born a century earlier i'm pretty damn sure i would have been a Communist. From an early 20th century perspective i think the theory made a lot of sense, it's only with hindsight that we know that trying to implement it leads to disaster.

Well, depends on one's definition of "good", doesn't it?

If it revolves around individual freedom of choice and inalienable civil rights, then fascism - along with communism - is as "evil" as they come.

TheDarkEricDraven:
Of course not! Benevolent fascism is the obvious best mold for a government. If someone with your ideas was in charge, anyway.

Examples being: Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte.

Alex created a massive Empire upon his death and the following leaders the territory was introduced and in a sense uplifted with Greek ideas, philosophies and construction, architectural knowledge.

Julius Caesar turned a crumbling Republic into an Empire which's mechanics continued to function for the Empire for another 400 years whether the Emperor be Mad, bad or completely insane.

And Napoleon Bonaparte who's snatch grab for power turned him into an Emperor of a country who made many much needed reforms to France and Spain which removed the dictatorship of the church and slavery to the aristocracy and replaced them with individual Liberty... infront of his military regime to ensure compliance. After he left his reforms stayed with his military dictatorship Demi usher as peace fell across Europe (for a while at least).

Strange thing about Benevolent fascism... The benefits are only really effective after the poor sod dies, lest they be corrupted by power like Bonaparte.
Caesar faced the problem after his reforms of what to do with himself and who knows what he would have done... if not killed off xD

Comando96:
Strange thing about Benevolent fascism... The benefits are only really effective after the poor sod dies, lest they be corrupted by power like Bonaparte.
Caesar faced the problem after his reforms of what to do with himself and who knows what he would have done... if not killed off xD

In Alexander's case, the results included the formation of new kingdoms out of bits of the Persian Empire and its surrounds, which fought pointless wars for the next few centuries until the Romans conquered them.

Caesar I'd imagine would have run off to look for something else to conquer, it was what he knew.

...

And...you seem to be taking the point of view of "good for the nation" and ignoring everyone else. Caesar was responsible for the biggest genocide until Europeans decided to conquer the Americas.

thaluikhain:
Caesar I'd imagine would have run off to look for something else to conquer, it was what he knew.

Well he more had his eye on becoming a king in the eyes of the people.

A significant event was that of an annual ceremony, commemorating the abolishing of the last Monarchs.

He ordered that on his signal a crown be held above his had and upon a second it be lowered onto his head.

So in front of a large crowd who cheered when he was on the stage/platform, he gave the signal. As it appeared above his head the crowd booed, not jeered but booed. He waved in refusal of the crown and the crowd cheered even louder than before. He gave the signal again and exactly the same happened, crowd booed, he refused. To the crowd it was a pantomime of sorts. A symbol of Caesar being for the people and not a Monarch... everyone else including politicians, Caesars friends thought he had just tried to launch a popular bid to be the eternal dictator.

Ego and a belief the people owed him the crown... interesting what that path would have led to if not stabbed in the back... prehaps he'd march on Russia? :P

thaluikhain:
And...you seem to be taking the point of view of "good for the nation" and ignoring everyone else. Caesar was responsible for the biggest genocide until Europeans decided to conquer the Americas.

Was he? The Dictator before him, Lucius Cornelius Sulla killed a damn high number of people, deliberately, took their money and lived a life of luxury / debortuary. I believe around the 8,000 mark.

When I say 8,000 that's the number of citizens killed. Their slaves too were killed and these families would have had more than one family of servant slaves as it was the rich Sulla targeted. Did they support my rise to dictator? No? Then they are fair game. Slave deaths... there are not records, just accounts of everyone men, women children, slaves butchered, more commonly disappearances, with mutilated bodies appearing around the city afterwards.

If you don't count soldiers deaths then Sulla by far committed a massive genocide Caesar would never match. Also many leaders afterwards committed genocides larger,. What was Caesars genocide? Too many battles and wars and campaigns for me to think of off the top of my head.

Caesars Legion from Fallout: New Vegas is a prime example of Fascism. If you spoke with Caesar, he unveils his intentions of using fear tactics and brute force to re-conquer the desert. It would be then that he would be able to implement changes for the benefit of his people. What he was doing was attempting to seize control and destroy his enemies before governing in a more humane fashion. He originally had good intentions, but his succeeder Legate Lanius had a different idealization of leadership. In reality this is a repetitive pattern. Revolutions usually bring an end to bad leadership. But a broken political landscape is an easy place for other bad leaders to take rule. Communism falls to dictators, Capitalism falls to Cronyism.

Danyal:

-Radical
-United in ancestry and blood
-Totalitarian dictatorship
-Indoctrination
-Eugenics
-Purify of foreign influences
-Promotes violence and war
-Purging forces, ideas and people

Nope, I can't spot anything that's inherently evil.

Objectively speaking, neither can I:
A totalitarian dictatorship isn't necessarily malevolent,Mussolini had a good run, he reduced unemployment, built roads, revolutionized the public transport system, updated the Italian industry and arguably brought stability and rule of law to Northern Africa.

Indoctrination leads to greater social unity, and while I wouldn't like to have a society of indoctrinated civilians, I'll happy point out that such societies had significantly less crime, unemployment, malnutrition, illiterate rates and greater security than the societies that preceded them (Just look at Russia.).

Eugenics leads to a healthier population, less genetic defects, and overall less drain on society. If I was given the option to check and cure any unborn child of genetic diseases today via retro-viral plasmid treatment (a technology which will soon be available on an industrial scale),I'd push to make it compulsory for all. Over half a century ago such things were unthinkable, the best they could do was sterilize the sick and feeble minded. If I were in the same position, armed with the knowledge that committing such acts would ensure future generations would not have to share the same burden. Well lets just I would give it serious consideration.

Purification of foreign influences is and subjective goal. The Balkans suffered for centuries under Ottoman rule,the Jizya, the Devşirme, white slavery etc are just some of the atrocities people had to endure. Was it wrong for them to remove their oppressors through violent means? Much of the atrocities in the Balkans during the 90s can still be attributed to this troubled span of history. It can be wrong or just, but it's certainly not an 'evil' act.

Promotes violence and war, Violence is a tool, just because modern western interpretations of it brand it wrong doesn't make it so. I was horribly bullied during my early school year. I was continually told to 'tell the teacher' and that 'violence solve nothing'. What a load of horse shit. The 'higher authority' (Teachers or the UN?) never solved anything, and my problems disappeared after I realised I could hit people back just as hard as my schoolyard bullies. Robert Heinlein's work which I read some years later only reinforced my childhood lessons. Secondly, War, despite everyone's complaints is a purely practical exercise. It might be over land, influence, resources, or the elimination of a potential future threat before they become to powerful to be easily dealt with. War is a way of solving problems, an extension of politics. Our problem war comes not from the concept itself, but the fact that it treats people like machines, and people die as a result. Victory is often worth the cost, other times its simply preferable to 'losing.

Purging forces, ideas and people; again this is subjective. If you could purge the neo-nazi skinheads residing in the United States would you be 'evil'? Or what if you killed of the Mexican Cartel's via firing squad? Again not by any-means a necessarily evil action. It's just no one remembers the justified ones, or the successful one....

In finishing, no fascism is not by any means evil. I would point out that much of the 'anti-fascists' resemble much of those they claim to be against. The greatest flaw of fascism, is it's greatest strength, the man at the top. He can be brilliant or a monster. Then of course assuming he was the former, what happens when he retires? Who will replace him? It's a gamble each time.

Doing something 'for the greater good' means you have to limit the freedom of some people, while giving power to others to decide what freedoms everyone should have. Even if those in power had the greatest intentions, it leads to a less free populous.

Fraser Greenfield:

Objectively speaking, neither can I.

I wouldn't get into this argument. Danyal seems to believe that you can use logic to deduce objective morality. At least judging by my first encounter with him in a thread about logic.

Comando96:
Was he? The Dictator before him, Lucius Cornelius Sulla killed a damn high number of people, deliberately, took their money and lived a life of luxury / debortuary. I believe around the 8,000 mark.

When I say 8,000 that's the number of citizens killed. Their slaves too were killed and these families would have had more than one family of servant slaves as it was the rich Sulla targeted. Did they support my rise to dictator? No? Then they are fair game. Slave deaths... there are not records, just accounts of everyone men, women children, slaves butchered, more commonly disappearances, with mutilated bodies appearing around the city afterwards.

If you don't count soldiers deaths then Sulla by far committed a massive genocide Caesar would never match. Also many leaders afterwards committed genocides larger,. What was Caesars genocide? Too many battles and wars and campaigns for me to think of off the top of my head.

I was refering to his campaigns in Gaul, where he reduced the population there by about a third.

Now, these weren't Roman citizens, so you could argue that this wasn't as bad a thing as what Sulla had did, but I'm not sure if I follow that logic.

thaluikhain:
I was refering to his campaigns in Gaul, where he reduced the population there by about a third.

Now, these weren't Roman citizens, so you could argue that this wasn't as bad a thing as what Sulla had did, but I'm not sure if I follow that logic.

My logic is, if you pick up arms, your fair game. Solders are soldiers and back then you acknowledge as a soldier and you find yourself on the losing side your life is forfeited to fate.

Don't judge the morals of those before us as we judge ourselves now. Cultures were different and you cannot judge one man without considering the norm of that society and culture. You just judge the difference between those of the same era. Sulla for example killing innocent men women and children for their land and money can be judged as a terrible individual, especially now but even for the time that was unheard of. Caesar... Gaul... how should I put this... they didn't submit easily. Not that many village's were slaughtered or raised. Mostly the killing was due to the fact a war lord united tribes in organised mass resistance. Lots had to die for a Roman occupation. Nothing out of the norm... as horrid as that sounds to you or me now.

Comando96:

thaluikhain:
I was refering to his campaigns in Gaul, where he reduced the population there by about a third.

Now, these weren't Roman citizens, so you could argue that this wasn't as bad a thing as what Sulla had did, but I'm not sure if I follow that logic.

My logic is, if you pick up arms, your fair game. Solders are soldiers and back then you acknowledge as a soldier and you find yourself on the losing side your life is forfeited to fate.

Don't judge the morals of those before us as we judge ourselves now. Cultures were different and you cannot judge one man without considering the norm of that society and culture. You just judge the difference between those of the same era. Sulla for example killing innocent men women and children for their land and money can be judged as a terrible individual, especially now but even for the time that was unheard of. Caesar... Gaul... how should I put this... they didn't submit easily. Not that many village's were slaughtered or raised. Mostly the killing was due to the fact a war lord united tribes in organised mass resistance. Lots had to die for a Roman occupation. Nothing out of the norm... as horrid as that sounds to you or me now.

Oh, I agree, it wasn't unusual in anything more than scale. But I would say that Sulla's actions weren't so different, especially given his claims that he wa acting for the good of Rome, rather than merely his own ambitions, unless killing outsiders is inherently more acceptable.

{{{(Facism is, to simplify it down to bare bones, a system in which every decision made is done for the overall benefit of the nation. This is opposed to communism, where every decision is done for the overall benefit of the all-encompassing worker class.)}}

How would the above not be a horrific affront to a myriad number of things with regards to human and individual rights. Pretty much any action taken for the benefit of the "state" is going to infringe on somebody's rights, or negatively effect them in some manner. "for the greater good" is a nice sounding sentiment but a negation of freedom for some. Not to mention one would be depending on some leader to determine what is for the benefit of the state...That always works peachy.

I'm sure in some contrived utopia it could be considered okay with the right leader but viewed with any kind of slant towards individual freedom, free will and the ability to pursue that, there is no way to disassociate it from the inherent evil that is systemic within Fascism.

I can't take it any more.

FASCISM.

f-a-S-c-i-s-m.

Unless "facism" is some kind of new movement that judges people by the look of their face, please for the holy love of fuck spell the thing you're advocating properly.

(And sure, it might be fine with the right leader, but that's a dice roll and you can't fire them without bloodshed if they turn out to not be the right leader.)

thaluikhain:
Oh, I agree, it wasn't unusual in anything more than scale. But I would say that Sulla's actions weren't so different, especially given his claims that he wa acting for the good of Rome, rather than merely his own ambitions, unless killing outsiders is inherently more acceptable.

Pah the good of Rome.

He claimed he was acting in the good of Rome, but there were no reforms... there was no enemy he was protecting Rome from. He murdered the rich in a reign of terror and took their money for himself. Once finished he set the Republic back up the problems caused in the last 100 years stemming from Senate corruption of power and greater inequality between the classes... so his reforms gave the senate more power..................
Killed rich people. Gave remaining senators more power... that to me seems driven by self surving purposes...

Considering he took control of the republic it was no surprise that two of his protegé's later fought for the Dictators wreath. Gauis Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. Caesar and Pompey no less.

Comando96:

thaluikhain:
Oh, I agree, it wasn't unusual in anything more than scale. But I would say that Sulla's actions weren't so different, especially given his claims that he wa acting for the good of Rome, rather than merely his own ambitions, unless killing outsiders is inherently more acceptable.

Pah the good of Rome.

He claimed he was acting in the good of Rome, but there were no reforms... there was no enemy he was protecting Rome from. He murdered the rich in a reign of terror and took their money for himself. Once finished he set the Republic back up the problems caused in the last 100 years stemming from Senate corruption of power and greater inequality between the classes... so his reforms gave the senate more power..................
Killed rich people. Gave remaining senators more power... that to me seems driven by self surving purposes...

Considering he took control of the republic it was no surprise that two of his protegé's later fought for the Dictators wreath. Gauis Julius Caesar and Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus. Caesar and Pompey no less.

Well, yeah, never said it worked, but he could have meant what he was saying and not properly understood the consequences.

In any case, not sure how much Caesar was thinking of the good of Rome when he was fighting in Gaul.

What is this relativistic nonsense here?

Or are we playing semantics with "inherent"?

Fascists when they had power were evil bastards. I am pretty sure I can prove that. I am actually REALLY fucking sure I can.

The onus is on you to prove otherwise.

Are you suggesting that the fascists "misrepresented" fascism? Is there are a "nice" version of fascism that we all missed?

Oh and by the way, the "but.." used as a concessionary term in your "Yes, it resulted in terrible events, but..." is well, I don't wanna get a ban so I will just say this: can't you see the problem here? Can't you see why people might take offense at that "but..."?

Amazing fucking thread.

The wonders of the internet.

I feel my misanthropy levels rising.

Regards

Nightspore

Nightspore:

I feel my misanthropy levels rising.

Many are reading and refraining from comment, hopefully because it's painfully obvious how flawed the premise is. Despite that, your post was needed. Spending some time on the site over the last few days I hope and think some of it boils down to age (no offence intended) - my worst nightmare is seeing new generations forget the horrors of the recent past, or somehow argue how misguided it all was and the cycles starting all over again.

Break the chain.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked