Modern "Facism"

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Two threads in one day?!?


If you read my posts at all (and who wouldn't?) you know that I am a big proponent of words having a meaning and being used correctly.  One of my biggest issues with politics of late is the casual way heavy terms like racist, bigot, anti-Semite, fascism and, the worst one when misused, genocide are bandied about.

I just read a very interesting, albeit IMO too brief, article on the BBC about fascism as it existed in the 20th century and its comparisons to modern political movements.  As stated it is a brief read and very well worth your time.  It clearly differentiates the political movements of today and those of the early 20th century.  Let me know your thoughts.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38317787

[hollodero]

(12-20-2016, 08:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you read my posts at all (and who wouldn't?) you know that I am a big proponent of words having a meaning and being used correctly. 

So what is "Facism" then? Discrimination on grounds of the face?

(I swear I'll read your article and all, right now I just want to be cocky though)

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-21-2016, 07:48 AM)hollodero Wrote: So what is "Facism" then? Discrimination on grounds of the face?

(I swear I'll read your article and all, right now I just want to be cocky though)

It appears to depend on who you ask.  For many it has become a catch all word for a person with totalitarian right wing leanings.  Like many epithets it is rapidly losing any real impact as a pejorative due to rampant overuse.  The article does an excellent job of defining it in terms of governance.  As far as use on a personal level, I'd say it encompasses anyone who stifles dissent as a reflex and allows for no differing opinions.  In reality there is little difference between fascism, as a government and what is supposed to be it's polar opposite communism as practiced in the Soviet Union.  Both were autocratic, surveillance police states in which dissent was brutally suppressed.

[CKwi88]

I think that people are just falsely equating certain sentiments with the broader political view that such a sentiment could fall into. We see it all the time.

In this case, people have seen a real jump in the prominence and exposure of ultranationalist conservative movements. Fascism (in an oversimplification of course) is ultranationalist and conservative and authoritarian. While what we see going on in parties in the USA, Europe, and even South America certainly could fall into the conservative and ultranationalist part, I have a tougher time saying that they approach the ultraauthoritarian aspect of fascism.


It's kinda like how some treated Bernie. What?!?! Government sponsored healthcare and superior education? COMMUNIST! SOCIALIST!

[treee]

My understanding of fascism has evolved as I've grown older.

At first when I thought of fascism, I simply thought of a dictator. Though that is not necessarily always the case, I've come to view fascism being more of a political leader that subverts some established portion of government (in the case of the U.S., the executive subverting legislative or judicial).

Another common aspect of fascism that I've come to identify is fascism's use of nationality. I believe that the two are intrinsically tied together, and that you can not have a fascist leader without the use of nationalism as a catalyst to some degree.

Finally, I view fascism as disregarding the will of the minority political parties and only focusing on the agenda of the party in power.

[hollodero]

(12-21-2016, 12:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: It appears to depend on who you ask.  For many it has become a catch all word for a person with totalitarian right wing leanings.  Like many epithets it is rapidly losing any real impact as a pejorative due to rampant overuse.  The article does an excellent job of defining it in terms of governance.  As far as use on a personal level, I'd say it encompasses anyone who stifles dissent as a reflex and allows for no differing opinions.  In reality there is little difference between fascism, as a government and what is supposed to be it's polar opposite communism as practiced in the Soviet Union.  Both were autocratic, surveillance police states in which dissent was brutally suppressed.

Oh, Fascism... allright then.
well, there seems to be no distinct definition of that. Which kind of might be the point here. Nationalistic, authoritarian, these are sure necessary things to be defined as fascist, but apart from that it's not an ideology, but to me seems to be the absence of a clear-cut ideology. A Fascist has the will to rise to power, without any distinct flag but the one of his own persona. He uses force and probably oligarchs to reach power and then governs as a superior human being with superior, "healthy" ideas reigning over lesser individuals. A hierarchy and leader cult propped by force, if you will.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-22-2016, 02:12 AM)hollodero Wrote: Oh, Fascism... allright then.

Smartass.  Alright(one l), then.  Let us continue.

Quote:well, there seems to be no distinct definition of that. Which kind of might be the point here. Nationalistic, authoritarian, these are sure necessary things to be defined as fascist, but apart from that it's not an ideology, but to me seems to be the absence of a clear-cut ideology. A Fascist has the will to rise to power, without any distinct flag but the one of his own persona. He uses force and probably oligarchs to reach power and then governs as a superior human being with superior, "healthy" ideas reigning over lesser individuals. A hierarchy and leader cult propped by force, if you will.

I think hard core nationalism, as stated earlier by others, is a more necessary component.  Essentially, the autocratic, surveillance society, police state we would be the hard core of a fascist system.  In that sense it knows no ideological bounds.

[hollodero]

(12-22-2016, 02:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Smartass.  Alright(one l), then.  Let us continue.

Alright.

(12-22-2016, 02:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think hard core nationalism, as stated earlier by others, is a more necessary component.  Essentially, the autocratic, surveillance society, police state we would be the hard core of a fascist system.  In that sense it knows no ideological bounds.

Sure, nationalism and totalitarianism (and a leader figure with more or less absolute power), I guess those are pretty much undisputable conditions. The rest really is "having no other word". Fascism to me is often the absence or negation of ideologies: Anti-marxist, anti-democratic, anti-liberal... even "Anti-Hitler" in my country (before Hitler came). Hitler was sure a fascist by the definitions available, but somehow "more" than that, in that he had the Nazi ideology; so we don't use the word "fascism" for Nazi Germany as much. The time in Austria before the Anschluss, however, is called "fascism" for one man overthrew democracy and gained power, but without having really much except his own person (and some anti-stances) as an idea behind it.