This is a thread to discuss fascism. What is it? Is it bad? Why?

Taking a page from TitL's book, let's start with the dictionary.  Dictionary.com lists the following definitions:


So that covers what it is, or at least starts to.  As to what's wrong with it, I'd say the parts about suppressing disagreement and opposition, aggressive nationalism, racism, suspicion or hatred of both foreigners and "impure" people are all negative aspects.

On the good side, nationalism, and fascism with it, is an effective way to rally a nation to achieve a difficult goal. Hitler really did take a third-rate nation with basically not a penny to its name, a broken people, and a complete lack of serious military power, and turned it around into a power that almost dominated the entire globe. That is nothing to sniff at. Had it not been for the active killing of people in death camps (if, instead, he had simply exported them to other nations), I think he'd be considered among the great military leaders like Napoleon (who, if not a fascist himself, was along th eright path).

     Yeah I always liked Nappy <grin>. As to the suppressing opposition, isn't that what all good leaders do? Using WW2 as an example, we suppressed the Nazis and the Japanese. Why is this bad?

     And okay, I get why suppressing criticism is bad. If a leader with absolute power allowed free speech, even if it was critical of him, would he still be a facist, and if not, what?

     Why is aggressive nationalism bad? I would think it'd be nice if one could feel proud of and love their country, wouldn't it?

     You can't argue racism, as the definition doesn't include it (it says "often racism", not "always racism"). Granted, some facist-types might be racist, but that doesn't mean that facism has to include racism.

     Where does the definition say anything about suspicion, hatred, or suppression of foreigners and/or the "impure"? Why are these automatically assumed to be part of facism?

Nationalism can be good, but it can also blind you and push you to ignore your morals. 9/11 happened basically because of excessive nationalism. The holocaust happened (but didn't have to) because of excessive nationalism. It is not a path without its dangers, and it does not seem to have too very many benefits.

I think it was meaning in terms of political opposition.  For example, if one party got into power, and then locked up all the people who had voted against them, that would be suppressing opposition.


Depends on what other stuff they did, but it would certainly be uncharacteristic of fascism.  Note that it is entirely possible to have a non-fascist dictator.  I would say if you had a dictator that had absolute power but who didn't use that power to maintain power, then it wouldn't be fascist (though it could still have many other negative aspects).  If it allowed free speech, but still suppressed political opposition, then I could still see it being called fascist.


You can feel proud of your country, and love it, without wanting to force it on others.  The reason aggressive nationalism is bad is a) because it doesn't permit others to love their countries, and b) because nationalism is the idea that your country is better no matter what it does, rather than just being proud of things its done in the past.  It's similar to how racism doesn't just mean you're proud of your race.  Nationalism gets cause and effect backwards: a nationalist believes anything their country does is the right thing, because it's done by their country and their country is good, rather than believing that their country is good because it does the right things.  Put another way: a nationalist evaluates the goodness or badness of an action based on who commits it, instead of evaluating the goodness or badness of the person/country based on the acts they commit.


Well, the examples we've had through history so far have been racist.  If we see a non-racists fascist regime, well, we can evaluate it I guess.  But racism isn't too different from nationalism, really.


See the third paragraph in the bit I quoted, a bit less than halfway through.
As to why these are part of fascism?  Well, its part of what fascism embraced.

It's kind of sounding like what you're actually in favor of isn't fascism, so much as just a dictatorship.  Is there something that you feel is good about fascism over just a dictatorship that I'm missing?

*** Okay, granted, this would be -- at best -- an abuse of power. So then, could someone be facist without locking up (or otherwise eliminating) all their political opponents?


*** No, I'm saying they maintain their power, but they just allow people to talk bad about them. Outlaw free elections and other such nonsense, but not free speech.


*** Right. I love my country and think it's the best, but I'm okay with you living over there in your country (which isn't as good as mine, btw) and doing your own thing. Is this not nationalism?


*** A) Why not? B)But what if my country actually is better? America vs China, for example.


*** Okay, if that is the definition of nationalism, then I can see why it's bad. So if a person is strongly encouraging of patriotism (to the extent of jingoism), but doesn't try to forcibly convert other countries, and is willing to admit when their country is wrong, could they still be fascist?


*** So we've had bad examples in the past -- that doesn't mean the concept itself is bad, just that it's been badly practiced.


*** But again, that's only using past examples (which, I fully admit, were bad).


*** I've been accused (muchly <grin>) of being a fascist, and I suppose I'm trying to figure out A) why that's supposed to be bad, and B) what the difference is between fascism and dictatorship.

*** No, I'm saying they maintain their power, but they just allow people to talk bad about them. Outlaw free elections and other such nonsense, but not free speech.

Please explain how you can ensure that government that does not answer to the people will not abuse its power.

*** A) Why not? B)But what if my country actually is better? America vs China, for example.

Why?

But again, that's only using past examples (which, I fully admit, were bad).

Fascism doesn't work because it doesn't provide a method for the citizenry to remove a leader who isn't doing his job.

Well, if they don't suppress them, then no, it doesn't seem like it would be fascist by the definition above.


And take no action against those who disagree with you?  Probably wouldn't be fascist in that case.


Not aggressive nationalism, no.



A) that's the "aggressive" part--trying to force other countries to adopt your model.
B) depends on if you think America is better because it's america and america is always number 1, or if you think America is better because it does X, Y, and Z (but wouldn't be if it didn't).  The former is nationalism, the later is just having an opinion.


I would jingoism usually involves advocating promoting a country's ideals by force, which sort of conflicts with the next part of your hypothetical.  I guess I'd say someone were opposed to using coercion to get other countries to agree to their countries ideals, then they probably wouldn't be fascist.


I suppose, but there comes a point where the new, better practiced version is so different from what's come before that it probably deserves a different name.


You've also referred to yourself as a fascist, if I recall.
A) for the reasons I gave in the first post.
B) fascism is a particular type of dictatorship which has properties listed in the definition.  A dictatorship is just a government in which all the power is held by a single person.

*** Don't know that I can. Why is this relevant?


*** But what if he is doing his job? What's the problem with it then? Also, there's always the coup d'etat.


*** Ah, ok, I'm the second one (America is better becos of the way we do things, not just becos we're America). So I'd be nationalist, just not aggressively, yes?


*** So I'm not fascist, just dictatorial.

The problem is that we can't know before hand if he will do his job.  Its a gamble giving someone that power, since we can't easily take it back if the power corrupts him (like it tends to do in most cases).  As for coup d'etat, yep, it can be done, but it's not easy, and its often messy.  Better, I would argue, if there is an easier way to just fire someone without having a shootout, or at least the threat of one.



These were actually meant as two separate answers to your two points, not two possibilities.  If you're saying it's X, Y, and Z that make a country good (regardless of which countries do them), and because the US does X, Y, and Z, it happens to be good, then you're not really nationalist, I would argue.  And if you're not interested in forcing other countries to adopt a similar model, then you're not an aggressive.  To be honest, though, from some of your posts in other threads, I'd be somewhat skeptical if you claimed you're not at all interested in going into other countries and forcing them to accept your ideas under the threat of violence.


Sounds like it.

*** Right, I get that it's a gamble, but why is it automatically a bad thing to do?


*** I agree that it's not always the easiest thing (unless you're in Dallas ...), but it's still viable.


*** Well it depends. I see no reason to force Britain to stop using the Houses of Parliament and go to using a Congress, for example. Or to make all other countries use our systems of measurement, instead of metrics, for another. But when you have a country which is practicing genocide, or engaging in egregious human-rights violations, then yeah, I think we ought to step in and make them stop. It's not so much a "Do it the American way" thing as it is a "Do it the right way" thing. Does that make sense?

*** Right, I get that it's a gamble, but why is it automatically a bad thing to do?

Because you might get Hitler?