If another great depression happened within in this decade.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

But just because somebody has some economic principles that match up with fascism DOES NOT mean that they are fascist!  You need more than just economics!

And you have not explained how Obama's health care reform is a fascist social policy.

It's also worth noting that alot of the economic action was taken because of the social views of Nazi Germany. The inherently racist bent to Hitler's Germany influenced their efforts in education, in the workplace, and in health. Failing to take this into account when talking about what action they did take in the economy is frustrating me beyond belief.

And that's why racism/ethnicism is a CORE tenet of fascism - which is what I've been saying since the beginning.

And you've been wrong on that issue since the beginning. 'Racism/ethnicism' is NOT a core tenet of fascism, period. I don't know why you're pushing a point that's so blatantly wrong. Racism was a tool used by Hitler toward achieving his particular goals; it is not by any means a necessary component of fascism.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

But just because somebody has some economic principles that match up with fascism DOES NOT mean that they are fascist!  You need more than just economics!

And you have not explained how Obama's health care reform is a fascist social policy.

Once again, private ownership, public control. The government has maintained the illusion of having a "free market" while in fact people will soon be compelled to purchase insurance from a few politically connected corporations. ObamaCare was an expansion of what was essentially already a fascist0esque healthcare system we have had in this country since the introduction of HMOs and managed care under that sh**tbag Nixon.

That's an economic issue!  You have yet to say how this is a social issue, and you have yet to give any evidence that Obama has the social issue tendencies of a fascist.

Healthcare is a social policy, as has been stated multiple times now.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But just because somebody has some economic principles that match up with fascism DOES NOT mean that they are fascist!  You need more than just economics!

And you have not explained how Obama's health care reform is a fascist social policy.

It's also worth noting that alot of the economic action was taken because of the social views of Nazi Germany. The inherently racist bent to Hitler's Germany influenced their efforts in education, in the workplace, and in health. Failing to take this into account when talking about what action they did take in the economy is frustrating me beyond belief.

And that's why racism/ethnicism is a CORE tenet of fascism - which is what I've been saying since the beginning.

And you've been wrong on that issue since the beginning. 'Racism/ethnicism' is NOT a core tenet of fascism, period. I don't know why you're pushing a point that's so blatantly wrong. Racism was a tool used by Hitler toward achieving his particular goals; it is not by any means a necessary component of fascism.

Whose definition of fascism are you using?  You do realize that fascism as a whole has expanded from just the Italian fascism of the early/mid 1900s, right (otherwise, fascism wouldn't even exist anymore)?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Healthcare is a social policy, but you're discussion of it is only dealing with the economic side of it.

I will again ask: How are Obama's social policies similar to those of fascist social policies?

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Healthcare is a social policy, but you're discussion of it is only dealing with the economic side of it.

I will again ask: How are Obama's social policies similar to those of fascist social policies?

I just explained this...

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

But just because somebody has some economic principles that match up with fascism DOES NOT mean that they are fascist!  You need more than just economics!

And you have not explained how Obama's health care reform is a fascist social policy.

It's also worth noting that alot of the economic action was taken because of the social views of Nazi Germany. The inherently racist bent to Hitler's Germany influenced their efforts in education, in the workplace, and in health. Failing to take this into account when talking about what action they did take in the economy is frustrating me beyond belief.

And that's why racism/ethnicism is a CORE tenet of fascism - which is what I've been saying since the beginning.

And you've been wrong on that issue since the beginning. 'Racism/ethnicism' is NOT a core tenet of fascism, period. I don't know why you're pushing a point that's so blatantly wrong. Racism was a tool used by Hitler toward achieving his particular goals; it is not by any means a necessary component of fascism.

Whose definition of fascism are you using?  You do realize that fascism as a whole has expanded from just the Italian fascism of the early/mid 1900s, right (otherwise, fascism wouldn't even exist anymore)?

The basic definition of fascism, certainly using Mussolini's Italy as the model. The definition hasn't changed.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Healthcare is a social policy, but you're discussion of it is only dealing with the economic side of it.

I will again ask: How are Obama's social policies similar to those of fascist social policies?

I just explained this...

No you didn't.  You said used healthcare as an example and talked about the economic impacts of Obama's health care reform.

So, since you apparently can't do it with health care, use another social policy.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

But just because somebody has some economic principles that match up with fascism DOES NOT mean that they are fascist!  You need more than just economics!

And you have not explained how Obama's health care reform is a fascist social policy.

It's also worth noting that alot of the economic action was taken because of the social views of Nazi Germany. The inherently racist bent to Hitler's Germany influenced their efforts in education, in the workplace, and in health. Failing to take this into account when talking about what action they did take in the economy is frustrating me beyond belief.

And that's why racism/ethnicism is a CORE tenet of fascism - which is what I've been saying since the beginning.

And you've been wrong on that issue since the beginning. 'Racism/ethnicism' is NOT a core tenet of fascism, period. I don't know why you're pushing a point that's so blatantly wrong. Racism was a tool used by Hitler toward achieving his particular goals; it is not by any means a necessary component of fascism.

Whose definition of fascism are you using?  You do realize that fascism as a whole has expanded from just the Italian fascism of the early/mid 1900s, right (otherwise, fascism wouldn't even exist anymore)?

The basic definition of fascism, certainly using Mussolini's Italy as the model. The definition hasn't changed.

But fascism has evolved since Mussolini.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Healthcare is a social policy, but you're discussion of it is only dealing with the economic side of it.

I will again ask: How are Obama's social policies similar to those of fascist social policies?

I just explained this...

No you didn't.  You said used healthcare as an example and talked about the economic impacts of Obama's health care reform.

So, since you apparently can't do it with health care, use another social policy.

You can't draw a strict line between social and economic policies. The two are intertwined and affect each other greatly.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I realize that.  But so far, you have only talked about the economic impacts.  I'm asking you to talk about policies from the social aspect, not the economic aspect, and you have failed to do so.

So, I will ask yet again, discuss Obama's fascist tendencies from a SOCIAL policy point of view.

[Sewer]

Shut up guys.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Shut up guys.

We're having a discussion - what do you care?

[Sewer]

We're having a discussion

You just say the same thing over and over.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

We're having a discussion

You just say the same thing over and over.

So don't read the thread if you don't want to.

[Derek]

This is off topic I think on page 6 I gave the reasons as to why it may happen.

[Franzl]

I just wasted too much of my life reading this.

[Mechaman]

I just wasted too much of my life reading this.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A fascist would consider the people to belong to the state.

Not so. Fascist 'ideology' in opposition was usually very anti-state, largely on the grounds that it did not reflect their, bizarre and racialised, concept of the 'the people'. This wasn't the case when they were actually in government anywhere, but they usually claimed that this was because they had led a revolution. In Nazi Germany the original state apparatus was actually undermined in almost all areas by rival (often multiple rival) parta y structures. The idea that fascism was a state-worshiping ideology is a Cold War myth.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

And the Tea Partiers aren't fascist.

I don't use the word lightly....but they're certainly the closest to a fascist movement the U.S. has had in a long time.

Misleading language, as they are not even remotely close despite being the "closest".

And by the way (not directed at you specifically, Franzl), fascism is not necessarily right-wing. Hitler nationalized industry after all.

Yeah they're so fascistic the Libertarian Party promoted them from the beginning.

The tea party uses fascist tactics, but in the end they might simply be authoritarian instead of fascist. I on the other hand know a lot about fascism in a philosophical and psychological sense. One of the key elements of identifying a fascist movement is looking at how the movement acts towards their opponent(it is crucial that they have one,or create one), and how they respond to criticism. For example both the tea party and the nazi movement have something in common with labeling/attacking their oppent in order to gain support. For example the Nazi's labeled anyone who was a detractor as a jew/socialist/communist in order to build support, and tea party members often do the same thing when they call someone a socialist. To both groups it does not matter wether or not the person is a socialist or not,but it instead it just simply matters that members have an opponent that they can hate, and attack. Thus both the tea-baggers and nazi's often rally support by creating something that they can attack and be aggressive towards.

It is also important to note how a movement will respond to criticism. For example in the authoritarian personality it is noted that right-wing extremists, fundamentalists, and nazi's often become defense aggressive when they were criticized. For example if I point out to a tea-bagger that I disagree with their tactics, and suggest that they should become more civil, they may either call be a socialist or justify their actions because of socialism.

In the end if anyone is interested in fascism I would be delighted to answer any questions. Secondly is anyone familiar with karl poppers understanding of fascism? I am curious  because I here he had some interesting views that broke with the traditional Epistemology behind the subject.

[Mint]

Every movement has misguided loudmouths who don't understand that shouting your opponent down makes you look bad. That in itself doesn't actually mean anything. Unless you're going to say some of the people at the anti-War protests several years ago (and still, but to a lesser extent) were 'fascist' in their tactics too. The closest to 'fascist' leadership this country has had the last few decades IMO is pretty much Bush and even then I would say it was hyperbole and totally inappropriate to call him one.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Every movement has misguided loudmouths who don't understand that shouting your opponent down makes you look bad. That in itself doesn't actually mean anything. Unless you're going to say some of the people at the anti-War protests several years ago (and still, but to a lesser extent) were 'fascist' in their tactics too. The closest to 'fascist' leadership this country has had the last few decades IMO is pretty much Bush and even then I would say it was hyperbole and totally inappropriate to call him one.

//Every movement has misguided loudmouths who don't understand that shouting your opponent down makes you look bad.//
well obviously, but the tea-baggers will often use signs as well to convey their hateful messages. Secondly the action in itself may be uncivil, but more importantly if the result of the action helps to rally their troops I would find it a little disturbing. Gaining support through tactics of aggression, and purposely directed hate is the foundation on which fascism is built upon.

//That in itself doesn't actually mean anything. Unless you're going to say some of the people at the anti-War protests several years ago//
Then perhaps some of the war protestors did have some kind of fascist element within them? I wouldn't be surprised.

Finally I also forgot to mention the anti-progressive/modernist/cultural superiority  stance that both the nazi's and tea baggers have in common. Obviously this is only one element of the tea party, but this element of the tea party is heavily supported and could easily gain control and become the entire movement. Thus I am hoping that particular non-fascist elements of the tea party not only condemn the fascist element,but also realize that the formation of a political syllogism is best expressed in a progressive manner instead of negative, and hateful tone. Thus the tea party may in fact be on the verge of becoming the fascist party in america,but if the economy continues improving than things might potentially change.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

A fascist would consider the people to belong to the state.

Not so. Fascist 'ideology' in opposition was usually very anti-state, largely on the grounds that it did not reflect their, bizarre and racialised, concept of the 'the people'. This wasn't the case when they were actually in government anywhere, but they usually claimed that this was because they had led a revolution. In Nazi Germany the original state apparatus was actually undermined in almost all areas by rival (often multiple rival) parta y structures. The idea that fascism was a state-worshiping ideology is a Cold War myth.

Right, so Mussolini's The Doctrine of Fascism must have been Cold War propaganda.



7. Against individualism, the Fascist conception is for the State; and it is for the individual in so far as he coincides with the State, which is the conscience and universal will of man in his historical existence. It is opposed to classical Liberalism, which arose from the necessity of reacting against absolutism, and which brought its historical purpose to an end when the State was transformed into the conscience and will of the people. Liberalism denied the State in the interests of the particular individual; Fascism reaffirms the State as the true reality of the individual. And if liberty is to be the attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract puppet envisaged by individualistic Liberalism, Fascism is for liberty. And for the only liberty which can be a real thing, the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is in the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value, outside the State. In this sense Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State, the synthesis and unity of all values, interprets, develops and gives strength to the whole life of the people.

8. Outside the State there can be neither individuals nor groups (political parties, associations, syndicates, classes). Therefore Fascism is opposed to Socialism, which confines the movement of history within the class struggle and ignores the unity of classes established in one economic and moral reality in the State; and analogously it is opposed to class syndicalism. Fascism recognizes the real exigencies for which the socialist and syndicalist movement arose, but while recognizing them wishes to bring them under the control of the State and give them purpose within the corporative system of interests reconciled within the unity of the State.

9. Individuals form classes according to the similarity of their interests, they form syndicates according to differentiated economic activities within these interests; but they form first, and above all, the State,which is not to be thought of numerically as the sum-total of individuals forming the majority of a nation. And consequently Fascism is opposed to Democracy, which equates the nation to the majority, lowering it to the level of that majority; nevertheless it is the purest form of democracy if the nation is conceived, as it should be, qualitatively and not quantitatively, as the most powerful idea (most powerful because most moral, most coherent, most true) which acts within the nation as the conscience and the will of a few, even of One, which ideal tends to become active within the conscience and the will of all -- that is to say, of all those who rightly constitute a nation by reason of nature, history or race, and have set out upon the same line of development and spiritual formation as one conscience and one sole will. Not a race, nor a geographically determined region, but a community historically perpetuating itself, a multitude unified by a single idea, which is the will to existence and to power: consciousness of itself, personality.

10. This higher personality is truly the nation in so far as it is the State. It is not the nation that generates the State, as according to the old naturalistic concept which served as the basis of the political theories of the national States of the nineteenth century. Rather the nation is created by the State, which gives to the people, conscious its own moral unity, a will and therefore an effective existence. The right of a nation to independence derives not from a literary and ideal consciousness of its own being, still less from a more or less unconscious and inert acceptance of a de facto situation, but from an active consciousness, from a political will in action and ready to demonstrate its own rights: that is to say from a state already coming into being. The State, in fact, as the universal ethical will, is the creator of right.

11. The nation as the State is an ethical reality which exists and lives in so far as it develops. To arrest its development is to kill it. Therefore the State is not only the authority which governs and gives the form of laws and the value of spiritual life to the wills of individuals, but it is also a power that makes its will felt abroad, making it known and respected, in other words, demonstrating the fact of its universality in all the necessary directions of its development. It is consequently organization and expansion, at least virtually. Thus it can be likened to the human will which knows no limits to its development and realizes itself in testing its own limitlessness.

12. The Fascist State, the highest and most powerful form of personality, is a force, but a spiritual force, which takes over all the forms of the moral and intellectual life of man. It cannot therefore confine itself simply to the functions of order and supervision as Liberalism desired. It is not simply a mechanism which limits the sphere of the supposed liberties of the individual. It is the form, the inner standard and the discipline of the whole person; it saturates the will as well as the intelligence. Its principle, the central inspiration of the human personality living in the civil community, pierces into the depths and makes its home in the heart of the man of action as well as of the thinker, of the artist as well as of the scientist: it is the soul of the soul.

...

10. The keystone of Fascist doctrine is the conception of the State, of its essence, of its tasks, of its ends. For Fascism the State is an absolute before which individuals and groups are relative. Individuals and groups are "thinkable" in so far as they are within the State. The Liberal State does not direct the interplay and the material and spiritual development of the groups, but limits itself to registering the results; the Fascist State has a consciousness of its own, a will of its own, on this account it is called an "ethical" State. In 1929, at the first quinquennial assembly of the regime, I said:

    For Fascism, the State is not the nightwatchman who is concerned only with the personal security of the citizens; nor is it an organization for purely material ends, such as that of guaranteeing a certain degree of prosperity and a relatively peaceful social order, to achieve which a council of administration would be sufficient, nor is it a creation of mere politics with no contact with the material and complex reality of the lives of individuals and the life of peoples. The State, as conceived by Fascism and as it acts, is a spiritual and moral fact because it makes concrete the political, juridical, economic organization of the nation and such an organization is, in its origin and in its development, a manifestation of the spirit. The State is the guarantor of internal and external security, but it is also the guardian and the transmitter of the spirit of the people as it has been elaborated through the centuries in language, custom, faith. The State is not only present, it is also past, and above all future. It is the State which, transcending the brief limit of individual lives, represents the immanent conscience of the nation. The forms in which States express themselves change, but the necessity of the State remains. It is the State which educates citizens for civic virtue, makes them conscious of their mission, calls them to unity; harmonizes their interests in justice; hands on the achievements of thought in the sciences, the arts, in law, in human solidarity; it carries men from the elementary life of the tribe to the highest human expression of power which is Empire; it entrusts to the ages the names of those who died for its integrity or in obedience to its laws; it puts forward as an example and recommends to the generations that are to come the leaders who increased its territory and the men of genius who gave it glory. When the sense of the State declines and the disintegrating and centrifugal tendencies of individuals and groups prevail, national societies move to their decline.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

why should we rely on what Mussolini wrote(probably ghost written)? many of the things he wrote are interchangeable across ideologies?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well, no. But it was written in 1932.

EDIT: regardless, it's a mistake to analyse ideological tracts when looking at fascism; in part because there just aren't many, but also because they tended to be mindlessly vapid, largely a collection of slurs on other ideologies and justifications for whatever the fascist organisation in question was doing at the time. A violence-and-action fetish and an obsession with national decline-and-rebirth were (are, whatever) more important than attitudes to the 'state' (complicated *anyway* as not everyone agrees on the meaning of 'the state').

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Well, no. But it was written in 1932.

EDIT: regardless, it's a mistake to analyse ideological tracts when looking at fascism; in part because there just aren't many, but also because they tended to be mindlessly vapid, largely a collection of slurs on other ideologies and justifications for whatever the fascist organisation in question was doing at the time. A violence-and-action fetish and an obsession with national decline-and-rebirth were (are, whatever) more important than attitudes to the 'state' (complicated *anyway* as not everyone agrees on the meaning of 'the state').

wow that is a very good definition of fascism and shows that your approach to history may involve the field of meta history.

Finally socioeconomic collapse may or may not happen in our life time,but it has happened a lot in history. In the end we could all speculate what the results of a socioeconomic collapse, but since so much of this involves guess work than it wouldn't be to far to assume that a socioeconomic collapse could lead to a utopia.