Fascisme of Today?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
1

who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

2

[quote]florelius wrote:
who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

[/quote]

Well the intellectual heirs are social democrates aka liberals.

Granted, they are to fascism as the Anglican Church is to the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe it will collapse without too much violence.

If you are just looking for a collecticist ideology that picks up the slack, my money is on religion.

3

i don’t know who are today’s fascists, but i’m pretty sure radical environmentalists could became tommorow’s fascists.

some of them want nothing less than destroy 8000 years of history, and then build a brand new world. sound pretty totalitarian to me.

4

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

[/quote]

Well the intellectual heirs are social democrates aka liberals.

Granted, they are to fascism as the Anglican Church is to the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe it will collapse without too much violence.

If you are just looking for a collecticist ideology that picks up the slack, my money is on religion.

[/quote]

socialliberalisme( liberals ) is close to fascisme when it comes to economy ( they both wants a mixedeconomy ) and both mussolini( father of fascisme ) and j.s.mill( importent to socialliberals ) both where afraid of classtyranny and wanted a constitution who made that impossible. but socialliberals are not militarists as the fascists, and they are not very rasists. ( a socialdemocrat of today are a socialliberal, they are no longer socialist )

In my country a selfclaimed classical-liberalist party is whats closest to a possible hatefest if they get in power. they are anti-labour-union ( an importent part of the old fascist movement ), they have a wiew on non-western people thats close to rasisme, and they want a mixed economy ( but so do all partys in my country ). The american counterpart is the socialconservative part of the teaparty and the republican party.

well thats my wiew.

5

How about fascists are fascist.

6

[quote]kamui wrote:
i don’t know who are today’s fascists, but i’m pretty sure radical environnementalists could became tommorow’s fascists.

some of them want nothing less than destroy 8000 years of history, and then build a brand new world. sound pretty totalitarian to me.
[/quote]

some greenpeople( lets call them greenpeople its shorter:P ), can be extremly misantrophic. some have sad to me that the only way to beat the global warming, is by killing 75% of the population. but those are the extreme ones and they are not that many.

but yes they can become a totalitarian group.

7

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

8

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

[/quote]

Which definition?

9

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

[/quote]

Which definition?

[/quote]

Yours.

Or else fascists are fascists is a rather redundant and meaningless statement.

Trees are trees.

So there.

10

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

[/quote]

Well the intellectual heirs are social democrates aka liberals.

Granted, they are to fascism as the Anglican Church is to the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe it will collapse without too much violence.

If you are just looking for a collecticist ideology that picks up the slack, my money is on religion.

[/quote]

socialliberalisme( liberals ) is close to fascisme when it comes to economy ( they both wants a mixedeconomy ) and both mussolini( father of fascisme ) and j.s.mill( importent to socialliberals ) both where afraid of classtyranny and wanted a constitution who made that impossible. but socialliberals are not militarists as the fascists, and they are not very rasists. ( a socialdemocrat of today are a socialliberal, they are no longer socialist )

In my country a selfclaimed classical-liberalist party is whats closest to a possible hatefest if they get in power. they are anti-labour-union ( an importent part of the old fascist movement ), they have a wiew on non-western people thats close to rasisme, and they want a mixed economy ( but so do all partys in my country ). The american counterpart is the socialconservative part of the teaparty and the republican party.

well thats my wiew.[/quote]

I wouldn’t call fascism a mixed economy. Everything was 100% controlled by the government. They essentially preserved some of the existing corporate structure and incorporated it into the government. Plus, when you look at it that way, you can really see the correlation to modern “progressives”.

It also depends on what you are talking about when you say “militarism”. Establishing global governing authorities is a form conquering sovereign authorities. Today it’s just political warfare.

Lastly, avoid commenting on the tea party if you don’t know anything about it.

11

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

[/quote]

Which definition?

[/quote]

Yours.

Or else fascists are fascists is a rather redundant and meaningless statement.

Trees are trees.

So there.

[/quote]

My take is that the only truth of fascism is a 100% totalitarian dictator who pursues the ideals of Marxism in the way they see best. Other than that, most other traits of fascism seem pretty fluid.

A more modern definition would translate to “something in politics that I disagree with”.

12

[quote]orion wrote:

Or else fascists are fascists is a rather redundant and meaningless statement.

[/quote]

Political ideologies aren’t trees.

13

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

but do the people who have nazi tatoos today represent the same socialforce as the old fascists or the old nazis? or is there other political movements that repressent “fascisme” today?

fascisme is just a term, so are socialists and liberalism. but there are liberalist that push for socialist reforms, and there are socialists who push for liberalist reform. what make you a liberalist, socialist or a fascist? is wich label you choose or is it your actions?

or. what is most important of form and content

14

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“something in politics that I disagree with”.[/quote]

If I am to be forced to offer a definition, this would be it.

15

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

[/quote]

Which definition?

[/quote]

Yours.

Or else fascists are fascists is a rather redundant and meaningless statement.

Trees are trees.

So there.

[/quote]

My take is that the only truth of fascism is a 100% totalitarian dictator who pursues the ideals of Marxism in the way they see best. Other than that, most other traits of fascism seem pretty fluid.

A more modern definition would translate to “something in politics that I disagree with”.[/quote]

marxisme and fascisme are not the same. I dont know why I have to point that out.

but there are similaritys beetwen the stalinist sovjet and the fascist regimes.

to point some similaritys out: both where totalitarian and militarist.

but the marxist partys during the first world war where antimilitarist and internationalist. one of the reasons musolini stopped being a marxist, and become a fascist. and the fascists where militaristic and nationalist.

16

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

[/quote]

Well the intellectual heirs are social democrates aka liberals.

Granted, they are to fascism as the Anglican Church is to the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe it will collapse without too much violence.

If you are just looking for a collecticist ideology that picks up the slack, my money is on religion.

[/quote]

socialliberalisme( liberals ) is close to fascisme when it comes to economy ( they both wants a mixedeconomy ) and both mussolini( father of fascisme ) and j.s.mill( importent to socialliberals ) both where afraid of classtyranny and wanted a constitution who made that impossible. but socialliberals are not militarists as the fascists, and they are not very rasists. ( a socialdemocrat of today are a socialliberal, they are no longer socialist )

In my country a selfclaimed classical-liberalist party is whats closest to a possible hatefest if they get in power. they are anti-labour-union ( an importent part of the old fascist movement ), they have a wiew on non-western people thats close to rasisme, and they want a mixed economy ( but so do all partys in my country ). The american counterpart is the socialconservative part of the teaparty and the republican party.

well thats my wiew.[/quote]

I wouldn’t call fascism a mixed economy. Everything was 100% controlled by the government. They essentially preserved some of the existing corporate structure and incorporated it into the government. Plus, when you look at it that way, you can really see the correlation to modern “progressives”.

It also depends on what you are talking about when you say “militarism”. Establishing global governing authorities is a form conquering sovereign authorities. Today it’s just political warfare.

Lastly, avoid commenting on the tea party if you don’t know anything about it.[/quote]

  1. militarisme is being in favor of attcking other countrys as an example, an antimilitarist is by principle against attacking another country. ron paul is a antimilitarist. bush is a militarist.

  2. my point about the teaparty/republicans, is that the movement is similar to the movement in my country thats called “The progressiv party”. in norwegian its called “fremskrittspartiet”.

17

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

[/quote]

Which definition?

[/quote]

Yours.

Or else fascists are fascists is a rather redundant and meaningless statement.

Trees are trees.

So there.

[/quote]

My take is that the only truth of fascism is a 100% totalitarian dictator who pursues the ideals of Marxism in the way they see best. Other than that, most other traits of fascism seem pretty fluid.

A more modern definition would translate to “something in politics that I disagree with”.[/quote]

marxisme and fascisme are not the same. I dont know why I have to point that out.

but there are similaritys beetwen the stalinist sovjet and the fascist regimes.

to point some similaritys out: both where totalitarian and militarist.

but the marxist partys during the first world war where antimilitarist and internationalist. one of the reasons musolini stopped being a marxist, and become a fascist. and the fascists where militaristic and nationalist.

[/quote]

No. You are the one confusing communist and Marxist. By saying they pursued Marxism in their own way, I was not saying they were communist (like Russia). I agree that there are differences between communism and fascism. However, they are both descendants of Marxism And both communism and fascism were in pursuit of the Marxist ideals, they just went about it different ways.

18

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
who are the fascist of today? or in other words: who represent the same anti-humanist socialforce as the fascists/nazists of 1920-1945.

I am not talking about people who call themself fascists or neo-nazists. because they are today a supersmall group. I am talking about who among those political movements who are popular among alot of people. wich movement can become the next orgie of rasisme, totalitarianisme and militarisme. Is it the extremist-muslims, the conservatives, the socialliberals or the radical left?

enjoy…

[/quote]

Well the intellectual heirs are social democrates aka liberals.

Granted, they are to fascism as the Anglican Church is to the Spanish Inquisition, so maybe it will collapse without too much violence.

If you are just looking for a collecticist ideology that picks up the slack, my money is on religion.

[/quote]

socialliberalisme( liberals ) is close to fascisme when it comes to economy ( they both wants a mixedeconomy ) and both mussolini( father of fascisme ) and j.s.mill( importent to socialliberals ) both where afraid of classtyranny and wanted a constitution who made that impossible. but socialliberals are not militarists as the fascists, and they are not very rasists. ( a socialdemocrat of today are a socialliberal, they are no longer socialist )

In my country a selfclaimed classical-liberalist party is whats closest to a possible hatefest if they get in power. they are anti-labour-union ( an importent part of the old fascist movement ), they have a wiew on non-western people thats close to rasisme, and they want a mixed economy ( but so do all partys in my country ). The american counterpart is the socialconservative part of the teaparty and the republican party.

well thats my wiew.[/quote]

I wouldn’t call fascism a mixed economy. Everything was 100% controlled by the government. They essentially preserved some of the existing corporate structure and incorporated it into the government. Plus, when you look at it that way, you can really see the correlation to modern “progressives”.

It also depends on what you are talking about when you say “militarism”. Establishing global governing authorities is a form conquering sovereign authorities. Today it’s just political warfare.

Lastly, avoid commenting on the tea party if you don’t know anything about it.[/quote]

  1. militarisme is being in favor of attcking other countrys as an example, an antimilitarist is by principle against attacking another country. ron paul is a antimilitarist. bush is a militarist.

[/quote]
And I’m saying political warfare is the new militarism.

And you likened them to racists.

19

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
And you likened them to racists.[/quote]

You don’t feel as bad turning your political opponents into political prisoners if they’re RACISTS (note: ‘racists’ said with a spooky and diabolical voice). Even if you have to stretch the truth a little. Ok, to the breaking point.

20

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How about fascists are fascist.[/quote]

Define fascism.

[/quote]

Which definition?

[/quote]

Yours.

Or else fascists are fascists is a rather redundant and meaningless statement.

Trees are trees.

So there.

[/quote]

My take is that the only truth of fascism is a 100% totalitarian dictator who pursues the ideals of Marxism in the way they see best. Other than that, most other traits of fascism seem pretty fluid.

A more modern definition would translate to “something in politics that I disagree with”.[/quote]

marxisme and fascisme are not the same. I dont know why I have to point that out.

but there are similaritys beetwen the stalinist sovjet and the fascist regimes.

to point some similaritys out: both where totalitarian and militarist.

but the marxist partys during the first world war where antimilitarist and internationalist. one of the reasons musolini stopped being a marxist, and become a fascist. and the fascists where militaristic and nationalist.

[/quote]

No. You are the one confusing communist and Marxist. By saying they pursued Marxism in their own way, I was not saying they were communist (like Russia). I agree that there are differences between communism and fascism. However, they are both descendants of Marxism And both communism and fascism were in pursuit of the Marxist ideals, they just went about it different ways.[/quote]

am I. fascisme is not buildt on marxist ideals. let me point out a marxist goals.

normative marxist goals for the society:

1: it should be classless.

2: there should be no private property.

3: there should be no state.

fascist goals and princips for the society.

1: there should be no classwar, but classes are ok.

2: the nationalstate is the most importent thing in society, individual and class interrest
are less importent.

3: privat property is ok.

you see there is a huge differens beetwen marxisme and fascisme. but the descriptive doctrin of lenin has many similaritys to fascisme. or in other words: a socialist one party state is similar to an fascist on party state.