Fascism - Why...

[fantome profane]

Those were Trumps actions; which had nothing to do with the people who stormed the Capital

That is absurd.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We don't! Most people don't know what the original Fascist Manifesto contained. Today it seems everyone other than one's own political hero's is a "Fascist"!

So, lets look at the elements of the actual Fascist Manifesto that originated the term! and see which party favors more of it's elements.

Contents of the Fascist Manifesto​

The Manifesto (published in Il Popolo d'Italia on June 6, 1919) is divided into four sections, describing the movement's objectives in political, social, military and financial fields.[2]

Politically, the Manifesto calls for:

• Universal suffrage with a lowered voting age to 18 years, and voting and electoral office eligibility for all ages 25 and up;
• Proportional representation on a regional basis;
• Voting for women;
• Representation at government level of newly created national councils by economic sector;
• The abolition of the Italian Senate (at the time, the Senate, as the upper house of parliament, was by process elected by the wealthier citizens, but were in reality direct appointments by the king. It has been described as a sort of extended council of the crown);
• The formation of a national council of experts for labor, for industry, for transportation, for the public health, for communications, etc. Selections to be made of professionals or of tradesmen with legislative powers, and elected directly to a general commission with ministerial powers.

In labor and social policy, the Manifesto calls for:

• The quick enactment of a law of the state that sanctions an eight-hour workday for all workers;
• A minimum wage;
• The participation of workers' representatives in the functions of industry commissions;
• To show the same confidence in the labor unions (that prove to be technically and morally worthy) as is given to industry executives or public servants;
• Reorganization of the railways and the public transport sector;
• Revision of the draft law on invalidity insurance;
• Reduction of the retirement age from 65 to 55.

In military affairs, the Manifesto advocates:

• Creation of a short-service national militia with specifically defensive responsibilities;
• Armaments factories are to be nationalized;
• A peaceful but competitive foreign policy.

In finance, the Manifesto advocates:

• A strong extraordinary tax on capital of a progressive nature, which takes the form of true partial expropriation of all wealth;
• The seizure of all the possessions of the religious congregations and the abolition of all the bishoprics, which constitute an enormous liability on the Nation and on the privileges of the poor;
• Revision of all contracts for military provisions;
• The revision of all military contracts and the seizure of 85 percent of the profits therein.

These early positions reflected in the Manifesto would later be characterized by Mussolini in "The Doctrine of Fascism" as "a series of pointers, forecasts, hints which, when freed from the inevitable matrix of contingencies, were to develop in a few years time into a series of doctrinal positions entitling Fascism to rank as a political doctrine differing from all others, past or present."[3]

The Manifesto in practice​

Of the Manifesto's proposals, the commitment to corporative organisation of economic interests was to be the longest lasting. Far from becoming a medium of extended democracy, parliament became by law an exclusively Fascist-picked body in 1929; being replaced by the "chamber of corporations" a decade later.

Fascism's pacifist foreign policy ceased during its first year of Italian government. In September 1923, the Corfu crisis demonstrated the regime's willingness to use force internationally. Perhaps the greatest success of Fascist diplomacy was the Lateran Treaty of February 1929, which accepted the principle of non-interference in the affairs of the Church. This ended the 59-year-old dispute between Italy and the Papacy.

I am surprised that you suggest that such "manifestos" are truly representative of the governments that they spawn. After all, the Declaration of Independence declared with unwavering clarity that "all men are created equal," with the inalienable right to "life, liberty and the happiness of pursuit," and promptly enslaved millions of them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If nobody cheated on that day of 2020, fine. But if they did, God knows that and will hold them accountable, when they die.
He saw them. The Supreme Judge saw their crimes. Even if they deny them.

If you truly believe that, what on earth are you doing in the judicial system? Why not take the same attitude to rapists, murderers, child molesters and thieves?

 

[SkepticThinker]

If there were an attempt to install Trump as dictator they would have secured positions, made demands or something, IOW they would have done more than walk around the halls for a few minutes, then leave peacefully without further incident.

I don't see any answer to my question anywhere in there.
How do their actions demonstrate that they support democracy?

They did a lot more than "walk through the halls for a few minutes." Excuse me for saying but you seem quite ignorant as to the events that went down that day and the motivations behind them.

 

[Colt]

I am surprised that you suggest that such "manifestos" are truly representative of the governments that they spawn. After all, the Declaration of Independence declared with unwavering clarity that "all men are created equal," with the inalienable right to "life, liberty and the happiness of pursuit," and promptly enslaved millions of them.

Its the origin of the term.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Its the origin of the term.

If you squint you can probably see how the word terrific—first documented in the 1660s—could mean "frightening." Something terrific filled you with terror; it was literally terrifying. In the mid-18th century, terrific came to mean something great or severe, and by the late 19th century it had morphed into its modern meaning: excellent.

Fascism is no longer defined by its manifesto, but by how it has played out in the real world.

 

[Colt]

If you squint you can probably see how the word terrific—first documented in the 1660s—could mean "frightening." Something terrific filled you with terror; it was literally terrifying. In the mid-18th century, terrific came to mean something great or severe, and by the late 19th century it had morphed into its modern meaning: excellent.

Fascism is no longer defined by its manifesto, but by how it has played out in the real world.

Today people just apply it to popular politicians that they don't like. I just thought it would be interesting to go back to where the term began.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Today people just apply it to popular politicians that they don't like. I just thought it would be interesting to go back to where the term began.

The best-known Fascist leaders in history include Benito Mussolini of Italy, Adolf Hitler of Germany, and Francisco Franco of Spain, as I'm sure you're aware. And how well did their governments -- in your opinion -- accord with the tenets expressed in your manifesto?

Today, based primarily on the history of those governments and leaders, we define Fascism as a far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived good of the nation and race, and strong regimentation of the society and economy.

When we see wanna-be leaders expressing some or even a lot of those characteristics, it is hardly wrong to draw the comparison, and not only because we do not like them.

 

[Secret Chief]

Today people just apply it to popular politicians that they don't like. I just thought it would be interesting to go back to where the term began.

Rubbish. I have a list of politicians that I don't "like" (eg Thatcher and Johnson) but it's nothing to do with fascism.

 

[Colt]

Rubbish. I have a list of politicians that I don't "like" (eg Thatcher and Johnson) but it's nothing to do with fascism.

Then why call Trump fascist? Is it the mean tweets?

 

[Friend of Mara]

It's also in every single instance of socialism, democracy, communism, or republic that we have ever seen. No surprise there!

Except it doesn't.

That is the point the person you were making that I objected to isn't it? You said: " Homophobes don't just "disagree" with homosexuality they disagree with a whole group of people who exist as they are "

Seeing as homosexuality is an intrinsic quality and someone disagrees with homosexuality then it logically follows that a fundamental aspect of a whole group of people at the core of who they are is being disagreed with. If I draw the line between these two any clearer I will run out of ink.

 

[Wandering Monk]

They did a lot more than "walk through the halls for a few minutes." Excuse me for saying but you seem quite ignorant as to the events that went down that day and the motivations behind them.

Despite the hours of footage of the violence (much of it from participants) at the Capitol, Republicans still push the lie that it was peaceful.

 

[Kfox]

I don't see any answer to my question anywhere in there.
How do their actions demonstrate that they support democracy?

Those actions don’t demonstrate support for Democracy. It would also be absurd to suggest those actions represent a significant view of republicans, or even those who voted for Trump.

They did a lot more than "walk through the halls for a few minutes." Excuse me for saying but you seem quite ignorant as to the events that went down that day and the motivations behind them.

So; after they took over the Capital building, what did they do next?

 

[Kfox]

Seeing as homosexuality is an intrinsic quality and someone disagrees with homosexuality then it logically follows that a fundamental aspect of a whole group of people at the core of who they are is being disagreed with. If I draw the line between these two any clearer I will run out of ink.

A. Disagree with homosexuality
B. A fundamental aspect of a whole group of people (homosexuals) at the core of who they are is being disagreed with

How is “A” different than “B”?

 

[Friend of Mara]

A. Disagree with homosexuality
B. A fundamental aspect of a whole group of people (homosexuals) at the core of who they are is being disagreed with

How is “A” different than “B”?

If you are saying one is independent of the other please go for it.

 

[Kfox]

If you are saying one is independent of the other please go for it.

That's not what I said! I asked how is one different than the other; since you are the one who seem to think they are different.

 

[Friend of Mara]

That's not what I said! I asked how is one different than the other; since you are the one who seem to think they are different.

I do not think they are different. One statement extrapolates self evident conclusions from the other but they are the same.

 

[Kfox]

I do not think they are different. One statement extrapolates self evident conclusions from the other but they are the same.

If that's the case, then post #272 does not make sense.

 

[Friend of Mara]

If that's the case, then post #272 does not make sense.

In the case that one extrapolates self evident conclusions from the other? "I picked up groceries" and "I went to the grocery store" are two different statements but they say say the same thing. "I picked up groceries" would be impossible without going to the grocery store. Therefore saying "I went to the grocery store is unnecessary. Likewise to say "I went to the grocery store" implies that you went grocery shopping. Ergo colloquially they could mean the same thing in conversation. We have a similar situation here.
But to clarify for you if you got confused.
They do not MERELY disagree with homosexuality as a concept in the ether. It has further implications that cannot be removed that differentiates it from things such as "disagreeing with political ideology X". In much the same way racism or sexism has implications that are inextricably linked.

The reason it was phrased this way was because @We Never Know had likened them to ideological differences. Thus the phrasing marking the distinguishing marks between them.

 

[Kfox]

In the case that one extrapolates self evident conclusions from the other? "I picked up groceries" and "I went to the grocery store" are two different statements but they say say the same thing. "I picked up groceries" would be impossible without going to the grocery store. Therefore saying "I went to the grocery store is unnecessary. Likewise to say "I went to the grocery store" implies that you went grocery shopping. Ergo colloquially they could mean the same thing in conversation. We have a similar situation here.
But to clarify for you if you got confused.
They do not MERELY disagree with homosexuality as a concept in the ether. It has further implications that cannot be removed that differentiates it from things such as "disagreeing with political ideology X". In much the same way racism or sexism has implications that are inextricably linked.

The reason it was phrased this way was because @We Never Know had likened them to ideological differences. Thus the phrasing marking the distinguishing marks between them.

First you said

Homophobes don't just "disagree" with homosexuality, they disagree with a whole group of people who exist

I asked how is that different, and after being pressed, you admitted they were the same.