Fascism - Why...

[fantome profane]

I disagree! Rejecting one democratic process does not mean you reject all democratic processes.

No it doesn't. Using violence does.


Unless you think violence is just another form of democracy. (It isn't).

 

[Kfox]

No it doesn't. Using violence does.


Unless you think violence is just another form of democracy. (It isn't).

Again; using violence to reject a democratic process does not mean you default to fascism.

 

[fantome profane]

Again; using violence to reject a democratic process does not mean you default to fascism.

Again, no it doesn't. Using violence that way means you are rejecting democracy.

 

[Unfettered]

Violence, suppression of dissent, and coercion are the hallmarks of hierarchical, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, not égalitarian, democratic societies.

There are/were several, high profile countries claiming to be socialist or communist: The USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, China, Cuba, &c. These were authoritarian, hierarchical, coercive, and questionably democratic. They were hardly "worker's paradises' or "Peoples Republics." They were everything Socialist philosophy opposed.

But the right-wing in the US capitalized on the name, with Red Scares, removal of socialist curricula and professors from universities, and a massive, well funded, anti-communist publicity campaign.
To this day, the average Joe knows little or nothing about socialism or socialist history, or any political theory, for that matter.

I'll have to claim ignorance here, as well, I guess. I don't know of any non-authoritarian societies that practiced, or practice, socialism where individuals were free to reject and withdraw from the practice. Can you name one or two so I may better understand what you're describing?

 

[Kfox]

Again, no it doesn't. Using violence that way means you are rejecting democracy.

Okay; let me put it a different way
Years ago in the Jim Crow South, they enacted "literacy tests" that required anyone wishing to vote must take that test first and pass it. The test for white people was very easy; anybody could pass it; but the test for black people was extremely difficult. This was to prevent black people from voting.
Black people protested the enactment of this practice because they found it unfair and eventually such tests were outlawed. Though violence didn't result, if it did; would you claim those black people reacting to this practice were rejecting democracy?

 

[fantome profane]

Okay; let me put it a different way
Years ago in the Jim Crow South, they enacted "literacy tests" that required anyone wishing to vote must take that test first and pass it. The test for white people was very easy; anybody could pass it; but the test for black people was extremely difficult. This was to prevent black people from voting.
Black people protested the enactment of this practice because they found it unfair and eventually such tests were outlawed. Though violence didn't result, if it did; would you claim those black people reacting to this practice were rejecting democracy?

If they attacked the capital and tried to replace the government, yes.

 

[Valjean]

Let's not exaggerate...let's be honest with history.
when Teddy Bear Roosevelt was president, Mussolini was in prison for defending the farm workers' rights in Predappio. For striking with them.
So...there's an unfathomable difference between élites and Freemasons and dictatorial leaders fighting for the proletariat's rights.

Yes, he began his career as a Socialist, but later did quite a volte-face, to subsume individual freedom of conscience, action and choice into that of The State.

 

[Valjean]

Unless they believed their guy actually won, but was cheated by the other guy to trick everybody into believing he lost.

And if you're unwilling to accept the preponderance of evidence against this illegitimacy, perhaps the country would be better off without your vote.

 

[Kfox]

If they attacked the capital and tried to replace the government, yes.

How about if they only attacked the capital, but made no attempt to relace the government?

 

[Kfox]

And if you're unwilling to accept the preponderance of evidence against this illegitimacy, perhaps the country would be better off without your vote.

What evidence was avaliable at that time? And even if they were proven wrong at that time, does that mean they want a dictator?

 

[fantome profane]

How about if they only attacked the capital, but made no attempt to relace the government?

Why is this question relevant?

 

[Kfox]

Why is this question relevant?

Because the people who attacked the capital made no attempt to replace the government.

 

[fantome profane]

Because the people who attacked the capital made no attempt to replace the government.

I am not going to play this game with you. This was an insurrection, and attempt to overthrow the government, it was one part of a political coup and a conspiracy for sedition. They were using violence to prevent the democratic transfer of power.

Those are the facts of the situation, proven in a court of law with evidence.

 

[Valjean]

I'll have to claim ignorance here, as well, I guess. I don't know of any non-authoritarian societies that practiced, or practice, socialism where individuals were free to reject and withdraw from the practice. Can you name one or two so I may better understand what you're describing?

Good point. Any time a co-operative economy threatens the hiercharchy of the rich and powerful, it is suppressed or destroyed.
The Catalan republic looked promising, but Franco put an end to that.
There remain numerous small socialist communities, like the Bruderhofs or Hutterites, as well as many intentional, communal communities. There are also large co-operative corporations, like Mondragon in Spain, that manage not to threaten The State.

 

[Unfettered]

Good point. Any time a co-operative economy threatens the hiercharchy of the rich and powerful, it is suppressed or destroyed.
The Catalan republic looked promising, but Franco put an end to that.
There remain numerous small socialist communities, like the Bruderhofs or Hutterites, as well as many intentional, communal communities. There are also large co-operative corporations, like Mondragon in Spain, that manage not to threaten The State.

OK. I see what you're talking about. So let me go back to my first post in this thread and see how I would modify it to make it more clear...

"[When yoked to or stemming from systems of government and taxation, communists and socialists are equally dangerous as their fascist counterparts.] Each is about control. Each wants to appropriate either a portion of the rights of the people, or all of them. Anyone who fixates on any of these [political] 'isms' without condemning them all is enabling the contraction of human and civil rights. IE, that person is part of the problem. The path forward has always been to judge and vote and act from the basis of a conscience free of political entanglements. Judge and vote and act on the basis of rights and their protection; history has shown that this is the only reasonable path to liberty and peace."

 

[Estro Felino]

Yes, he began his career as a Socialist, but later did quite a volte-face, to subsume individual freedom of conscience, action and choice into that of The State.

Considering that he expropriated the lands from the rich to give them to the poor, he seems very Robin Hood-like...to me.
Do you know who was fascist to the bone? Francisco Franco.

 

[Estro Felino]

I don't want to discuss this controversy, because no matter what you do, good or bad, they label you as a fascist. If it were up to me, I would abolish this word. In this historical moment, what does that word mean? It has no meaning. Fascism was that thing, in those 20 years. And whenever they tell me: "I wish your grandfather came back". First, my grandfather will never come back. And then, if he did, he would be another man, because the world has changed, Everything has changed. We should use other words. Italian is beautiful because it has so many words.

 

[Kfox]

I am not going to play this game with you. This was an insurrection, and attempt to overthrow the government, it was one part of a political coup and a conspiracy for sedition. They were using violence to prevent the democratic transfer of power.

Those are the facts of the situation, proven in a court of law with evidence.

Those are our opinions which was not proven in a court of law.

 

[Unfettered]

I don't want to discuss this controversy, because no matter what you do, good or bad, they label you as a fascist. If it were up to me, I would abolish this word. In this historical moment, what does that word mean? It has no meaning. Fascism was that thing, in those 20 years. And whenever they tell me: "I wish your grandfather came back". First, my grandfather will never come back. And then, if he did, he would be another man, because the world has changed, Everything has changed. We should use other words. Italian is beautiful because it has so many words.

I understand what [she's] saying. For my part, I would not abolish the word because the ideals that were championed, that gave the word significance during those 20 years, still have relevance in our world. However, I agree that the word is stripped of its potency with overuse, careless or ignorant use, or misapplication. Clearly, those scenarios are common, or [she] wouldn't be wishing for the word's abolishment.

Perhaps our challenge will always have to be to come to understand why someone applies the word; there may be good reason; there may not be. The word may not always apply perfectly to a contemporary faction or individual, but that does not necessarily mean that it can't be applied at all. If the shoe fits at all, it does fit somewhat. Speaking generally here.

 

[Estro Felino]

I understand what you're saying. For my part, I would not abolish the word because the ideals that were championed, that gave the word significance during those 20 years, still have relevance in our world. However, I agree that the word is stripped of its potency with overuse, careless or ignorant use, or misapplication. Clearly, those scenarios are common, or you wouldn't be wishing for the word's abolishment.

Perhaps our challenge will always have to be to come to understand why someone applies the word; there may be good reason; there may not be. The word may not always apply perfectly to a contemporary faction or individual, but that does not necessarily mean that it can't be applied at all. If the shoe fits at all, it does fit somewhat. Speaking generally here.

Yes. I was quoting the lady of the video, Edda Negri Mussolini.