Fascism

[Kurgg2]

Why people hate fascism? It's just a political ideology among the others. And it's not that bad as people think. The fascist states have collapsed only when the it's leaders have been put out from the wars (wars, coup d'etats, revolutions). If fascist government faces no threat mentioned above, it would keep ruling the state forever. Life in the fascist state was good generally. I admit that fascism opposes some rights, but what will the rights help when homeland is threated?

National Socialism is not fascism. It's real socialism mixed with racial theory which uses fascist methods of ruling, hence the name. I don't support any kind of nazism.

[Vlerchan]

Why people hate fascism?

Nationalism - It splits the Proletariat
Lots of Fascist are pre-Enlightenment Traditionalists. It tends to be linked to Reactionaries.
Inherent Reactionaryism makes it slow to adapt to new ideas.
I don't appreciate Totalitarianism. I also tend prefer an accountable Government.
Military-Expansionism or Political Isolationism - Take your pick.
Corporatism is a fucking awful Economic programme.

It's also historically been the big reason behind why socialism didn't embed itself in Europe: when capitalism looked threatened capitalist threw their lot in with the Fascists.

If fascist government faces no threat mentioned above, it would keep ruling the state forever.
The problem is that every succession struggle threatens to destroy the nation-state.

And if your Fascist state intends to reign eternally you're going to have a lot of succession struggles.

I admit that fascism opposes some rights, but what will the rights help when homeland is threated?
Historically, the homeland has only ever been threatened after the Fascist leader did something stupid, usually in-line with Fascist thought.

National Socialism is not fascism.
National Socialism is a subset of Fascism.

[phuckphace]

I think it's possible to have National Socialism without the racialist theory or whatever. that's basically what I want to see happen.

it's just one of those terms that has lost most of its original meaning and now carries something approximating evil bigots who want to gas Jews and make women stay at home moms, i.e. a vague villainous caricature of the progressives' enemy of the day.

[Vlerchan]

I think it's possible to have National Socialism without the racialist theory or whatever. that's basically what I want to see happen.
Yeah. Nowadays people who hold your views tend to call themselves 'left-nationalists' or 'third positionists' in a bid to disassociate.

Because, you are right. National Socialism has become synonymous with evil, basically, and labelling yourself such isn't going to win you many fans.

[Kurgg2]

Nationalism - It splits the Proletariat
There will always be nationalism and racism, and no people are going to survive without having it itself. Nationalism will always exist because of a fact that human race is divided into peoples.

Lots of Fascist are pre-Enlightenment Traditionalists. It tends to be linked to Reactionaries.
Inherent Reactionaryism makes it slow to adapt to new ideas.
When a fascist regime gets power in a state, it adopts the ideas and the values that are good for its people and itself
I don't appreciate Totalitarianism. I also tend prefer an accountable Government.
Yeah, a right to vote a idiotic liar to decide about issues of state is necessary.
Corporatism is a fucking awful Economic programme.
How it is? Isn't it common sense that a fisher knows the best what fish industry needs, for example.
The problem is that every succession struggle threatens to destroy the nation-state.

And if your Fascist state intends to reign eternally you're going to have a lot of succession struggles.
True, if there are foreign states/associations keeping the states of enemy alive. Fascist regimes internal enemies have always had support of foreign powers. A state cannot be strong from inside, if it's not strong from outside.
Historically, the homeland has only ever been threatened after the Fascist leader did something stupid, usually in-line with Fascist thought.
How about the internal enemies?

I think it's possible to have National Socialism without the racialist theory or whatever. that's basically what I want to see happen.
I don't think that way. The Nordic/white race and race politics are very important. Everything in National Socialism is linked to the race. You have to change radically the ideology or at least the theory of Nazism.

Nazism without racialism is a great idea, but because the race is so important to the ideology, it cannot exist with the name of National Socialism. Fascism is also in Third Position.

btw, fascism is capitalized only when it is used in context of regime in Italy in 1922-1943

[Vlerchan]

There will always be nationalism and racism[1], and no people are going to survive without having it itself[2]. Nationalism will always exist because of a fact that human race is divided into peoples[3].
[1]: Dubious. I hold that class-ties are more entrenched than national-ties because that's what history has demonstrated. Unless an external, generally government, forces are manipulating events (see: WW1) class-solidarity tends to hold firm.

[2]: The US did. It has no set culture or traditions.

[3]: Dubious, again. I don't even believe that culture as we know it will exist into the next century with globalisation expanding as rapidly as it is.

Yeah, a right to vote a idiotic liar to decide about issues of state is necessary.
Fascism involves supporting an 'idiotic liar' to rule till death and with no accountability. And then whoever wins the power-struggle thereafter.

What has you so confident in the words of Timo Soini (who's not really a Fascist in the traditional sense of the word but makes a decent example)?

How it is? Isn't it common sense that a fisher knows the best what fish industry needs, for example.
Then why do you support the government directing his activities? Because that's what corporatism has entailed every time it's been tried - unofficial nationalization of industry.

Historically, Fascist states that implemented corporatism have also been disproportionately supportive of the employer over the employee.

How about the internal enemies?
I'm only familiar with European and Chilean Fascism. I'm not aware of these states having encountered any major internal problems.

Unless your referring to the Spanish civil war? That's different: the Fascists rose up against the Socialists and not the other way around.

btw, fascism is capitalized only when it is used in context of regime in Italy in 1922-1943
Meh. I tend to capitalise all ideological groupings regardless.

[tovaris]

Because fashism is at its core nationalistic ideologie.

[phuckphace]

Dubious. I hold that class-ties are more entrenched than national-ties because that's what history has demonstrated.

I don't think so. what historical demonstrations are you alluding to?

The US did. It has no set culture or traditions.

and we're rapidly declining into dysfunction and anomie. if anything the US is a demonstration of the importance of maintaining cultural norms and traditions, because without them we're strangers in our own land.

Dubious, again. I don't even believe that culture as we know it will exist into the next century with globalisation expanding as rapidly as it is.

and that sounds like a good thing to you, doesn't it?

the US comes through again as a sobering example. we're essentially a giant strip mall masquerading as a country, the ultimate fate of the world itself if full globalization is ever realized. I can't help but shake the feeling that a lot of globalists see themselves as laying the foundation for Earth to eventually join the United Federation of Planets like in Star Trek. it's both silly and alarmingly naive.

[Vlerchan]

I don't think so. what historical demonstrations are you alluding to?
Let's take Northern Ireland.

During the Great Depression you had Protestants and Catholics banding together in the name of Socialism (and Communism). This was ended when he ruling Unionist party started promoting discriminatory hiring practices in order to get the Protestants in jobs at the expense of Catholics (and at an extension Irish Socialism). During other economic slumps thereafter you'd Catholics and Protestants again banding together in the name of Socialism (though, never on the same scale as during the Great Depression) and the ruling Unionist party (each time) would promote discrimination against Catholics for the benefit of Protestants - and this would kill any attempt at a cross-cultural alliance because. Each time the two distinct cultures looked to come together in some form of reconciliation, recognizing the strength and importance of their class-ties, you'd external forces (the ruling Unionist government) pushing nationalist rhetoric and acting discriminantly in order to part them. This was because it benefited the Unionist - who would have been Northern Ireland's big business party - for class groups to remain divided this way and not be able to a) form a successful bloc against capitalism and b) vote them out in favour of the more socialist-orientated NILP.

Because class-ties are drawn from material foundations (as opposed to national ties - drawn from ideal foundations), class-ties will always persevere unless external forces act.

and that sounds like a good thing to you, doesn't it?
You know me too well.

[Kurgg2]

[1]: Dubious. I hold that class-ties are more entrenched than national-ties because that's what history has demonstrated. Unless an external, generally government, forces are manipulating events (see: WW1) class-solidarity tends to hold firm.

[2]: The US did. It has no set culture or traditions.

[3]: Dubious, again. I don't even believe that culture as we know it will exist into the next century with globalisation expanding as rapidly as it is.
1. If the class-ties are more entrenched that national ones, why there has been wars and hatred because of conflicts of nationality? (see: Bosnian civil war, hatred between Flaams and Walloons.

2. It didn't so it had to create it's own out of immingrants cultures

3. Fascism opposes globalisation. It is a bad thing to happen if people and cultures as we know wanish.


Fascism involves supporting an 'idiotic liar' to rule till death and with no accountability. And then whoever wins the power-struggle thereafter.

What has you so confident in the words of Timo Soini (who's not really a Fascist in the traditional sense of the word but makes a decent example)?


I disagree. A man who gets his power either by revolution or by copu d'etat usually is so intelligent that he will be succesful at leading a country. Even though fascism is totalitarian system, it isn't a conplete dicatorship. Mussolini got fired by the Fascist Council.

I don't support Soini, because he's too soft. Basic Finns ideology is in the right way but it's not the perfect.

1. Then why do you support the government directing his activities? Because that's what corporatism has entailed every time it's been tried - unofficial nationalization of industry.

2. Historically, Fascist states that implemented corporatism have also been disproportionately supportive of the employer over the employee

1. I support corporatism because of the idea of ideology, not because it's practiced in a certain and wrong way. Industry must serve the state in fascist staye, not vice versa. As the motto says: "Everything in the State, Everything for the State, nothing against the State."

2. Even in fascist society, one has opportunity to make his life good. Fascism supports free state-run education. It's only up to student and his skills where he will wound up.

I'm only familiar with European and Chilean Fascism. I'm not aware of these states having encountered any major internal problems.


Even though there aren't any active internal enemies, there will always be someone who is against the government. They might just wait the right time to pop up. Mussolini got killed by partisans, even though they were not a major group and though they didn't operated during the peace.

[sqishy]

I agree that people make rash negative conclusions about it without looking in detail about it (like other political models), going with what most others say.

[tovaris]

I agree that people make rash negative conclusions about it without looking in detail about it (like other political models), going with what most others say.

but unlike others poliical sistems, this one actuly got a country to test it out, and it wasnt nice, at leest for my people, but for them it was great, they stil prase him

[Stronk Serb]

but unlike others poliical sistems, this one actuly got a country to test it out, and it wasnt nice, at leest for my people, but for them it was great, they stil prase him

Mussolini started making some bad moves since 1938. His council was against an alliance with Hitler. The leader of the anti-Hitler current got "accidentaly" shot down over Libya, he could've replaced the current leader easily, he would've been a lot better then Mussolini after 1938. I kinda owe my life to the Italian troops in Montenegro and Lika. They prevented the Chetnik and Ustasha dogs from killing both of my grandfathers.

[Capto]

I disagree. A man who gets his power either by revolution or by copu d'etat usually is so intelligent that he will be succesful at leading a country.


That's iffy.

[Vlerchan]

If the class-ties are more entrenched that national ones, why there has been wars and hatred because of conflicts of nationality? (see: Bosnian civil war, hatred between Flaams and Walloons.
Fear, basically. In multi-ethnic states such as Belgium and Bosnia and Herzegovina there's always the fear held by ethno-groups that another is going to use the state as a bludgeon against them. Looking back at history this fear isn't exactly baseless, but it tends to be exaggerated by the political-class for a number of nefarious purposes. The ethno-groups of Bosnia and Herzegovina had actually worked quite well together until the break up of Yugoslavia.

It didn't so it had to create it's own out of immingrants cultures.
I'll repeat that: the US has no set culture or traditions. It's a melting pot: what it's culture is differs depending on the make-up of the 'melting-pot'.

Edit: What I mean is that it's people have no shared history or traditions (which is from where culture is derived), only a shared present - though, it's so hyper-individualist that I feel wrong using the term 'shared'. American 'culture' is not comparable to European culture or besides.

Fascism opposes globalisation. It is a bad thing to happen if people and cultures as we know wanish.
I recognise that. I just think that you need to get used to it.

I disagree. A man who gets his power either by revolution or by copu d'etat usually is so intelligent that he will be succesful at leading a country.
I agree with Capto: this claim is quite iffy. I'm not accepting it.

Even though fascism is totalitarian system, it isn't a conplete dicatorship. Mussolini got fired by the Fascist Council.
He got fired by the king, on the advice of the Fascist council. And then Italy began to transition towards liberal-democracy because they recognised the failed maxims of Fascism.

It should be noted that he'd literally collapsed the country by the time the the king had acted.

I support corporatism because of the idea of ideology, not because it's practiced in a certain and wrong way. Industry must serve the state in fascist staye, not vice versa. As the motto says: "Everything in the State, Everything for the State, nothing against the State."
As long as we recognise that it's not how you originally made it out because the interests of an industry and the interests of a nation tend to not be so aligned.

Even in fascist society, one has opportunity to make his life good. Fascism supports free state-run education. It's only up to student and his skills where he will wound up.
I never said they couldn't.

I also don't see what's so special in Free Education: we have that in capitalism now.

Even though there aren't any active internal enemies, there will always be someone who is against the government. They might just wait the right time to pop up. Mussolini got killed by partisans, even though they were not a major group and though they didn't operated during the peace.
Mussolini was killed by Partisans after he'd been ousted by the king and after his Fascist state had collapsed.

Notably, 'internal enemies' tend to be the only check for power in most Fascist states.

[sqishy]

but unlike others poliical sistems, this one actuly got a country to test it out, and it wasnt nice, at leest for my people, but for them it was great, they stil prase him

Depends if it was tested out properly, maybe it was maybe not, I don't know enough about that to give an opinion tbh.

[Kurgg2]

Fear, basically. In multi-ethnic states such as Belgium and Bosnia and Herzegovina there's always the fear held by ethno-groups that another is going to use the state as a bludgeon against them. Looking back at history this fear isn't exactly baseless, but it tends to be exaggerated by the political-class for a number of nefarious purposes. The ethno-groups of Bosnia and Herzegovina had actually worked quite well together until the break up of Yugoslavia.
You said before that ties between people in same class are strobger than with people of same nationality. Now you are just proving my point that strong class-ties are bullshit.
I'll repeat that: the US has no set culture or traditions. It's a melting pot: what it's culture is differs depending on the make-up of the 'melting-pot'.
And after the culture is created came the nationalism. If thete weren't any American nationalism back then, there may not be the US as we know or American people.
I recognise that. I just think that you need to get used to it.
Why one should stop fighting against something when there's still a chance to win. With healthy portion of nationalism the cultures will survive.
As long as we recognise that it's not how you originally made it out because the interests of an industry and the interests of a nation tend to not be so aligned.
The state goes first always. Without state there wouldn't be any industry.
I never said they couldn't.
Yeah, so why do you whine about inequality in corporations (which I oppose though) when everyone has an opportunity to become an employer or high ranked employee of a company. The class struggle destroys the nation. Class collaboration's the way to go insuring everyone has a chance to rise to upper classes.
Notably, 'internal enemies' tend to be the only check for power in most Fascist states.

Well, there is always the enemies. They always found traitors and internal enemies to put on prisons.

[Vlerchan]

You said before that ties between people in same class are strobger than with people of same nationality. Now you are just proving my point that strong class-ties are bullshit.
This is the claim I made:

I hold that class-ties are more entrenched than national-ties because that's what history has demonstrated. Unless an external, generally government, forces are manipulating events (see: WW1) class-solidarity tends to hold firm.

What is it about political manipulation that doesn't seem like an external force to you?

And after the culture is created came the nationalism. If thete weren't any American nationalism back then, there may not be the US as we know or American people.
The US has never been nationalist in the traditional sense.

Why one should stop fighting against something when there's still a chance to win. With healthy portion of nationalism the cultures will survive.
Sure. I didn't say don't keep fighting. I just believe that cultural globalization is inevitable.

The state goes first always. Without state there wouldn't be any industry.
This is simply untrue. If anything the state - through regulations, etc. - hinders industry.

There's also no global state, yet there is global industry.

Yeah, so why do you whine about inequality in corporations (which I oppose though) when everyone has an opportunity to become an employer or high ranked employee of a company[1]. The class struggle destroys the nation[1]. Class collaboration's the way to go insuring everyone has a chance to rise to upper classes[3].
[1]: Because the gross inequality of opportunity apparent in liberal-capitalism means that individuals have vastly differing chances of becoming an employer or high-ranked employee. Whilst this is lessened in a Corporatist state it will always exist as long as social-classes exist.

[2]: If it hasn't been made clear: I don't care about your divisive nation.

[3]: Class-Collaboration will eventually fall back into Class-Struggle: Individuals aren't going to accept the inequality inherent to any class system forever.

[tovaris]

Mussolini started making some bad moves since 1938. His council was against an alliance with Hitler. The leader of the anti-Hitler current got "accidentaly" shot down over Libya, he could've replaced the current leader easily, he would've been a lot better then Mussolini after 1938. I kinda owe my life to the Italian troops in Montenegro and Lika. They prevented the Chetnik and Ustasha dogs from killing both of my grandfathers.

Musolini, and fashism itself was hungry for war and quankvest, "mare nostrum" they said wanting to rebuild the roman enpire... Once fasnisn rules a county, thy attempt to expell all who are diferent, than they expand, the first atempts of this were mada by more and more fashist italy in WWI and continued in WWII.
In the ocupied lands of Istra, Koper, Trst, Benečija, Furlanija, Koper, Kras.. othing not italian was alowed (sparking the creation of TIGR) they changed peoples named to forecefuly italianalizr them, they even changed names no tomb stones. relocating many people to the south of Italy to italinalize them and moving southern italians into their place to colonize, "the north of italy.
Solders are only solders, they fight for orderes not politics.

Depends if it was tested out properly, maybe it was maybe not, I don't know enough about that to give an opinion tbh.

The black shirts were a modal fashist organisation.

/.../ but what will the rights help when homeland is threated?


threatend by whoo?


Why people hate fascism?


Because our contryman had to live under it and it want nice...


And it's not that bad as people think.


burning coltural buildings is prety bad

T
When a fascist regime gets power in a state, it adopts the ideas and the values that are good for its people and itself


for its people sure... but not only one people live in a state



1. If the class-ties are more entrenched that national ones, why there has been wars and hatred because of conflicts of nationality? (see: Bosnian civil war, hatred between Flaams and Walloons.



class ties are more inportant than national ones, see Bosnia today.



2. Even in fascist society, one has opportunity to make his life good. Fascism supports free state-run education. It's only up to student and his skills where he will wound up.



There are people alive today that went frew that education, no problem with the fre part since it has always been so, the problem is they could only speak a certan language in them schools

(the river is called Soča and Isonzo, NOT only Isonzo)



Why one should stop fighting against something when there's still a chance to win. With healthy portion of nationalism the cultures will survive.



eh you finish have alwais done funy ideas, when will you turks (because you are nothing but turks somewhere from the step) realize that we slavs are simply a superior nation and surender to the great russia of whoom you stole laand.

now how did that feal, i admit i didnt mean it but it stil struk a nere didnt it... that is exactly the sort of nationalism fashisn is based upon

[sqishy]

Well for the moment idk

[phuckphace]

Let's take Northern Ireland.

During the Great Depression you had Protestants and Catholics banding together in the name of Socialism (and Communism). This was ended when he ruling Unionist party started promoting discriminatory hiring practices in order to get the Protestants in jobs at the expense of Catholics (and at an extension Irish Socialism). During other economic slumps thereafter you'd Catholics and Protestants again banding together in the name of Socialism (though, never on the same scale as during the Great Depression) and the ruling Unionist party (each time) would promote discrimination against Catholics for the benefit of Protestants - and this would kill any attempt at a cross-cultural alliance because. Each time the two distinct cultures looked to come together in some form of reconciliation, recognizing the strength and importance of their class-ties, you'd external forces (the ruling Unionist government) pushing nationalist rhetoric and acting discriminantly in order to part them. This was because it benefited the Unionist - who would have been Northern Ireland's big business party - for class groups to remain divided this way and not be able to a) form a successful bloc against capitalism and b) vote them out in favour of the more socialist-orientated NILP.

I think your example actually serves the Nationalist argument more than the internationalist one, since Irish Socialism is, given the "Irish" prefix, an implementation of socialism tailored to a specific culture. I'm not denying that class-ties played a role in Ireland, but you certainly can't expect to take this example, apply it on a global scale and still get the same result. the proletariat of Ireland and the proletariat of India are contrasted by much more than their socioeconomic status. it may seem like an insignificant detail, but cultural differences of that degree are formidable obstacles.

this banding together of the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland was obviously facilitated by them having relatively few fundamental differences, certainly far fewer than you're asserting. Protestantism and Catholicism are two sects within the same religion, and in this case practiced by people with a shared nationality, language and history (i.e. Irish). I would expect to see similar results with reunification of the two Koreas, given that, despite having been briefly intersected by the DMZ, and having superficial ideological differences, the cultures of the two countries are more similar than not, and this would be a powerful foundation upon which to build a unified Korea.

I suspect that Karl Marx's views on internationalism were likely colored by his Jewish heritage. there was no Jewish state or homeland until recently, and in the meantime Jewish culture had to adapt extensively to embrace cosmopolitanism. they became very accustomed to living as a culture-within-a-culture for centuries, so someone from this background would (understandably) have a difficult time grasping the then-gentile exclusive concept of Nationalism. of course, they suddenly managed to figure it out just in time to establish the modern state of Israel, but Marx didn't live to see that. it is obvious, however, that he overestimated the willingness of people who are accustomed to having their own homelands to embrace rootless internationalism.

[Vlerchan]

I'd just like to open with a definition of internationalism:

Internationalism (n): the principle of cooperation among nations, for the promotion of their common good, sometimes as contrasted with nationalism, or devotion to the interests of a particular nation.

Internationalism and Nationalism aren't necessaries opposed: Internationalism and Nationalism when it's only concerned with the welfare of its nation in particular are opposed. I'm not opposed to nationalism, per se, but rather I'm opposed to nationalism when it perpetuates itself through isolationism or military-expansionism - which is what most self-titled nationalists tend to support.

I think your example actually serves the Nationalist argument more than the internationalist one, since Irish Socialism is, given the "Irish" prefix, an implementation of socialism tailored to a specific culture[1]. I'm not denying that class-ties played a role in Ireland, but you certainly can't expect to take this example, apply it on a global scale and still get the same result. the proletariat of Ireland and the proletariat of India are contrasted by much more than their socioeconomic status. it may seem like an insignificant detail, but cultural differences of that degree are formidable obstacles[2].
[1]: No. I meant it as in Socialism within Ireland. I don't see the need to tailor socialism specific to the culture of the host nation.

[2]: Yes. I'm not saying that cultural-differences aren't an obstacle. I just believe that when two groups share the same base material interests that such differences in non-material interests become - whilst not irrevelevant - much less relevant. The International Bourgeoisie make for a better example than the International Proletariat: whilst the Bourgeoisie might be split along ethnic or national lines such fades into the background when their shared material interests are considered.

this banding together of the Protestants and Catholics in Ireland was obviously facilitated by them having relatively few fundamental differences, certainly far fewer than you're asserting. Protestantism and Catholicism are two sects within the same religion, and in this case practiced by people with a shared nationality, language and history (i.e. Irish). I would expect to see similar results with reunification of the two Koreas, given that, despite having been briefly intersected by the DMZ, and having superficial ideological differences, the cultures of the two countries are more similar than not, and this would be a powerful foundation upon which to build a unified Korea.
Well, no.

Whilst I'd agree that there's few difference between Protestants and Catholics - I come from a mixed Protestant-Catholic family - when considering the Protestants and Catholics of the North this becomes much less true: the cultural identity of Protestants in the North (or Unionists) is literally centred around opposing both Irish Nationalism and Irish cultural identity (and by extension Irish Catholicism.) Whilst there's few difference between the practices of both Northern Catholics and Northern Protestants culturally they are radically opposed. (Note: I'm generalising with Catholicism versus Protestantism here: there are nationalist Protestants and unionist Catholics.)

It's also noteworthy that Northern Unionism grew out of Big Business owners not wanting to lose British trade (through protectionism as proposed by then Irish nationalists) and consequently crafting this massive cult around Unionist identity - which whilst had existed since the early 1800s did not become as so big until the onset of the 1880s.

I suspect that Karl Marx's views on internationalism were likely colored by his Jewish heritage.
I'd probably agree here.

[Kurgg2]

What is it about political manipulation that doesn't seem like an external force to you?

How does the fear about racism in state become external forces? The Serbs rebelled in BiH all by themselves and so hate the Flaams Walloons all by themselves.
The US has never been nationalist in the traditional sense.
Why there is an American nation instead of independent nations for German American, English American and so on?
This is simply untrue. If anything the state - through regulations, etc. - hinders industry.

There's also no global state, yet there is global industry
I did not said that state does not hinder the industry. I said that state is more important than industry.

Because the gross inequality of opportunity apparent in liberal-capitalism means that individuals have vastly differing chances of becoming an employer or high-ranked employee. Whilst this is lessened in a Corporatist state it will always exist as long as social-classes exist.
It's not a bad thing. Why there is then inequal societies instead of egalitarian ones? Because it is the best way. It is horrible but best what we have. Besides, everyone can become succesful if one works hard.
Class-Collaboration will eventually fall back into Class-Struggle: Individuals aren't going to accept the inequality inherent to any class system forever.
Why does the most of the people support the society as it is now? The fascist society is not that different.

A society is like a human body, everyone has a place. One must either accept his place or make his life better by working hard.

threatend by whoo?
Internal or external enemies

burning coltural buildings is prety bad
I don't believe that. Fascism respects its nations history.

for its people sure... but not only one people live in a state

Multiethnic states are bad thing., unless they share same cultural identity as Swiss people do. If one wants to immigrate somewhere, he must accept the customs there. I oppose racism though.
class ties are more inportant than national ones, see Bosnia today.

Yeah, right. Serbian Republic is almost independent and I think different people rarely meet each other.
There are people alive today that went frew that education, no problem with the fre part since it has always been so, the problem is they could only speak a certan language in them schools
As I said, multiethnic states are bad. If one wants to immigrate somewhere, one must speak the language.
eh you finish have alwais done funy ideas, when will you turks (because you are nothing but turks somewhere from the step) realize that we slavs are simply a superior nation and surender to the great russia of whoom you stole laand.

now how did that feal, i admit i didnt mean it but it stil struk a nere didnt it... that is exactly the sort of nationalism fashisn is based upon
There is a difference between healthy nationalism and racism.
We are just Swedes and Slavs who speak Uralic language, and my mother's Russian so the turk comment was purely ignorant. And I know you did not mean it.

[Vlerchan]

ow does the fear about racism in state become external forces? The Serbs rebelled in BiH all by themselves and so hate the Flaams Walloons all by themselves.
In both cases the fear was/is played upon by opportunist members of the political-class.

I don't believe that ethnic-conflict is inherent to world-relations because besides from a few cases - that I feel are resultant more from political-manipulation than inherent-antagonism - differing ethnic groups have lived in close proximity without ethnic-motivated tensions boiling over.

Why there is an American nation instead of independent nations for German American, English American and so on?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism

I did not said that state does not hinder the industry. I said that state is more important than industry.
You said:

"Without state there wouldn't be any industry."

Which is obviously false.

It's not a bad thing. Why there is then inequal societies instead of egalitarian ones?
Because a transition to a more equitable society would be bad for members of the ruling-class.

Because it is the best way.
If something is prevalent that does not mean it is the best.

Should we all be neo-liberals (as opposed to Fascists, let's say) because a neo-liberalism is currently the more prevalent system?

Besides, everyone can become succesful if one works hard.
I never said they couldn't.

I said that that differing levels of work are involved in order to become successful depending on your socio-economic class.

Why does the most of the people support the society as it is now?
"[To revolutionize society] you certainly don't have to convince the majority of the public, because most of the public will follow anything that happens." Murray Rothbard.

The fascist society is not that different.
Yes, it is.

Or at least I view the retraction of certain basic civil rights as a major difference between liberalism and fascism.

One must either accept his place or make his life better by working hard.
I'm failing to think of an ideology that this statement isn't applicable to.

[tovaris]

DEATH TO FASHIZM FREDOM TO THE PEOPLE
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Stjepan_Stevo_Filipović.jpg



Internal or external enemies
.

ypu mean the bugy man under my bead?



I don't believe that. Fascism respects its nations history.
.

yeah their nations, but what about other nations, the nation whos land they had forcefuly ocupied...



Multiethnic states are bad thing., unless they share same cultural identity as Swiss people do. If one wants to immigrate somewhere, he must accept the customs there. I oppose racism though.
.

it is not a question of imigration but of existance, we have lived on this land for hundreds of years before the fashists came, and killed our forfathers (Trst, Istra, Gorica, Rijeka; naša pravica)
people were forced to flee yust because of their heratage....


Yeah, right. Serbian Republic is almost independent and I think different people rarely meet each other.

it.

didnt you hear of the recent orptests, and peoples „planum”s where serbian, croat and muslim war weterans protested againced curent state and transition together, when they shouted if i am a croat and i am as hungry as is my neighbour serb how are we not brothers!



As I said, multiethnic states are bad. If one wants to immigrate somewhere, one must speak the language.

.

how about having existed in a land for centuries?



There is a difference between healthy nationalism and racism.
We are just Swedes and Slavs who speak Uralic language, and my mother's Russian so the turk comment was purely ignorant. And I know you did not mean it.

we are all white so stop wining its not racism
wait arent you the guis who colobarated with the glorious III Reich? Lng live Swedan right... And the swedish nation, because it is so diferent from the norwegen one...

[Kurgg2]

Why are you posting a random Partisan who became hero of the Yugoslavia just for shouting that before hanging.
ypu mean the bugy man under my bead?

Nope. I meant the other countries, socialists and other breakers of order.
yeah their nations, but what about other nations, the nation whos land they had forcefuly ocupied...
They can rebel against the invaders or something.
didnt you hear of the recent orptests, and peoples „planum”s where serbian, croat and muslim war weterans protested againced curent state and transition together, when they shouted if i am a croat and i am as hungry as is my neighbour serb how are we not brothers!
A handful of some people protesting because of the same problem does not mean that Serbs and Bosniaks are brothers.
how about having existed in a land for centuries?
As I said, they can rebel against occupation.
we are all white so stop wining its not racism

Actually, racism does not mean only discrimination and hate towards a race, but also towards the nationality. According to your logic, Hitler was not racist when he kept Slavs as sub-humans and treated them that way. German and Slavs are both white, right?
wait arent you the guis who colobarated with the glorious III Reich?
Finland only collaborayed with the Germans and attacked to the Soviet Union because it barely defended itself against SU in Winter war and Soviets were planning a new attack.
Lng live Swedan right... And the swedish nation, because it is so diferent from the norwegen one...
You may praise Sweden as much as you want. I will not answer to issue about difference between Swedish and Norwegian culture since I don't know enough. Remeber though that Sweden and Norway was same country over a hundrer years ago. And guess what? Norway got independent.

In both cases the fear was/is played upon by opportunist members of the political-class.

I don't believe that ethnic-conflict is inherent to world-relations because besides from a few cases - that I feel are resultant more from political-manipulation than inherent-antagonism - differing ethnic groups have lived in close proximity without ethnic-motivated tensions boiling over.
I don't agree. The wars/hatred is result of history and conflicts between different peoples thoughts.
You said:

"Without state there wouldn't be any industry."
Which is obviously false.
Yeah, I'm sorry that I forgot anarchism. In anarchy industry will get destroyed by criminals without protection of state.
Because a transition to a more equitable society would be bad for members of the ruling-class.
If people really want to fight against the modern society, they will do it.
I said that that differing levels of work are involved in order to become successful depending on your socio-economic class.
True, but life isn't fair. World is a battle field and people must fight for the succesfulness of their lives. Not with violent means, but you got my point.
"[To revolutionize society] you certainly don't have to convince the majority of the public, because most of the public will follow anything that happens." Murray Rothbard.
They will not do it for a long time and soon they already forgot the events.
I'm failing to think of an ideology that this statement isn't applicable to
Why you whine about socio-economic inequality, then?

Merged double post. -Cygnus David

[Vlerchan]

I don't agree. The wars/hatred is result of history and conflicts between different peoples thoughts.
I'm just going to agree to disagree.

I believe that political factors in general, and economic factors in particular, are the root-cause of tensions, because that has overwhelmingly been the case, historically.

In anarchy industry will get destroyed by criminals without protection of state.
In proposed an-cap societies, industry would hire private-security, and private-security would protect its stock and premises.

This is also how it happens currently, I'll add.

If people really want to fight against the modern society, they will do it.
Most people have been socialised to accept modern society, and the ones who resist socialisation generally don't have the means to being about genuine change.

True, but life isn't fair ...
... within our current system.

They will not do it for a long time and soon they already forgot the events.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

The point of the quote was: most people are sheep.

Why you whine about socio-economic inequality, then?
I 'whine' about gross inequality of outcome, and gross inequality of opportunity, and financial deficiencies resulting in the loss of individual freedoms.

Though, we are really starting to get off the topic of Fascist failings here.

[tovaris]

Why are you posting a random Partisan who became hero of the Yugoslavia just for shouting that before hanging.


because i am from Yugoslavia.



Nope. I meant the other countries, socialists and other breakers of order.


socialists... Breakers of order? Realy, they are all soft, they cant even break a pen...
Why would other countries be a thret to the development of fashism, yust look at hungary (your turkeis brothers) toda...



They can rebel against the invaders or something.


that is what our people did, but gues what the fashists killed them, (but in the end we won because fashism is impotent)
and a nother thing, the fashists will alvais claim that the land belonges to them,



A handful of some people protesting because of the same problem does not mean that Serbs and Bosniaks are brothers.


do you live in the balkans or do i? And yes they have forgoten their diferences, war weterans have been protesting together to get their pentions from the goverment. And its not a handful of people it was quite a few cities on their feet demanding justice, bosniaks, serbc croats, walking, protesting together...



so we are in agremant, rebel againced fashizm!

SMRT FAŠIZMU!

[QUOTE=Kurgg;2808513]

Actually, racism does not mean only discrimination and hate towards a race, but also towards the nationality. According to your logic, Hitler was not racist when he kept Slavs as sub-humans and treated them that way. German and Slavs are both white, right?


nationalism and rasizm two diferent thungs, both to be don out by



Finland only collaborayed with the Germans and attacked to the Soviet Union because it barely defended itself against SU in Winter war and Soviets were planning a new attack.



Fashist russian sais: " gues what, you lost the Soviet-Finish war, because we slavs are simoly superior to your turkish nation”

that is fashism, burning coltural homes, killing, hanging people, renamimg the dead, forcefuly relocating people.... Atacking countries, deniing basic rights....

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/1/1b/Morte_al_fascismo_manifesto_serbo.jpeg

[Kurgg2]

In proposed an-cap societies, industry would hire private-security, and private-security would protect its stock and premises.

This is also how it happens currently, I'll add.
It'll never work. Nothing is not going to stop corporations to form states or the motorbike gangs.
Most people have been socialised to accept modern society, and the ones who resist socialisation generally don't have the means to being about genuine change.
Is that a bad thing. Rather a sheep than a wolf.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

The point of the quote was: most people are sheep.
That's what I tried to say.
I 'whine' about gross inequality of outcome, and gross inequality of opportunity, and financial deficiencies resulting in the loss of individual freedoms.
What does inequality matter when fascism works better than liberal democracy?
socialists... Breakers of order? Realy, they are all soft, they cant even break a pen...
Why would other countries be a thret to the development of fashism, yust look at hungary (your turkeis brothers) toda...

Communist are also socialists. Besides, other countries can declare a war or send troublemakers.
that is what our people did, but gues what the fashists killed them, (but in the end we won because fashism is impotent)
and a nother thing, the fashists will always claim that the land belonges to them,
Not my fault that your people could not fight good enough to expel invadors.
so we are in agremant, rebel againced fashizm!

SMRT FAŠIZMU!

You can rebel in your country as much as you want.
Fashist russian sais: " gues what, you lost the Soviet-Finish war, because we slavs are simoly superior to your turkish nation”

that is fashism, burning coltural homes, killing, hanging people, renamimg the dead, forcefuly relocating people.... Atacking countries, deniing basic rights....

Soviets won only because they had fuckloads more everything that we did. Besides, didn't Soviet Union were paradise to communists like you.

Finns are not Turks or even related to them. Aren't communists against racism? Isn't it weird to use opponents nayionality as an argument, especially if one is a communist?

[tovaris]

is it yust me or did you yust ignore most of mi points, like the one of bosnuam brothers and have moved on to total ignorance... Im sure this is not the case and that you failed to answer those point by acvidend, and i trust you will not do[it again

also pleas quote me properly, not yust the text



Communist are also socialists. Besides, other countries can declare a war or send troublemakers.




wrong again the palet goes (from left toright): anarhists, communists, socialists, social democrat
why would the dothat, the us are usuali in favour of fashist regims and like to send trublemakers who set them up in S america an mezo america

http://frontal.rs/sajt/doc/Image/novosti_sr/temanedelje/38478_vest_smrt-fasizmu-frontal.jpg

[Vlerchan]

It'll never work. Nothing is not going to stop corporations to form states or the motorbike gangs.
Okay. So you agree that industry can exist without state?

s that a bad thing?
It is for anyone who wants to change the current system at a fundamental level.

Like you.

What does inequality matter when fascism works better than liberal democracy?
I've no idea why you'd try to contrast an economic system (socialism) and a political system (fascism).

You've also done nothing to prove this claim.

Communist are also socialists.
Nah. Communists differ from socialists in means, in that:

Communists support revolutionary means, whilst;
Socialist support parliamentary means.
Though both support a classless, stateless society in the end-up.

Or this is my understanding, anyway. It's the Marxist definition. Ask different ten people to define 'socialism' and you're just as likely to get eleven different definitions.

Besides, didn't Soviet Union were paradise to communists like you.
I've never heard a person worth taking seriously even label the Soviet Union 'socialist'.

[tovaris]

Not my fault that your people could not fight good enough to expel invadors.




I just told you we won againced, the fashist, cat eating, raping, killing, tourching scum....



You can rebel in your country as much as you want.




And so sould the rest of the world "DEATH TO FASHIZM! FREEDOM TO THE PEOPLE"

http://media.gorannecin.rs/2010/11/Smrt-fa%C5%A1izmu-grafit.jpg



Soviets won only because they had fuckloads more everything that we did. Besides, didn't Soviet Union were paradise to communists like you.




You seem to be delibarately missing the miror im am triing to place to fashizm



Finns are not Turks or even related to them.



Actuly you are... You speak a language related to hungarian, an turkeis, you are an non indoeuropen nation, actuly gipsies are more related to us than fins, hungarians, turks...



Aren't communists against racism? Isn't it weird to use opponents nayionality as an argument, especially if one is a communist?



Yes we are, but i am merly triing to show wou how pointles fashism is by giving it a qounterpart miror.

[Kurgg2]

Okay. So you agree that industry can exist without state?

In theory, yes. However, in practice it could not exist.
I've no idea why you'd try to contrast an economic system (socialism) and a political system (fascism).

You've also done nothing to prove this claim.

Fascist states have never collapsed without the leaders being removed from the power. In liberal democracies, there are depressions, bank crisises and other nasty things.
I just told you we won againced, the fashist, cat eating, raping, killing, tourching scum....

Why the fuck were you whining then?
Actuly you are... You speak a language related to hungarian, an turkeis, you are an non indoeuropen nation, actuly gipsies are more related to us than fins, hungarians, turks...

Actyally, Hungarian is an uralic language, and very distant relative to Finnish. Even if Hungarians are Turks, by that logic you are a Gypsy because Slovenians are very distant relatives to Indians and Gypsys are originated from India.
Yes we are, but i am merly triing to show wou how pointles fashism is by giving it a qounterpart miror
Sorry, but fascism is not racist ideology. It is nationalist, but you said that these two thing are different.

[Vlerchan]

In theory, yes. However, in practice it could not exist.
But that's not what you said.

You said that industry could exist, it would just take on state-like power.

Fascist states have never collapsed without the leaders being removed from the power. In liberal democracies, there are depressions, bank crisises and other nasty things.
This is inherent to capitalism and not liberal-democracy.

Though, (Fascist) Chile under Pinochet also experienced a severe recession in 1982, so even if we pretend your assertion makes sense it's untrue: autocratic regimes can in fact suffer economic hardship.

[Harry Smith]

Fascist states have never collapsed without the leaders being removed from the power. In liberal democracies, there are depressions, bank crisises and other nasty things.

.

What? That's like saying democracy is bad because someone I know died at a polling station.

Depressions, bank crisises and other nasty things have quite clearly happened in Fascist states

[tovaris]

saing something random




Again it seams that thee have missed the points thee did not like, but for I am sure it was a simple mistake I ask thee to corect it and prove they arent that kind a person (someone who ignores those points they dont like focusing on the irelevant).




Why the fuck were you whining then?



Faschism, itsw nationalism, its discrimination, its violance, its total disregard for human rights...

http://www.rtvfbih.ba/uimages/U591A9BD_smrt-fasizmu-slob-narodu.jpg



Actyally, Hungarian is an uralic language, and very distant relative to Finnish. Even if Hungarians are Turks, by that logic you are a Gypsy because Slovenians are very distant relatives to Indians and Gypsys are originated from India.



how is this relevant?

and also, i am not bothered being called a gipsy, they say i even have some gipsy blod in me, but you on the other hand are bothered being called a turk



Sorry, but fascism is not racist ideology. It is nationalist, but you said that these two thing are different.



I was talking about nationalism...

In todays world there is no place for nationalism...

http://www.zone51.net/groupes/images/47/4.jpg

[Faolan]

Definition: an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Basically, these regimes thrive by putting other people down. That's why people don't like them, and rightfully so.