59 replies to this topic

[Casen]

I wasn't sure if this should go in deep thought or politics, since it could belong to both categories.

I've reached the conclusion, enlightenment, if you will, that the problem with the world is false dichotomy; this very principle can affect many aspects, our biases, and politics, of course.

The problem with modern day politics is the division between "left" and "right", and the mentality that ether one or the other is wrong. Many of you may have remembered that I used to consider myself a neo-Fascist (not the racist kind). I realized I did not agree with it fully, the nationalist, statist, and populist aspects in particular. However the economic idea Mussolini came up with, an alternative between the left and right wing, should not be forgotten and tossed aside completely.

First of all, as a side tip, I'd like to define what Fascism is: Nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism, all rolled together; no less.

Anything less is not Fascism; all those things have to be together at minimal for something to be considered Fascism. For example: Augusto Pinochet was not a Fascist, he was an Authoritarian Capitalist. Saddam Hussein was not a Fascist; he was an Authoritarian with Socialist leanings. And in actuality, this may sound shocking, even Nazi Germany could not be considered Fascist, as Hitler's economic system was, as to be expected but overlooked, Nationalist Socialism. It was Socialism, but unlike most Socialist groups, it was opposed to anything further left such as Marxism, and was Nationalist, unlike most left wing groups.

And, of course, George Bush is not a Fascist, he’s a democratically elected, incompetent “Republican” who is merely a puppet to his cabinet, which is full of oil company executives and Christian Fundamentalists.

Strictly speaking, the only "true" Fascist regime in history was Fascist Italy. Mussolini never really intended Fascism to be a worldwide movement; he intended it just for Italy. It's just the fear of Communism was so great in Europe at the time that people realized the general structure of Mussolini's system was useful in preventing, or at least attempting to prevent, it’s spread. Communism was not seen as merely a new economic system; it was seen as a culture-destroying plague, and in a way, at least the communism practiced by the Soviets, it was. Adolf Hitler, Francisco Franco, Ioannis Metaxas, and other smaller groups copied its general structure. However, since Fascism was never strictly defined, they made their own unique versions of it, forgoing some of it's basic concepts for something of their own making.

To preserve truth, we must not throw the word "Fascist" around as an insult and political epithet. It is immature and has led to confusion.

Anyway, on to the point. Mussolini envisioned Corporatism as an economic system to go along with Fascism; contrary to what you may think, Fascism was/is not right wing. It is not Capitalism or Communism. The problem is many Marxists, communists, socialists, and left-wingers in general use Corporatism and Capitalism interchangeably. While that is understandable, being that a left winger would be against both, and overtime the differences would naturally become vague in their eyes, it is an inaccuracy.

Corporatism is not simply the existence of corporations; the minimal existence of corporations is Capitalism, plain and simple. Corporatism is when the only corporations allowed are special general corporations directly linked to the government, controlling different economic aspects of life, such as food, housing, etc. Corporatists/Fascists are against Capitalism as well, as in their eyes, it puts personal gain before the needs of the state.

Since Fascists generally believe in the preservation of a country's culture over all (nationalism/populism), this system works well for them in keeping unwanted goods out.

However, I, myself, think this economic system, with some modification, say, some technocratic modifications and prioritized socialism could really be a genius system for the future.

The problem I have with Capitalism is it seems to be a very un-Futurist system that is too random and unrefined, and the problem I have with Marxism is it is even more un-Futurist. Marx said himself that there was primitive communism, and that it developed into other things, then Capitalism, and he said that humans should go back to primitive communism, AKA Marxism as it came to be called.

Firstly, I must debate: How do you enforce any sort of ideal in an anarchist society. An anarcho-Capitalist society is more likely to work, thought through the formations of corporations and such a government may eventually be formed.

An anarcho-Marxist society, well, that just happens naturally, and when it did, it became other systems on it’s own. How long would an artificially created Marxist society, created by a “revolution”, last? Even if you instill such beliefs strongly into the society, it won’t last forever. Maybe the first generation, maybe even the second, but once someone says “hey I’ll give you this bead for that sandwich”, next thing you know, the system failed. You can’t hide ideas from the past.. Humans are meant to advance, not go forward and then return at the beginning after some form of “enlightenment”. It just seems so un-progressive.

And Socialism? Well, it works, it works well for countries like Norway, which is a paradise, but seriously, moving forward? Is it empowering enough? The country could very well stay socialist forever, and move where?

To all Capitalists/Communists/Marxists/Socalists/Anarchists: Is our job to just stay here and stagnate on the earth? Whatever you believe in, I think we were meant to venture forward. We need to think towards the future. Capitalism, Communism, all passé.

Back to square one, the problem in my country, the United States, is you have to choose between primarily the Democrats and the Republicans.

The Republicans, well, since the 60’s, horribly and utterly corrupt, infested by Christian Fundamentalists and oil company executives, people who are, in fact, more “Patriotic” towards their own greedy pockets and/or their religious views than their own country, they’ve given us much of the negative image we’ve gotten around the world in the last few decades.

And the Democrats? More progressive, but also their welfare system is easily abused; one of the main reasons why Bush won in 2004 is people just don’t like paying taxes that for all they know will go to some lazy bum who is fully capable of working. Of course that isn’t to say that there aren’t people who genuinely need that welfare, but the problem is it is so generalized it’s unfair.

Case and point: it causes people to choose between two false dichotomies, thus causing the problems we see here in the U.S. We need an alternative.

Pure Corporatism, modeled on the Italian system, once again, not ideal, but lets combine it with a meritocracy, some prioritized socialism and a system to root out people deserving of it, and we have something good.

This would also go in addition to a greater political ideology I am developing. I am through with arguing about foreign affairs…I want to make a change, here first, then possibly the world.

[duke_Qa]

if by corporatism you mean a system where the government actually has more control over the corporations than as it is in the USA today, i would somewhat agree. also, for what you call fascism to be useful you have to scratch a few of the things it got.


Nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism,

Nationalism is something we all have, and i can't see that stopping anytime soon.
Statism is handy to have, especially in social democratic societies where you try to combine it with capitalism. if the state got plenty of cash, why shouldn't it spend it like any other big-boy capitalist, just that it is being spent depending on what the voters vote for.
Militarism is not something i endorse, but it is at times necessary. ultimately i would try to avoid it.
Anti-communism ain't too idiotic, as its just a old thing now, left right and all that brainwashing stuff
Corporatism i'm all for as long as the governments have a vote or two on the board. especially in corps that are important for the nation.
Populism might be useful in certain situations, but overall its ease of abuse is way to risky. Chavez anyone?
Collectivism is good as long as its not overdone. of course we should endorse the collective rather than ourselves, but we shouldn't automatically handicap ourselves because of the collective. if we feel we can help them by making ourselves the best we can we should be able to do so. the world shouldn't be a jungle, nor should it be a suppressive place where you are supposed to be like anyone else.
Political and economic liberalism? well I'm against restricting liberal politics, but I'm far from positive to pure economic libertarianism. there will be suppression and conservatism without freedom to discuss politics. if something is too radical its better to get it shot down in an argument than in a back alley.

[Casen]

I believe it is okay to be Patriotic, not Nationalistic.

What I mean by that is, I think we should praise the good things our countries do, be proud of our culture (what we were founded on, etc), but not so blinded that we don't condemn the bad things our country does. The latter is an aspect of Nationalism, the belief your country is superior to all others, and anything it does to other's is okay.

Unfortunately, in the United States today, the line between Patriotism and Nationalism is somewhat blurred...

[Blodo]

One of the things to be realised on the way to a successful government system is that you can't force it or attempt to foolproof the system against the people. There are always holes and there are always dissidents. Education is where it goes. People are so easily suggestable nowadays they actually believe that this world cannot get any better, and thus sit there complaining and doing nothing.

Onto the economic system: You have to realise that creating a sort of monopoly in the market then giving it away to individuals unassociated with the government and thus unconsidered as people with a potential great deal of power - to put it bluntly - screams rape. These people will soon enough assure that the government is sitting square in their pockets, and thus the country starts serving the profits of these few people above all else. Then you get sort of what the United States is right now, except quite a bit more totalitarian. Corporations nowadays are the ingenious profit machine economists were cracking their heads on a few decades ago. Unless you commit murder or personally ruin the lives of a few hundred people, there is no individual responsibility. You get an entire upper class society based on being a snake in the grass. How is that different from a monarchy, I beg to differ.

If indeed collectivising the economic system is a goal, one needs to make sure that the people running the economy are an active part of the government. One that can be affected by the rest of it easily, removed from their position by the signing of a paper. It all needs to be in law to prevent the ridiculous centralisation of power in the hands of the few economically powerful.

I am all against a completely free market. I believe the market should be heavily regulated to ensure fairness, and the crucial areas of the industry like the heavy industry and agriculture should be under the eye of the government altogether. On the other hand I believe that in return the government owes the people a large amount of civil liberties in return, as well as a proper welfare system. This would be what I would call the goal of the modern left, and I think this is exactly the logical step forward. It's about time we found a proper balance.

[Casen]

I think the corporations should be made sure to work in the interest of the party, thus a meritocracy system affecting all areas of government that favors people believing in the party's ideology.

I'm not gonna say this party's particular ideology word for word now, this thread is merely addressing my economic theory.

[MSpencer]

But in fascism, the economic theory is undeniably tied to the political theory. To even get corporations to serve some massive party's agenda, you need to force them to do so by the threat of government intervention.

And in actuality, this may sound shocking, even Nazi Germany could not be considered Fascist, as Hitler's economic system was, as to be expected but overlooked, Nationalist Socialism. It was Socialism, but unlike most Socialist groups, it was opposed to anything further left such as Marxism, and was Nationalist, unlike most left wing groups.

First, this entire sentence is completely lacking in any sort of... example... evidence... support... It is completely rhetoric.
Second, I wonder if you actually know the root of the name...
Essentially, the Nazis wanted something to appeal to workers. The name was pretty much... made up, and meant largely nothing. During Hitler's reign, corporations were set free and told to run wild. The government provided billions of Reichsmarks to the most successful corporations, built megamonopolies, and fostered an unrivalled corporatist state in which, if the workers wouldn't serve the corporations, which were serving the government, they'd be shot. Hardly socialism.
Additionally, it might be noted that prior to, and especially during, the Second World War, the corporations very closely followed corporatist models, being roped very, very closely to the government and essentially administrated by government officials.

Fascism is: Nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, and opposition to political and economic liberalism, all rolled together; no less.

Anyway, on to the point. Mussolini envisioned Corporatism as an economic system to go along with Fascism; contrary to what you may think, Fascism was/is not right wing.

Grammatical issues aside, these two sentences directly contradict each other.
I've found anyone who adheres to the first bit to be a knuckle dragging thug worthy of a prison cell, so I'm not setting my hopes too high here, but, at least I'll make an attempt. The rest of your post is dribble reminiscent of Lyndon LaRouche, so the best way is really to attack what's being advocated here.

One for the books:

Nationalism/Patriotism

Call it what you like, fascism advocates nationalism, not patriotism. Both are foolish for numerous reasons, one of them causes wars, the other one causes a culture of ignorance growing up around the central tenet that "We could beat you if we tried." Developing feelings of pride before developing an understanding of the world almost assuredly closes one's mind off to perhaps the key to a healthy development of pride. Essentially, putting the cart before the horse.
For example, I know that the US Navy could probably devastate the Chinese navy in... three hours. How do I know this? National pride? No. It's a military fact; the US has the numbers, the technology, the experience, and the leadership necessary to destroy the PLAN in less time than it would take for me to go run a single Southern Blot. There are some people who come to the same conclusion based on their belief that the United States is the best at everything. These people are not nationalists in most cases, they don't want to impose their will on other countries, they don't want to invade Mexico for lebensraum, they're just average people of all classes who believe that the United States is just... better than other countries in some way. Thus, they come to the same conclusion based on their assumption of supremacy.
It breeds a culture of anti-investigatory ignorance. I am, by the best definitions available, a scientist. I advocate inquiry where there is doubt, experimentation where there is theory, and a quest for knowledge and greater understanding where there is a lack of it. Patriotism, where people assert they know something because of the supposed supremacy of a people and an idea (A country is more an idea than a place), is fundamentally opposed to this.

statism

I support some measure of statism, but it all depends on the doctrine that this statism is supporting. Statism supporting a functional socialist economy means what we see very rarely here in Quebec, more commonly in places such as Sweden and Norway. In a socialist economy, the government might give a check to a struggling family to let them pay their heating bills, or might interface directly with these companies, with the family as an intermediary. Basically, in a socialist economy, this is manifested as government with a heart.
In a fascist economy, this is far different. Statism in a country where corporations are valued over people means injunctive relief for corporations, acting to keep people working in order to keep the corporation up as the highest pinnacle of the economy, and laws to disenfranchise the worker. It means government shock troops eliminating union leaders, it means illegalizing unions, it means breaking riots with clubs, or worse, with guns. Statism in a corporate sense in every way supports the vision of a dystopia, where the military enforces the laws, and the enemy becomes the state.
We'll come back to this a bit later, when the definitions have been firmed up a bit.

militarism

How is militarism ever a good thing? Training children, not allowing children to grow up with ambitions of becoming firefighters or policemen, and breeding a populace capable of serving in the military is possibly the worst by far in this list. However, that never really occurs to militarists; the idea of a seven year old being taught how to fire a rifle, being told "This is your enemy, one day, you will kill him," is a very unpalatable vision, one which the most far right jingo nationalists and "reasonable" neo-fascists like to counter with a "I never said that." Where's the line?
Giving power to the military means nationalization of industries, constricting of human rights, and a rigid chain of command. In a militarist society, everything goes to the military, everything is designed to further the military. Science, as an intellectual pursuit to advance human understanding, would end. Scientists would be recruited to develop new weapons, and in some cases, would be drafted into the service to work as government trolls. Medical science would almost assuredly be redirected from preventative care for civilians, and would be directed towards battlefield medicine and emergency surgery. While it is true that the greatest advances have come during times of war, this is largely because there was some moderation, some civilian moderation of such a process. No militarist society has ever advanced technologically or socially. Ever.
Italy? Failure. Scientists, doctors, intellectuals fled like sailors on a sinking ship. Nazi Germany? Please. It just goes to show you what one lucky rocket scientist can do when someone with ultimate power gives them patronage. North Korea? Regression ad infinitum.
The fundamental problem with militarism isn't the idea that the military should come first. It's the idea that the military should come before everything else, and when the military needs more numbers, more manufactured goods, more weapons, more supplies, it turns to the people. Billeting would be commonplace. Recruitment would enter high schools; soon afterwards, middle schools. Soon, the schools would be run by the military. Youth organizations would become a method of training for the next generation of soldiers. Your militarist society would either collapse under its own weight, or develop into a nation of undereducated neanderthals.
I see the military as a necessary evil and a potential force for good, but giving it ultimate power is certainly not the solution to any sort of problem.

totalitarianism

Can't we all agree totalitarianism is just wrong? I defy you to find me one successful example of totalitarianism. One where the people didn't revolt, one where the people were happy and accepted the ruler and their decisions. One where nobody yearned for freedom, where nobody yearned for the right to write what they want, say what they want, and do what they want without fear of persecution.
And the catch is that it has to be real (No Biblical shit) and within the last thousand years.

anti-communism

Question!
What the fuck did the communists do?
And I have an answer to this one. During the late 1800s and early 1900s, there was a climate of... fear of corporations. The boss, the man, and the upper class all controlled the daily continuity of life for the working class. There was no middle class, there were two kinds of people; owner and worker, or more appropriately, master and slave. An advance from the time of slavery had yielded nothing but a new kind of enslavement, an economic enslavement of the masses.
Communism, socialism, and a bit later, work reform, were all the natural answers to these. Communism, being the biggest threat to the security, and profit, of massive corporations, was portrayed as being evil for the simple purpose of trying to contain a revolt against what was a completely unfair system. After people had heard enough horror stories about companies essentially murdering people, of hired guns killing striking workers, and of people dying in factories, the labour reform movement kicked in, and the rest is history.
However, this carried on in the fascist hearts and minds. At the pinnacle of the Red Scare in the US, the most well known fascists began to devise their theories. As their little parties began to grow up, they needed an enemy, and the ones most ideologically opposed, and the easiest targets, were the communists. In both Italy and Germany, the social democrats and conservatives were far too well entrenched in the middle and lower classes to directly attack, so the target would have to be the communists.
Anti-communism as part of fascist ideology is very much about an appropriate enemy being present and vulnerable.

It's just the fear of Communism was so great in Europe at the time that people realized the general structure of Mussolini's system was useful in preventing, or at least attempting to prevent, it’s spread. Communism was not seen as merely a new economic system; it was seen as a culture-destroying plague, and in a way, at least the communism practiced by the Soviets, it was.

If you're up on your French history, you'd know that this fear was in fact manufactured by an alliance of the conservatives and the liberals during the IIIème Republique. Also, you might be surprised to know that, despite this, the French signed an alliance with the Soviet Union in 1935, and it was ratified on March 5th, 1936 (The day before Hitler violated the Rheinland demilitarized zone). Additionally, Czechoslovakia, a close friend of the Soviet Union prior to their destruction by a fascist regime with fascist sympathizers in Slovakia, never really had this deeply rooted fear of communism. In Spain, prior to the mass murder of communists by the fascist regime which took over violently in a savage, war crime ridden (Mainly by the fascists; surprise surprise) illegal rebellion, there was a thriving communist, and even anarchist party. Can't forget that the 1930s were the glory days of Aneurin Bevan and the good Old Labour Party. There was hardly a widespread fear of communism, people were willing to go to the table and talk to the Soviet Union, and the idea of implementing communism in the Western European nations was alive and well up until probably 1955.
Also, know that there are more breeds of communism than there are breeds of dog. While some in the reactionary elite may have been afraid of all types of communism, I'd say even your furthest right democratic conservative would be willing to talk to the Soviets, whereas the fascists were only willing to talk to the communists to get something out of it.
Ah yes, ideology has its restrictions? Petty little thing. Did you know the Germans were doing joint manoeuvres in the Soviet Union until 1936? The Italians traded with the Soviets up until June 22nd, 1941. In fact, I'd say, barring Stalinist interference in international trade, everyone... in the world... was willing to trade with the Soviets. Fascists or not. Funny how ideology takes second tier to practical considerations; the problem is, in a real fascist dictatorship, that's not supposed to happen.

corporatism

populism

How are these two not immediately evident as being morally opposed to one another?
I recently had the privilege to sit down with the former President of Monsanto Canada as part of my university's bid to get its student researchers involved in corporate science. He said, pretty plainly, that the corporations aren't there to serve the people, that ultimately their primary function is to return favourable results to their shareholders, and more specifically, to the biggest shareholders. Not even individual people with shares; we're not talking people with individual interests in this company like supporters, employees, or mutual funds, but instead mass investors, such as the Blackstone Group. Massive financial institutions with billions of dispensable dollars and CEOs with the biggest salaries in history. We live in a corporatist society already, where corporations have pretty much all the say in our lives.
Populism is pretty much the opposite. Giving the people what they want, doing what the people bid, and serving the greater good. I suppose you could play with them, and just say that populism is at least pretending that you're giving the people what they want, which would go well with the tendency of fascist regimes to create an entirely synthetic world of propaganda, where they try to convince the people that by serving the corporations, they're really serving themselves.
Well take it from someone in a field being rapidly consumed by corporations. Corporations do not serve your best interests; sometimes their interests intersect with those of humanity. Perhaps there's a potential for more profit over a greater period of time if they pursue a cleaner refining process for a certain food product. Say it costs about $3 billion, but they sell $1.2 billion worth every fiscal year. They can advertise they've done this, put it on the box, or if they're a reseller, tell their clients that they've made this great change which improves quality. They can even jack up the prices. Provided their sales stay the same (Unlikely, with human stupidity), they make their money back in three fiscal years, and they get this magical new bulletproof shield which they can throw up at any allegations; that they're concerned about people, that they made this financially disruptive change to better serve the peoples' interests. It's Business Administration 101 material, sometimes your interests, and the best interests of the people intersect, and if they do, use it to your advantage to increase profit and help the company.
Corporations will never sacrifice profit for morality. Don't delude yourself into thinking that populism and corporatism can go hand in hand without an entire culture of lies.

Potentially, you're talking about the Italian model of corporativism, which is just as batshit crazy. Instead of just allowing corporations to go nuts (As all "fascist" regimes have done in the past), it calls for tying the government to these corporations, with, essentially civil service administrators (Probably wearing uniforms) trying to run corporations. Perfect for a forced economy; it crushes any sort of individual freedom in financial matters, and puts everything in the hands of the state. Forget corporations as an entity which you might recognize, we're talking full on, de-regulated government agencies given full reign over the economy. Instead of billion dollar salaries, think billion dollar payoffs. Rampant corruption, waste, government bureaucracy and inefficiency transformed to the business world. And beyond that, you work directly for the state through an intermediary "corporation," meaning instead of the bumbling leaders fellatically praising the corporate bosses and following their every commands, your leaders become the corporate bosses. Greed consumes everyone; it would certainly consume the mid-level functionaries, and probably corrupt the upper layers as well. The military, in a militarist society, would be relying on these "corporations" to produce, and as a result, the government and the military would hold each other at this sort of uneasy impasse; both are symbiotically tied to each other. The military would win, ultimately. If a corporation can't deliver because of a strike, and perhaps someone wants to negotiate, the military would almost certainly end it immediately; by force. An authoritarian dystopia would almost certainly follow.
And dealing with other countries would probably be a problem. The interesting thing is that the Soviet Union, of all places, followed a sort of corporativist model for a very, very long time, and North Korea continues to. All of their industries were tied directly to the government.

collectivism

Stressing the importance of a society is important in any statist regime. Making people either believe incorrectly, or trust correctly that the government is there to serve their best interests is at the core of any ideology which tries to help people. I believe very strongly in the role of the government in the protection of people from corporate interests, crime, and anything which could cause undue harm. If I were in government, it would be my job to eliminate the fundamental distrust of large organizations in the people, getting them to let down their guard so the government can help them.
The difference is that, in a fascist regime, my role would be to eliminate this fundamental distrust so that the government can allow its lackeys, the corporations, to exploit them for labour, and to use them for anything that would produce the most profit.
Understand that statism and collectivism go hand in hand, and they are completely different for opposing ideologies. Statism and collectivism with a socialist regime mean giving help to disadvantaged people and the vulnerable and helping them to better cope with the demands of life in society, and getting them to accept this help, and getting the people to accept giving this necessary aid. Statism and collectivism within a fascist regime mean helping corporations exclusively, breaking up riots, ensuring people work, if necessary under the threat of force, and getting people to believe that what you're doing is a service to them as a society. I fail to see how the latter is, in any way, appealing to anyone below the highest of the upper class.

political and economic liberalism

I personally oppose economic liberalism, but I'm a bit peeved at the fact that you run around in other threads supporting social liberalism then launch a crusade against it here. Social liberalism is non-negotiable.

Fascism has, by far, the greatest potential for oppression of any potential government type. Naturally, if you support anything resembling this, you're not afraid of oppression. I fear that this response will go largely unheard, because your system is not fascism, but is based on it and very closely mirrors it. I caution you; be very, very careful. The purpose of government is to serve the mandate of the people, and this requires a conscience. Do not let your morals be unleavened by your adherence to a supposedly decent doctrine.
Fascism and its children are inherently evil. Fascism represents the worst and most oppressive instincts of mankind, the most murderous urges which have gone unanswered since the fall of the Roman Empire. We live in a society today which cannot tolerate these violent compulsions to seize ultimate power and pave a destiny with the bones of the innocent. I plead with you, all of you, to recognize fascism for what it is; a fundamentally unfair and evil system of government whose adaptations will breed nothing but the destruction of human rights and the end of humanity as we know it. There are other ways to effect a great leap forward into the future. The current system is unfair, but this would create a terrible climate of fear and tyranny. Revise, revise, revise, until you find something fair and decent, something which supports humanity in all of its diversity, and something which accommodates the need for a leap forward into the future.
I will answer the rest of it in a short amount of time, but I figured I should make my contempt for fascism known first. Your system, to the best of my understanding, mimics it very closely, so this will be referred to in quite some depth at a later time.

And please, don't respond to the entire post with one paragraph. It's rather... depressing.

[Casen]

{DELETED}

Edited by Kacen, 03 February 2008 - 12:02 PM.

[Casen]

anti-communism

Question!
What the fuck did the communists do?

AAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAA

The Communists in Italy before the rise of Fascism were like terrorists, killing people in mobs, blowing up shops, attacking trains, etc. Mussolini formed the Blackshirt militias to fight back against them, since the Italian government was too weak to deal with them at the time.

Oh but that's right, the Communists weren't terrorists they were freedom fighters.

Also less than one paragraph. See, I won. That's how you win.

[CodeCat]

Indeed they were freedom fighters. Rather than put up with an opressive government, they sought freedom and equal rights for everyone. I'm sure you'd do the same in their shoes. Although by the looks of this topic, I think you actually enjoy opression as long as you're the one causing it.

[Phil]

The Communists in Italy before the rise of Fascism were like terrorists, killing people in mobs, blowing up shops, attacking trains, etc. Mussolini formed the Blackshirt militias to fight back against them, since the Italian government was too weak to deal with them at the time.

The Fasci di Combattimento were nothing else than a violent group that made its way to the top by helping the opressors of that time (mainly the big industrials who feared for their power and property). In terms of violence they weren't any better than the communists, with the difference that they were mainly just a bunch of unemployed soldiers with the sole goal to destroy the communits movement. The big political ideology came later on, when they forced their way to power and Mussolini built up their totalitarian state.

[Hostile]

If crime fighters fight crime, and firefighters fight fires, what do freedom fighters fight? When you kill people to prove an ideology, it's still a crime.

[MSpencer]

And the largest posts with the most valid points are always forgotten. Thus, the fascists continue to ignore the intellectuals.

Also less than one paragraph. See, I won. That's how you win.

Perhaps if you'd read the entire thing rather than just be an idiot...
Perhaps one day you'll learn that it's not about winning. Until then, you'll continue to be a knuckle dragging thug.

Edited by MSpencer, 03 February 2008 - 04:55 PM.

[duke_Qa]

you made a very nice and well researched post there spencer, really brings forth alot of the points that i agree with. Especially the one about statism is something for everyone to take notice of, because that is some of the problems bigger western countries have a problem with(basically, make the people come closer to the government (more trust in the government's competence)and make the government come closer to the people(decentralize some of the power). overall i wonder if you have all this information in your head or if you wiki for it as you need it. Respect to you if you have all these basic recollections of all of the things mentioned in the topic

But problems occur you make a 3300ish word long post in a forum where alot of people don't really feel like answering them. You can't expect anything but getting exactly what you find depressing. but since i mostly agree i don't really have any reason to argue against your arguments. its the ones who disagree who are the targets, and they will rarely do anything but focus on one point that they can say something about and ignore the rest which might be hard even for them to refute.

then again, when you make long posts , sheer quantity becomes an argument by itself. if your point of view can be covered with fewer words, it makes it easier for people to comprehend it, but it also makes it easier for them to assume other things about your point of view. a balance is often a good thing, but perhaps not too easy to find.


Kacen; you could try to at least go through his different parts and say what you might think is wrong. just claiming that communists back in the fascists days were nothing but terrorists is pretty much derailing his argument onto a rail you will win on. at least up to the point that people refute your perspective on 100 year old communists vs modern day "communists"(if there are some)...

[Hostile]

Read that guys post above on limiting post content for relevancy. I can't agree more. When I see too many words. I scroll past them. Too much of a burden to read.

[Mastermind]

Read that guys post above on limiting post content for relevancy. I can't agree more. When I see too many words. I scroll past them. Too much of a burden to read.

If you're not willing to read the arguments, why are you arguing?

[MSpencer]

The truth is never succinct and written in nice, easy to read ten word sentences with illustrations. The post is worth reading; if you can't read, get glasses, if you can't be bothered, get out.
Quantity is not an argument in itself. I could post a good two page length bullshit post, as is evidenced in Post 1 here, but I didn't, and I never do. You should note that of all of the long posts I've ever made, I make some pretty good points. While yes, sometimes I can be longwinded, it is this longwindedness which ensures that there is no doubt in any point made, that the relevant background and context are included, and that the argument is self-contained and understandable by people at any juncture in the conversation. I also make an effort to pander to those who might not be versed in the topic, perhaps to get more interested minds involved.
If all the time spent bitching had been spent reading and writing, I'm certain there would be some full, comprehensive replies with valuable input.

overall i wonder if you have all this information in your head or if you wiki for it as you need it. Respect to you if you have all these basic recollections of all of the things mentioned in the topic

Except for some fact checking on dates and timelines for fascism in the 1920s especially, and clarifying some terms, I pretty much came up with most of it. I will certainly yield much of the credit to the wiki though, certainly helped with examples and such.
I need to clean out my brain. At the moment I've got some notes tacked to my wall which will help with that, so on that note, I'm going to scamper off and read.
Thanks though

[Hostile]

Read that guys post above on limiting post content for relevancy. I can't agree more. When I see too many words. I scroll past them. Too much of a burden to read.

If you're not willing to read the arguments, why are you arguing?

Hopefully this is not coming from the same person who has been editing my posts without any notation. Yes I do read them, if there are too many words I tend to skim through it like any other human being. The more there is the more I skim and the less details I pick up.

It's human nature, it's a forum.

[Tom]

If i read someones post, I don't skim, I read the entire thing. Human nature my ass.

[Blodo]

It's human nature, it's a forum.

No, you see, that's just lack of interest in being properly informed on the arguments of the other side in a subject. Don't mix the two.

[Hostile]

If i read someones post, I don't skim, I read the entire thing. Human nature my ass.

It's human nature, it's a forum.

No, you see, that's just lack of interest in being properly informed on the arguments of the other side in a subject. Don't mix the two.

ok, my ass(Hybrid) and not informed(Blodo). I don't give a shit really. I get what I want out of this forum and give as much as I care to give. If this doesn't suit you, than fine. I care little for pleasing people here at Revora any longer.

Since when am I held to such high scrutiny? If I choose to skim topics and reply, so be it. If I choose to reply without even reading the post fuck it. I can do whatever I want, it's a forum. Give and get what you want.

As long as I don't break the rules, you can't touch me, no matter what harsh words you throw my way.

You want to pile on me, than do it. I'm teflan Don. I care nothing of what you people think.

I'm focused on moving out and into a new place. I have RL issues to deal with. I found a pic of my wife naked with another man dated less than 60 days ago. Do you honestly think I give a shit about things regarding you two or Revora right now.

Should I step down? Maybe, but I'll be back in a few weeks time. I'd appreciate it right now if you "handle me with care" for alittle while...