[Handsome Creepy Eel]

But I believe that the outcome of WW2 is exactly the trump card against the "Fascism = effectiveness" argument that this thread has brought up.

Take 1: say, you get Hitler. Your nation prospers as he uses strong fiscal stimulus to restart the economy and end the depression (sounds familiar, eh). Your military becomes the finest on the planet and everyone fears you to the point that you can just annex other countries at will and no one lifts a finger. Everything is going great.

Then this Hitler guy decides to fight an all-out war on multiple fronts simultaneously and doesn't even care for consolidating resources that he conquered (say, Ukraine), instead preferring to engage in a dick-measuring contest with some other dictator. Even worse, when his war starts going badly, he prevents his largest army from retreating and recovering and loses almost a million soldiers because of pride. The war is irretrievably lost.

Your country is pillaged, raped and humiliated.

Take 2: This obscure asian guy gains power through a coup. The nation cheers his decisiveness and supports his measures that he claims will improve people's lives.

Then your leader suffers a bad case of toxoplasmosis and decides that half of the country is actually made of traitors and decides to exterminate them. Millions die from starvation, torture and execution.

Take 3: Your country is led by a single party, whose top official (with support of other top officials who want to lick his ass) has just won a long war and improved the country a lot. Then he decides that he simply must become the world's biggest exporter of steel. He starts a steel-production campaign that includes melting down agricultural implements such as ploughs or shovels. With not enough tools to work the land and an unfortunate drought, tens of millions die from starvation, sometimes eating each other in desperation.

My question is: what protects Fascism from a ruler (or a handful of most powerful advisors) going mad, evil, or both, and destroying the country? IMO, nothing.

The finest point of democracies is that they are immune to pride or individual quirks. Maybe not 100%, but for the most part they are.

That doesn't mean that I don't recognize the achievements of totalitarian regimes. My country had its greatest period of prosperity during Communist Yugoslavia and experienced a horrible degradation after people elected the worst possible criminals to lead it after the breakup of Yugoslavia. China today is also doing great, even if I have complaints about how it oppresses its people. But for every (modern) China and Yugoslavia, you have a dozen Castros, Chavezs, Saddams, Maos, Grand Ayatollahs, Kim Jongs and other madmen.

I firmly believe that it is because fascism has no check on power, so sooner or later it always leads to such lunacy. It depends on blindly trusting a small number of people, with no mechanism to remove them if they start making bad decisions. Democracy is a moderating force that provides a lot more protection against this, although of course it isn't infallible either. But leaving everything dependent on the smarts and goodwill of one or few people is not its feature like in fascism.

[Lemmo]

You seem to be conflating fascism with communism and other forms of totalitarianism. Takes 2 and 3 were communists. And as far as Take 1, all the other powers in the war also built empires through aggression against other countries (UK, a democracy, and the Soviet Union, communist dictatorship). In fact it was the democratic UK that had the largest empire at the time and most subject peoples.

So I think your basic argument (totalitarian govs lack checks on power) is valid but WWII doesn't prove the point and your argument isn't against fascism specifically.

[j r]

If you're making an argument in favor of fascism, you can't just pick and choose which elements to defend. It's a whole. Well, you can, but then you're making completely rigged comparisons. The historical reality is that the world's most powerful fascist country lost a war to the world's most powerful democracy. You can make all the excuses you want, but these are the facts.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

@Lemmo: I do admit that I cherrypicked from multiple regimes there, but what fascism is there without totalitarianism? I have not heard of one without it (and that is IMO the main difference between it and other regimes vs. democracy - a democracy can also be aggressive, nationalist, or whatever).

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-05-2013 06:49 AM)j r Wrote:  

If you're making an argument in favor of fascism, you can't just pick and choose which elements to defend. It's a whole. Well, you can, but then you're making completely rigged comparisons. The historical reality is that the world's most powerful fascist country lost a war to the world's most powerful democracy. You can make all the excuses you want, but these are the facts.

That's true, but ...

... the leaders of the democracy were fascinated by and borrowed important elements from fascist examples.

... let's say, broadly, that in the 20th century and beyond, three main propositions were raised as "answers" to the riddle of political modernity: communism, liberal democracy, and fascism. Communism in its classical Marxist form seems to have gassed out. Liberal democracy may or may not be looking shakey. We buried and ruled out the fascist possibility early on ... but perhaps all of us can relate to the feeling of being immediately ruled out when it turns out we had something valid to say? Red pill connection here anyone?

[Blaster]

Quote:

If you're making an argument in favor of fascism, you can't just pick and choose which elements to defend. It's a whole. Well, you can, but then you're making completely rigged comparisons.

I'd say instead that if you're making an argument in favor of fascism, you should declare what you mean by fascism in positive terms ("... is this and this"), not negative terms ("... is not this or this"). This is especially true if your position is that fascism as practiced by the Nazis and Mussolini is not representative of the political philosophy.

You can pick and choose elements to defend(or attack), but at that point the term is just getting in the way and you'd be better off just discussing specific principles. Especially since the economic political landscape of the world has changed dramatically from the era when fascism originally rose.

[Blaster]

(03-05-2013 07:09 AM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

... the leaders of the democracy were fascinated by and borrowed important elements from fascist examples.

Which ones?

Quote:

... let's say, broadly, that in the 20th century and beyond, three main propositions were raised as "answers" to the riddle of political modernity: communism, liberal democracy, and fascism. Communism in its classical Marxist form seems to have gassed out. Liberal democracy may or may not be looking shakey. We buried and ruled out the fascist possibility early on ... but perhaps all of us can relate to the feeling of being immediately ruled out when it turns out we had something valid to say? Red pill connection here anyone?

I rule out fascism because I don't want to live in a racist country with no free speech or political freedom.

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-05-2013 07:40 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 07:09 AM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

... the leaders of the democracy were fascinated by and borrowed important elements from fascist examples.

Which ones?

Wholly off the top of my head--FDR, Bernard Baruch, the editors of the New Republic ... I can look into it more deeply if you really need to keep fronting like I'm off-base and don't know what I'm talking about.

Quote:

I rule out fascism because I don't want to live in a racist country with no free speech or political freedom.

I'd welcome a more lengthy and serious evaluation of the freedoms and racism under fascism in relation to other regimes. Come, let it unfold! Or don't, and indulge in curt and flip dismissals.

I'm going to get bogged down in intramural insult here. I cease! I desist! I decline! For now PM me if you at all appreciate the cut of my jib and would like to compare notes and explore this topic more.

[Blaster]

Sorry, I don't mean which leaders were interested in elements of fascism, I mean what elements of fascism were they interested in?

My point is there is no need to study fascism in particular unless you are interested in the specific combination of authoritarian government, racial+national supremacy, and forcible suppression of political opposition featured mostly by the Nazis and a few other minor dictators like Saddam Hussein. There may have been some fascist states that were not officially recognized as such, such as Serbia under Milošević (which turned out well, didn't it?).

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-05-2013 08:47 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Sorry, I don't mean which leaders were interested in elements of fascism, I mean what elements of fascism were they interested in?

I will actually have to go back and look into it more (this thread has helped reignite my interest in reading on this topics) but as far as I can tell and remember they were interested in the examples fascist governments set for their own managerial project, in the civic patriotism and unity, and maybe less significantly in the virile, classically-influenced art, sculpture, and architecture.

[Lemmo]

(03-05-2013 06:49 AM)j r Wrote:  

If you're making an argument in favor of fascism, you can't just pick and choose which elements to defend. It's a whole. Well, you can, but then you're making completely rigged comparisons. The historical reality is that the world's most powerful fascist country lost a war to the world's most powerful democracy. You can make all the excuses you want, but these are the facts.

Not really defending fascism. Just saying WWII doesn't prove anything. And unless you are calling the Soviet Union a democracy, your argument is incorrect. 80% of German casualties were on the eastern front so the democracies didn't really defeat Germany. WWII just shows that the countries with the most people and resources will win a war.

[Walderschmidt]

(03-04-2013 10:31 AM)soup Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 10:20 AM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 09:44 AM)soup Wrote:  

B) Lock up all dissidents

By this logic, A feminist dictator would lock everyone on this board up and you'd be happy with that.

No. Such a dictator would be a "feminist totalitarian", not a fascist.

One of the core tenets of Fascism is Palingenesis, i.e., rebirth. Mussolini wanted Italy to be reborn in the form of a New Roman Empire. Hitler wanted Germany to be reborn in the form of a 3rd German Empire ("Reich").

Feminism cannot be fascist because that which never existed cannot be born again. There was no Ancient Feminist Empire. The Amazon warriors are mythical creatures, like unicorns and leprechauns.

Moreover, Fascism is extremely anti-liberal, whereas feminists are "liberal" extremists in the sense that they want to be liberated from society's expectations, judgements, and demands. Feminists also want to be liberated from consequences and responsibility, which makes it clear that it's an ideology that appeals to spoiled princesses out of touch with reality.

Fascism sees society as an organic body to be preserved, and that means that it cannot squander its women's fertility, since a society cannot be perpetuated without functioning baby-factories. Feminism sees squandering women's fertility as a virtue, as a form of empowerment.

If Hitler cared so much about consequences, why did he end up dying in a bunker. He was reckless for starting a war. A big baby.

Facism can't see anything- it doesn't have eyes. The Facist sees only his society as an organic body to be preserved, not society in general.

I'm not so sure he died in a bunker.

If I was the head of one of the world's strongest militaries and most effective propaganda machines, no one would put it past me to stage my suicide before I escaped to my freedom somewhere.

Wald

[bojangles]

(03-05-2013 04:21 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

You seem to be conflating fascism with communism and other forms of totalitarianism. Takes 2 and 3 were communists. And as far as Take 1, all the other powers in the war also built empires through aggression against other countries (UK, a democracy, and the Soviet Union, communist dictatorship). In fact it was the democratic UK that had the largest empire at the time and most subject peoples.

So I think your basic argument (totalitarian govs lack checks on power) is valid but WWII doesn't prove the point and your argument isn't against fascism specifically.

The UK did have the largest empire, it actually created this empire whilst in a supposed democratic state but this was more an aristocratic state as the common man did not vote for the people in parliament. However the common man helped to create the world's biggest empire by doing as it was told.

[Lemmo]

(03-05-2013 02:15 PM)bojangles Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 04:21 AM)Lemmo Wrote:  

You seem to be conflating fascism with communism and other forms of totalitarianism. Takes 2 and 3 were communists. And as far as Take 1, all the other powers in the war also built empires through aggression against other countries (UK, a democracy, and the Soviet Union, communist dictatorship). In fact it was the democratic UK that had the largest empire at the time and most subject peoples.

So I think your basic argument (totalitarian govs lack checks on power) is valid but WWII doesn't prove the point and your argument isn't against fascism specifically.

The UK did have the largest empire, it actually created this empire whilst in a supposed democratic state but this was more an aristocratic state as the common man did not vote for the people in parliament. However the common man helped to create the world's biggest empire by doing as it was told.

Yeah, and that may be closer to the best form of government. The US founding fathers envisioned a system of voting only by property owning men. This provides the checks of a democracy without the downsides of a more democratic system where everyone with a pulse, including those who feed off other tax payers, gets to vote.

[Hotwheels]

The Founding Fathers really did have it pretty much figured out.

We've spent the past 200 years fucking it up.

[j r]

(03-05-2013 02:25 PM)Hotwheels Wrote:  

The Founding Fathers really did have it pretty much figured out.

We've spent the past 200 years fucking it up.

Except for slavery.

[Icarus]

(03-05-2013 02:28 PM)j r Wrote:  

Except for slavery.

No. The problem was not slavery. The problem was not giving the slaves a sovereign entity when they were freed. Few former American slaves moved to Liberia.

Countries whose populations consist of former colonists and former slaves have way too much friction, and tend to live in a state of permanent low-intensity civil war. Brazil is the perfect example.

[BIGINJAPAN]

I haven't read all the comments yet but so far I think people missed the whole point of the US constitutional republic. Which a lot of people keep referring to as democracy.

Anyways your founding fathers had it right. It seems like everyone here who is in support of Fascism is because of the ability to make quick, swift decisions without accountability. The whole point of the US system is to keep the politicians fighting with each other and the courts to keep them in check, so they CAN'T get anything done. You were set up to succeed, which you did.

I think you are a fool if you think the parties, president and the courts aren't working together. Everyday the US gets poorer with all your god given rights slowly being taken away. You were given the blue print to be free, wealthy and to be looked up to by the rest of the world. That is all being destroyed by fascism now.

[j r]

(03-05-2013 02:34 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 02:28 PM)j r Wrote:  

Except for slavery.

No. The problem was not slavery. The problem was not giving the slaves a sovereign entity when they were freed. Few former American slaves moved to Liberia.

Countries whose populations consist of former colonists and former slaves have way too much friction, and tend to live in a state of permanent low-intensity civil war. Brazil is the perfect example.

What are you talking about? The founders failed to decisively deal with slavery, thinking it was on it's way out. Eli Whitney invented the cotton gin and slavery become the foundation for a tremendous amount of wealth being made by the planters. The result was an actual Civl War that killed almost a million people.

And why should slaves be shipped off to anywhere? Those people more than earned their citizenship toiling for to make other people rich. The low-intensity civil war that persisted was because southern whites refused to give blacks either their freedom or their equality, instead attempting to keep them in a state of perpetual squalor in order to continue benefitting from their labor.

Also, what's with all the people arguing in favor of democracy, but not in favor of universal suffrage. You can't have a democracy that keeps substantial portions of society locked out of power, at least bit for long. When people argue for keeping power limited to the elites, it's usually because they imagine themselves being part of the elites, but how do you think that would operate today. You really want a test to determine who can vote? Who do you think is going to grading those tests? If there a voting test today, it would probably have a question like "Describe the importance of feminism to modern America."

It's weird how people trust elites to make decisions for everyone else, even after elites continue to fuck things up royally.

[rmo]

(03-04-2013 10:23 PM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:52 PM)jaakkeli Wrote:  

the atrocities on the continent would have been covered up so people would not immediately associate Naziism with Auschwitz (hell, no one would have heard about Auschwitz)

You mean, like Anglo-American Leftists did with Communists atrocities? Like, for example, no one knew the truth about Katyn until decades afterward?

It turns out that even Teutonophilic figures in the West (H.L. Mencken comes to mind) were wholly ready to call out the Germans for their treatment of Jews, and did so early in the game. So the issue was quite known.

See also: Walter Duranty.

As far as atrocities go, everyone covers that shit up. Just look at turkey and the armenian massacre, 1 million + Christians dead, and no US outcry.

But barbarian, you're a racist and you didn't back up extraordinary claims. It's the same arguement of epistemological agnosticism (an extra-ordinary claim requires extra-ordinary proof)

The claim:
Jewish-communsim pre-empted the major early 20th century conflicts (and presumably the cold war)

Well first off one of the weaknesses of democracy is everyone votes for bread and circuses till they become a mob that wishes for a master. Democracy begs for communism. Any group that has any democratic history always has at least a small part of thier populace demand socialism or communsim. The Jews didn't invent or propagate the communist meme.


When I name sources I'm linking to wiki articles for 3 reasons
A. None of us are scholars, and this is by no means a scholarly debate, to assume that would be silly
B. the wiki links have sources on the bottom if you wish to double check
C. They are accurate and concise summaries.

First off, even though Karl marx may have been related to some jews, hitler certainly was, he was anti-Semitic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

Also Jewish-Communsim is a nazi meme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

I for one think one of the manosphere's big weaknesses, great example is Aurini's YouTube comment sections, is the neo-nazi fucks who spread lies like Jewish-communism and biological race to further some totalitarian agenda. It is anti-freedom, it is anti-white (since it helps make anyone with fair skin look Iike a nazi), and it's not the truth. Barbarian might not be a nazi cunt, but as fun as this thread is to discuss merits of a organizational system (even if all were doing is arguing hitler and Jews) people need to be mindful of what memes they let propagate thier brains.

Personnaly I think voluntaryism and city-state republics wipe the floor with facism since they defend individual rights, law, and economics. With these 3 things you can support education and enlightenment leading to an overall better culture that adopts such systems. The problem we have is by what criteria would we compare this with facism? Because if someone said a criterion was: overall government power, voluntaryists would lose because thier government doesn't even exist.

And as far as anyone talking about 'facism is to best because what hitler did to Germany right after WWI to make them a powerhouse I would direct you to this comment:

(03-05-2013 02:12 AM)TheRookie Wrote:  

These leaders ran unsustainable command economies with government directing a huge part of national product towards militarism, public works, national health care schemes, etc. The only way they could maintain a flawed socialistic economy was to invade other countries, steal their capital, and enslave their workers. They naturally over-extended and quickly collapsed. The German economy was a basket case at the end of the war. Hitler was able to turn the economy around by ending Weimar hyperinflation by instituting a new currency and ending crippling reparations payments to the allies. Then he went wild and started instituting all manners of flawed policies like price controls, farm subsidies, spending on wasteful public works projects, massive military build-up. He used deficit spending and central bank inflation to finance it all.

The notion that the fascist economic system is beneficial has already been debated by the sharpest minds and found wanting. Suggested reading:

http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=507
http://dailyreckoning.com/too-much-of-a-...-part-iii/
http://mises.org/daily/3274

I haven't read this book, only reviews, but if you're interested in this topic it would be worth a look:
http://www.amazon.com/Wages-Destruction-...0143113208

(03-04-2013 10:30 PM)TheCaptainPower Wrote:  

In my opinion, a well run fascist government will always out perform a democracy. The key word being "well run". A nation as a whole makes a lot of progress when everyone is one the same page, either by choice or forced.

Fascist leaders like Hitler, Napoleon? Almost took over half of Europe in a short amount of time.

[Mr.Barbarian]

[Icarus]

(03-05-2013 02:49 PM)j r Wrote:  

And why should slaves be shipped off to anywhere?

No need to ship them anywhere. Just give them Alabama, and let them form the Free African State of Alabama, or something like that. Separation is good for diversity.

People are tribal, and democracy can only work when you have one tribe in one country. Which is why democracy will never work in Iraq. If you have two or more tribes, you either have secession, or you have civil war. To prevent a civil war, you aggressively promote miscegenation in order to create a single tribe out of two or more tribes. Note that I used the word "tribe", not "race". Racialism is merely one form of tribalism, but it's not the only one.

(03-05-2013 02:49 PM)j r Wrote:  

Those people more than earned their citizenship toiling for to make other people rich. The low-intensity civil war that persisted was because southern whites refused to give blacks either their freedom or their equality

You can decide to end slavery one merry day, but how can you expect over 200 years of resentment to vanish overnight? Heck, the Greeks still resent the Fall of Constantinople in 1453! The Iberians still resent the Moorish invasion of 711!

Integration does not work unless via mass miscegenation. Secession is more effective.

[Mr.Barbarian]

(03-05-2013 02:59 PM)rmo Wrote:  

First off, even though Karl marx may have been related to some jews, hitler certainly was, he was anti-Semitic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

Also Jewish-Communsim is a nazi meme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

What if I could show you that it obviously was not limited to Karl Marx, and that the claim is not just a "Nazi meme"?

Quote:

I for one think one of the manosphere's big weaknesses, great example is Aurini's YouTube comment sections, is the neo-nazi fucks who spread lies like Jewish-communism and biological race to further some totalitarian agenda. It is anti-freedom, it is anti-white (since it helps make anyone with fair skin look Iike a nazi), and it's not the truth. Barbarian might not be a nazi cunt, but as fun as this thread is to discuss merits of a organizational system (even if all were doing is arguing hitler and Jews) people need to be mindful of what memes they let propagate thier brains.

Personnaly I think voluntaryism and city-state republics wipe the floor with facism since they defend individual rights, law, and economics. With these 3 things you can support education and enlightenment leading to an overall better culture that adopts such systems. The problem we have is by what criteria would we compare this with facism? Because if someone said a criterion was: overall government power, voluntaryists would lose because thier government doesn't even exist.

What if we could just take it step by step, taking care to study each issue, and see what ends up being true and correct, instead of flying off about "neo Nazi fucks" ruining the manosphere and how your preferred grid of political reality wipes the floor with someone else's?

[j r]

(03-05-2013 03:21 PM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

(03-05-2013 02:59 PM)rmo Wrote:  

First off, even though Karl marx may have been related to some jews, hitler certainly was, he was anti-Semitic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jewish_Question

Also Jewish-Communsim is a nazi meme
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism

What if I could show you that it obviously was not limited to Karl Marx, and that the claim is not just a "Nazi meme"?

Quote:

I for one think one of the manosphere's big weaknesses, great example is Aurini's YouTube comment sections, is the neo-nazi fucks who spread lies like Jewish-communism and biological race to further some totalitarian agenda. It is anti-freedom, it is anti-white (since it helps make anyone with fair skin look Iike a nazi), and it's not the truth. Barbarian might not be a nazi cunt, but as fun as this thread is to discuss merits of a organizational system (even if all were doing is arguing hitler and Jews) people need to be mindful of what memes they let propagate thier brains.

Personnaly I think voluntaryism and city-state republics wipe the floor with facism since they defend individual rights, law, and economics. With these 3 things you can support education and enlightenment leading to an overall better culture that adopts such systems. The problem we have is by what criteria would we compare this with facism? Because if someone said a criterion was: overall government power, voluntaryists would lose because thier government doesn't even exist.

What if we could just take it step by step, taking care to study each issue, and see what ends up being true and correct, instead of flying off about "neo Nazi fucks" ruining the manosphere and how your preferred grid of political reality wipes the floor with someone else's?

Why do you write like the narrators from Ancient Aliens?

[jaakkeli]

(03-04-2013 10:23 PM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  

(03-04-2013 07:52 PM)jaakkeli Wrote:  

the atrocities on the continent would have been covered up so people would not immediately associate Naziism with Auschwitz (hell, no one would have heard about Auschwitz)

You mean, like Anglo-American Leftists did with Communists atrocities? Like, for example, no one knew the truth about Katyn until decades afterward?

No one knew about Katyn before the Germans took the area and brought tons of people from all over the world to report on the mass graves. No one knew about Auschwitz before the Russians took the area, so if Germany would have won it would have been easy for them to destroy enough evidence that we'd never be able to tell that Auschwitz was something more than just a POW camp.

Note also that the Allies blamed the Germans for Katyn. The British and the Americans of course knew that it was the Russians but they helped cover it up. I don't know about the Americans but the British under left-wing government continued the cover up for decades. Soviet atrocities get a different treatment even in America. The American public likes to go view anti-Nazi movies because they get to see an ending where the bad guys get destroyed and the survivors get freed by American soldiers. "Our boys go over there, stop the massacre and hunt down the guilty" makes a good patriotic theme for a movie. "Our boys don't go over there, no one stops the massacre and the guilty go home and live happily ever after" isn't such an easy sell.

This isn't some anti-American complaint. Human psychology just massively favours telling the winning stories and all the economics and power favours not offending winners. So, the simple recipe to getting away with something is to win, cover up what you can and deny, deny, deny. Everyone will know that you did at least something nasty, of course, but most of society will naturally conspire against anyone trying to make a fuss about something a winner did. To me this is a pretty big red pill lesson...

And that's for the UK and the US. How would you imagine it to work out in the smaller countries? In the 1990s my school books STILL taught that the Germans massacred Poles in Katyn, though my (social democrat) history teacher did actually tell us that the "official" history is a bunch of lies. This stuff is still somewhat of a taboo, the fear of angering Russia is just too great so we have erased tons of history.