What do you support?

[Ben]

It wasn't only Mussolini who 'tarnished' (if thats what you want to call it) the reputation of Fascists, but also those in Germany, Spain and many other places around the world. There are so many things wrong with Fascism itself its difficult where to begin. I'll try to put forward something unbias as I did for Capitalism and Socialism/Communism, and then move onto criticisms.

 

Fascism first and foremost is an ideology over something like Socialism (mainly economic). Although Nationalism is at the core of Fascism, so is authoritarianism. Its not a choice between either, its both, or else why differentiate between Fascism and Nationalism. As Communism is a further step from Socialism, Fascism is a further step from Nationalism. Fascism is an authoritarian structure in which a single government has complete power over a country, and the country is held to be the most important thing one can hold socially. Conserving the values of a country is made almost sacred, alongside religions. You saw this with many Fascist powers, such as Mussolini and the Catholic Church being very close and aiding each other into power. The philosophy behind Fascism is extremely segregating, with some classes or more typically races being held above others as superior. Hitler and his legion famously misunderstood the works of Friedrich Nietzsche who wrote about the master-slave philosophy - the Nazi propaganda selectively used parts of such philosophers to increase people's acceptance of superior and inferior races even though Nietzsche was completely against that. Above all, Fascism literally has no direction within society, and is economically blind. Hitler tried to adopt this ideology called 'National Socialism' but they are just completely different things, and Hitler did this mainly to gain the support of the Socialists and Communists. He later showed his true colours.

 

It didn't take a horrible turn in the 1930s as it occured before that, but the reality was that Fascism has obvious problems within its ideology and things like genocide, massacres, domination etc. all inevitably descend one after another. The whole idea of upholding a single country to be the most important will create friction between other countries. As soon as people are threatened they will resort to violence. The currently stronger country will dominate and these faults will just increase. You cannot stop this. Liberty, rights, beliefs etc. are all disregarded in a Fascist country if the conservative values are the opposite. Mussolini hunted down Socialists and Communists in so many ways. Hitler's actions caused a genocide. Spaniards had a cival-war. The whole idea of nationalism is simply preposterous. You cannot choose where you are born to, you have no control over that. Why would you punish or socially outcast someone for not being the same as you. Why would you then dominate over another country to crush their values? Variation is healthy both genetically and socially, and this has been proven in countless studies over such a long time. Its one thing to acclaim a national identity or any identity, its another to use it and attack someone else with it. To differentiate between Imperialism and Fascism you must look at the philosophy of each example, in this case the influence to other countries were certainly of Fascistic reasons.

 

I completely agree with the force-violence statement.

 

You're not describing nationalism though, you're describing xenophobia which depending on the scholar that you read isn't at the heart of Fascism. Nationalism is the pride in your country, not necessarily the belief that it's better than anyone else's. Again, it comes down to the scholar that you read. Some say that Fascism in its purest form (ideologically based, rather than when put in practice) is not expansionist in nature, while others disagree.

 

I don't want to write a full paragraph at the moment, simply because I haven't engaged in the literature for a few years now and I'd rather reply when I have been able to brush up - especially considering the depth of your replies,  . 

[Lenin]

You're not describing nationalism though, you're describing xenophobia which depending on the scholar that you read isn't at the heart of Fascism. Nationalism is the pride in your country, not necessarily the belief that it's better than anyone else's. Again, it comes down to the scholar that you read. Some say that Fascism in its purest form (ideologically based, rather than when put in practice) is not expansionist in nature, while others disagree.

 

I don't want to write a full paragraph at the moment, simply because I haven't engaged in the literature for a few years now and I'd rather reply when I have been able to brush up - especially considering the depth of your replies,  . 

 

What part was describing xenophobia? We were discussing Fascism, which I have both given a definition and desrcibed its effects. If you read it properly, it does state "all inevitably descend one after another". These 'problems' come sooner or later with far-right ideas. How many examples of proper Nationalism actually exists/existed? Pride is one thing, but as I described, in time conflict will emerge between prides and then these effects begin to take place as they have done previously. You are welcome to give a full definition of Fascism if you please but you haven't described why the one I've provided is not accurate or wrong.

 

Thats perfectly fine.

[Ben]

What part was describing xenophobia? We were discussing Fascism, which I have both given a definition and desrcibed its effects. If you read it properly, it does state "all inevitably descend one after another". These 'problems' come sooner or later with far-right ideas. How many examples of proper Nationalism actually exists/existed? Pride is one thing, but as I described, in time conflict will emerge between prides and then these effects begin to take place as they have done previously. You are welcome to give a full definition of Fascism if you please but you haven't described why the one I've provided is not accurate or wrong.

 

Thats perfectly fine.

 

The part I bolded. Pride (Nationalism) in a country is an introverted concept, you're proud of your own country for it's achievements. Whereas xenophobia is an extroverted concept, you're bringing other countries into the fold and you're actively comparing and competing with the ideas and beliefs of others. When you talk about expansionism, surely that's more xenophobic than patriotism? Or at least that's how I interpret it.

 

I do not disagree with your definition totally, the only reason I replied to this topic was because I felt that people wrongly put violence/force at the core of Fascism when I do not believe it to be. A lot of what you've said I agree with, but I just feel that you/others emphasised other key themes over nationalism which is the base for the entire ideology. Perhaps the only slight issue I have with what you've said is that Fascism inevitably leads to segregation and wars/expansionism as a direct result of this nationalism.

 

If you're describing Nationalism (not sure what you mean by 'Proper' nationalism) like I am, as the pride in your own nation, then it's everywhere in Western civilisation today. European diplomats nowadays are nationalistic about their country and yet they find ways to co-operate with each other using methods other than physical conflict. On a smaller scale when visiting new countries natives are incredibly keen to show/tell me more about their culture because they're proud of it - yet from personal experiences I've never been forced to conform to their way of life. These examples, to me, display nationalism in a harmless way. Pride in your home country doesn't necessarily equate to wars/violence. 

 

I won't be writing a full definition of Fascism as having studied aspects of it at university (albeit only a semester long module), I know it's a far bigger task than a few hundred words on here. Furthermore, it's a highly interpretive subject so there will never be a 'right' (excuse the pun) definition agreed upon by all. 

[Lenin]

The part I bolded. Pride (Nationalism) in a country is an introverted concept, you're proud of your own country for it's achievements. Whereas xenophobia is an extroverted concept, you're bringing other countries into the fold and you're actively comparing and competing with the ideas and beliefs of others. 

 

I do not disagree with your definition totally, the only reason I replied to this topic was because I felt that people wrongly put violence/force at the core of Fascism when I do not believe it to be. A lot of what you've said I agree with, but I just feel that you/others emphasised the outward looking aspects of Fascism a bit too much. Perhaps the only slight issue I have with what you've said is that Fascism inevitably leads to segregation and wars/expansionism as a result of this nationalism.

 

If you're describing Nationalism (not sure what you mean by 'Proper' nationalism) like I am, as the pride in your own nation, then it's everywhere in Western civilisation today. European diplomats nowadays are nationalistic about their country and yet they find ways to co-operate with each other using methods other than physical conflict. On a smaller scale when visiting new countries natives are incredibly keen to show/tell me more about their culture because they're proud of it - yet from personal experiences I've never been forced to conform to their way of life. These examples, to me, display nationalism in a harmless way. Pride in your home country doesn't necessarily equate to wars/violence. 

 

I won't be writing a full definition of Fascism as having studied aspects of it at university (albeit only a semester long module), I know it's a far bigger task than a few hundred words on here. Furthermore, it's a highly interpretive subject so there will never be a 'right' (excuse the pun) definition agreed upon by all. 

 

Yes but Nationalism isn't merely about being proud of your country, and the topic at hand was Fascism not Nationalism, and that the part you bolded out was further into the paragraph where I had already given a definition and was on the effects/criticisms.

 

Like I said in the previous post, these effects build up over time (I'm not defining Nationalism or Fascism at the part you bolded, I'm criticising it just so you know). One can feel pride, but that pride will eventually clash with the pride of others. These ideas develop over time and will create conflict between people.

 

You are right that nationalism is the core of Fascism, but it is not the only thing at the core, authoritarianism is equally core too. & with authoritarianism traits such as violence/oppression build up very quickly. People criticize Fascism for a reason, because both in practice and theory it is simply unefficient, clueless and reduces liberty greatly (as I've explained in the previous replies). Once again, segregation, wars and expansion builds up over time, its inevitable. Having pride in your country will eventually conflict with the same sort of people from other countries, and when this occurs violent acts will increase. From arguments to tanks. When we talk about the fine line of respecting other people's belief, the line is a lot closer to violence in Nationalism and Fascism than in any other ideology. There are no European countries which are dominantly nationalistic as Nationalism has become more of a part-time philosophy over ideology, the dominant iodelogy is unfortunately Capitalism. Individuals having pride is alright, however, as soon as authority upholds pride they will nonetheless disrespect the pride of those who aren't from that country. Thats the point, and thats where conflict begins. The native tribes are very different from a nationalistic goverment. They take pride in culture, whereas nationalists take pride in their country more than anything, and no they aren't the same thing.

 

The definition I have provided descends from Fascist and far-right thinkers, just as the definition I gave for Capitalism descends of Capitalist thinkers. Its one thing to ask someone's interpretation, its another to change the definition towards the argument. If you allow great levels of subjectivity, no ideology is constant, reliable and falsifiable. The point of providing a defition is to create a base to start from. I doubt that any thinker would allow this much variation in the definition of what they study, because its clear to them as it should be to us.

[Jim]

Capitalistic welfare state

[Ben]

Yes but Nationalism isn't merely about being proud of your country, and the topic at hand was Fascism not Nationalism, and that the part you bolded out was further into the paragraph where I had already given a definition and was on the effects/criticisms.

 

Like I said in the previous post, these effects build up over time (I'm not defining Nationalism or Fascism at the part you bolded, I'm criticising it just so you know). One can feel pride, but that pride will eventually clash with the pride of others. These ideas develop over time and will create conflict between people.

 

You are right that nationalism is the core of Fascism, but it is not the only thing at the core, authoritarianism is equally core too. & with authoritarianism traits such as violence/oppression build up very quickly. People criticize Fascism for a reason, because both in practice and theory it is simply unefficient, clueless and reduces liberty greatly (as I've explained in the previous replies). Once again, segregation, wars and expansion builds up over time, its inevitable. Having pride in your country will eventually conflict with the same sort of people from other countries, and when this occurs violent acts will increase. From arguments to tanks. When we talk about the fine line of respecting other people's belief, the line is a lot closer to violence in Nationalism and Fascism than in any other ideology. There are no European countries which are dominantly nationalistic as Nationalism has become more of a part-time philosophy over ideology, the dominant iodelogy is unfortunately Capitalism. Individuals having pride is alright, however, as soon as authority upholds pride they will nonetheless disrespect the pride of those who aren't from that country. Thats the point, and thats where conflict begins. The native tribes are very different from a nationalistic goverment. They take pride in culture, whereas nationalists take pride in their country more than anything, and no they aren't the same thing.

 

The definition I have provided descends from Fascist and far-right thinkers, just as the definition I gave for Capitalism descends of Capitalist thinkers. Its one thing to ask someone's interpretation, its another to change the definition towards the argument. If you allow great levels of subjectivity, no ideology is constant, reliable and falsifiable. The point of providing a defition is to create a base to start from. I doubt that any thinker would allow this much variation in the definition of what they study, because its clear to them as it should be to us.

 

I do agree that Fascism will lead to conflict, however, I don't agree that it's because of it's nationalistic tendencies but because of it's authoritarian / totalitarian values (as you said). I do recognise those themes as key also, I just don't believe that they're as integral to the ideology as I believe nationalism to be. That's what my original statement was referring to. I know you disagree with me but we'll have to agree to disagree as that's the conclusion that I've come to having read the literature that I have read. 

 

Your definition maybe based on different thinkers and contributors to key ideologies, but I guarantee that those thinkers don't all agree with each other. They'll have different view points on different themes and will constitute different branches of their respective ideologies. I can tell you now that Fascism is an incredibly ambiguous ideology and when you do engage in the literature of what constitutes Fascism, it is incredibly varied from one scholar/thinker to the next. That's why there's thousands of books on this very topic.

[Georgiie]

capitalism

[Lenin]

I do agree that Fascism will lead to conflict, however, I don't agree that it's because of it's nationalistic tendencies but because of it's authoritarian / totalitarian values (as you said). I do recognise those themes as key also, I just don't believe that they're as integral to the ideology as I believe nationalism to be. That's what my original statement was referring to. I know you disagree with me but we'll have to agree to disagree as that's the conclusion that I've come to having read the literature that I have read. 

 

Your definition maybe based on different thinkers and contributors to key ideologies, but I guarantee that those thinkers don't all agree with each other. They'll have different view points on different themes and will constitute different branches of their respective ideologies. I can tell you now that Fascism is an incredibly ambiguous ideology and when you do engage in the literature of what constitutes Fascism, it is incredibly varied from one scholar/thinker to the next. That's why there's thousands of books on this very topic.

 

Nationalism can breed violence if not controlled, and people must be given liberty/rights and if so thats (nationalism in this sense) perfectly healthy. I think you have a lot more healthier approach than the mass amounts of nationalists I've met on the internet and in real life, and I hope more nationalists can be like this.

 

Ofcourse they have disagreements but those are usually based on single philosophies e.g. Anarchists believe in abolishing all coercive hierarchy to achieve Communism whilst Marxist-Leninists propose the abolishment of classes and centralizing the capital to achieve Communism, so to say that the means are usually different with the same aim. The definition is a largely average and general one though which most right-wing (far or soft) would agree to as I've used very similar ones before and its been widely accepted. I completely understand the ambiguity, the same goes with ideologies like Anarchism, people literally think a chaotic society because of 'anarchy' and have no idea how large the ideology is. I wanted to keep it short, esp. as its large already.

[Herman W Erlandson]

Interesting ideas. As a student, I'm all for using writing resources that make student life easier. I mean, who wouldn't want some help now and then, right? That's why I support platforms like nursingpaper.com reviews I've checked out some reviews, and it seems like they offer valuable assistance to students with their papers. It's great to know there are resources out there to lend a hand when things get tough.