Ethics and freethought  permalink

You Fascist!

This discussion has been closed.

Messages: 1 - 25 of 25
  • Message 1. 

    Posted by DG_Young (U13914090) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Apart from people who openly describe their political affiliations as 'Fascist', who else, if anyone, do you think deserves to be called a fascist and why?

    Report message1

  • Message 2

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by wiseraphael (U14258190) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Hamas.

    Read it's Charter.

    Goebbels would have been proud.

    Report message2

  • Message 3

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Political racism, ultranationalism, totalitarianism, extremism, a manichean vision of the world ("you are either with us or against us"), an agonistic vision of society, social darwinism, an absence of concern or even a contempt for the weak and unfortunate in society, anti-feminism, rigid social stratification and a desire for order, the führerprinzip, authoritarianism, corporatism, politics in bed with big business, militarism. Such are (some of) the characteristics of fascism. The closer any politics comes to those characteristics, the more fascist it is. A politics doesn't need to tick every box to legitimately be considered fasicst but it must exhibit some.

    Report message3

  • Message 4

    , in reply to message 3.

    Posted by DG_Young (U13914090) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Hang on a second!

    An absence of concern

    and

    authoritarianism?

    So by your standard, 'Let these people get on with ruining their lives, so long as we don't have to pay for the consequences' and 'We must stop these people from ruining their lives because we have to pay for the consequences' are both fascist?

    I would have thought that they are two markedly different approaches to politics. Are you sure you aren't using 'fascist' to mean 'a position other than my own'?

    Report message4

  • Message 5

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by realgonecat (U12681374) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Hi DG.

    Apaprently, you are unaware of what Authoritarianism means:

    "Authoritarianism is a form of social organization characterized by submission to authority. It is usually opposed to individualism and democracy. In politics, an authoritarian government is one in which political power is concentrated in a leader or leaders, typically unelected by the people, who possess exclusive, unaccountable, and arbitrary power. Authoritarianism differs from totalitarianism in that social and economic institutions exist that are not under the government's control."

    Now here's the defintion of fascism:

    "Fascism is a radical, authoritarian nationalist political ideology. Fascists advocate the creation of a totalitarian single-party state that seeks the mass mobilization of a nation through indoctrination, physical education, and family policy including eugenics."

    Notice the SIMILARITY???? Notice where fascism is a form of authoritarianism? Crazy, huh?

    Are you sure you aren't using 'fascist' to mean 'a position other than my own'? 

    DG_Young said as he looked at the joker in the mirror.

    Jimmy


    Report message5

  • Message 6

    , in reply to message 5.

    Posted by DG_Young (U13914090) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    No, I think 'characterised by submission to authority' is a fairly good description of the authoritarianism I gave an example of. The rest of the description is merely window dressing.

    As for your description of 'Fascism', I wouldn't use it to describe everything in the list in post 3. Would you?

    And why would I use 'fascist' to describe a position other than my own? I describe my own position as 'fascist'.

    Report message6

  • Message 7

    , in reply to message 4.

    Posted by Daniel-K (U2684833) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    Hang on a second!

    An absence of concern

    and

    authoritarianism?

    So by your standard, 'Let these people get on with ruining their lives, so long as we don't have to pay for the consequences' and 'We must stop these people from ruining their lives because we have to pay for the consequences' are both fascist?

    I would have thought that they are two markedly different approaches to politics. Are you sure you aren't using 'fascist' to mean 'a position other than my own'?
     
    No. The authoritarian demands society be organised to the dictates of the powerful. Those without concern for the least fortunate in society accept a society organised in the interests of the powerful. The attitudes may sometimes contradict but most naturally they coincide.

    Report message7

  • Message 8

    , in reply to message 7.

    Posted by DG_Young (U13914090) on Thursday, 23rd June 2011

    An authoritarian merely demands that society be organised in accordance with dictates. The only extent to which it is true that they are the dictates of the powerful is that those running government are, quite obviously, powerful.

    If you tell someone that there is an action which they may not, as a sane individual, perform in private, that is authoritarian. It is not the only authoritarian act possible, but it certainly falls neatly into that category.

    Report message8

  • Message 9

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    From what I've read, it's something that's widely used to describe nasty people and philosophies ,you don't like and covers a lot.

    Don't know if there is a term for nice people and philosophies you don't like and don't want. Some sort of reverse fascism.

    smiley - winkeye

    Report message9

  • Message 10

    , in reply to message 6.

    Posted by realgonecat (U12681374) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    Hi DG.

    And why would I use 'fascist' to describe a position other than my own? I describe my own position as 'fascist'. 

    My apologies, I momentarily forgot how utterly ridiculous you are. smiley - smiley

    Thanks for bringing us back to reality.

    Jimmy

    Report message10

  • Message 11

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by realgonecat (U12681374) on Friday, 24th June 2011

    Hi DG.

    Just so you understand I am responding to the gist of your statement, for the sake of the thread. I really DON'T CARE what you think, okay? Not being mean, just laying my cards on the table, and I always seem to have a way better hand then you are ever dealt...

    An authoritarian merely demands that society be organised in accordance with dictates 

    No, my amusing mis-educated little friend. This is what an authoritarian is:

    home.cc.umanitoba.ca...

    Don't expect you to learn squat from that link, but your erroneous defintion of authoritarian might be corrected for others who have a chance of engaging in fair-minded discussion.

    Jimmy

    Report message11

  • Message 12

    , in reply to message 11.

    Posted by DG_Young (U13914090) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    M11: You seem to be suffering from 'It must be true, there's a page on the internet about it' syndrome, which can in some cases lead to full-blown Wikipedianism.

    The generic meaning of authoritarian is understood by practically every English speaker the world over, and it means exactly what I have described it as: the idea that a person has to, without any say on their part, obey the dictates of someone else.

    Incidentally, you seem not even to have read the page you linked to, given what you are using it to support.

    Report message12

  • Message 13

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    I have come to really loathe the way that people with so-called liberal views feel free to call anyone with alternative views, fascist. I was recently liked to Oswald Mosley for questioning whether diversity was Britain's greatest strength.

    It is a stupid British disease, it's not something you generally come up against in other European countries. In my view it's a combination of several things:

    Firstly the British degree-educated classes think in a remarkably monolithic way. I think the reason for this is that we have a ubiquitous school and university curriculum backed up with the centralised media outlet of the BBC. The way these entities use "Fascist" as anyone who doesn't share their own politics, is mirrored in the conversation of the people who have received their education this way. The result of this is that there is very little true diversity of thought or opinion in the public debate (ironic for people who believe they value diversity).

    Secondly, I think that there is a very poor understanding of fascism in the general population, for one thing its always equated with right-wing politics whereas it's origins were in left-wing politics, it is a socialist political movement. For another thing, there is little recognition that it was a response to highly violent communist and anarchist movements in the early 20th century that were tearing Europe apart.

    In popular parlance it's meant to represent somebody who is dictatorial and who would deny other people their rights. Which seems to be a very good description of many supposed "liberals", who are not liberal on very much except immigration. They do not support the idea of a smaller state, more personal choice and freedom, the right to free expression, etc.

    Unfortunately such people tend to go into the talking professions, media, journalism, teaching, pr, etc. So they are dominating the popular mindset.

    Report message13

  • Message 14

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Major Higgs-Boson (U225196) on Saturday, 25th June 2011

    Apart from people who openly describe their political affiliations as 'Fascist', who else, if anyone, do you think deserves to be called a fascist and why? 

    People who are fascist even though they pretend not to be?
    I can't say I care very much that you feel this word you treasure has been diluted.

    Report message14

  • Message 15

    , in reply to message 13.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Jack, you need a strong state to protect people's rights in the first place. And a media, too, to chaeck it.

    Report message15

  • Message 16

    , in reply to message 15.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    Jack, you need a strong state to protect people's rights in the first place. And a media, too, to chaeck it.
     

    Not necessarily. Protection can come from many smaller, decentralised groups as opposed to one large centralised one. Also I agree a free press is an important check and balance, however, the BBC has monopolistic tendencies, it strangles the market and dominates the agenda - so couldn't be described as something that encourages free press in my view.

    Report message16

  • Message 17

    , in reply to message 16.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Smaller groups don't have as much power, or range.

    smiley - winkeye

    Report message17

  • Message 18

    , in reply to message 12.

    Posted by realgonecat (U12681374) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    Hi DG.

    M11: You seem to be suffering from 'It must be true, there's a page on the internet about it' syndrome, which can in some cases lead to full-blown Wikipedianism. 

    "Seem" being the operative word there, as I'm sure lots of ridiculous things "seem" sensible to you. Like you being on these boards all this time and still too thick to figure out how to use the quote feature seems ridiculous to me.

    I can see you never bothered to click the link. So that's how you never learn. Wow, learning for you must be like the wicked witch on Wizard of Oz when she gets splashed by water--"I'm learning, ohhhhh, I'm learning. You've destroyed my beautiful ignorance!!!!" The link only went to a Canadian Uni and the reserach page of the world's most prominent scholar on this topic, that's all, you know, as opposed to some say-anything, know-nothing poster on the BBC boards starting a thread promoting fascism?

    Incidentally, you seem not even to have read the page you linked to, given what you are using it to support. 

    Just a brazen assertion on your part backed up by not one single example of how and why it might be valid. Typical way you mispost.

    Jimmy

    Report message18

  • Message 19

    , in reply to message 8.

    Posted by Major Higgs-Boson (U225196) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    If you tell someone that there is an action which they may not, as a sane individual, perform in private, that is authoritarian. 

    But if you don't have the power to enforce it, step out of the way and mind your own business.And shave that ridiculous toothbrush moustache off.

    Report message19

  • Message 20

    , in reply to message 17.

    Posted by Jack-in-the-Green (U14769647) on Sunday, 26th June 2011


    Smaller groups don't have as much power, or range. 

    I'd disagree. They can have more power and certainly more range. Look at terrorist cell structures.

    Report message20

  • Message 21

    , in reply to message 19.

    Posted by DG_Young (U13914090) on Sunday, 26th June 2011

    It doesn't make any difference whether you have the power to enforce it or not. It is still authoritarian. That is exactly why people speak of 'authoritarian personalities' including, not surprisingly, the author of the link contained in a previous poster's message.

    Personally, I hold the following fascist views and have no objection to having them called 'fascist':

    People in public places should have restrictions places on how they behave in such places in order to protect other people in the same places.
    The state should not have to concern itself with protecting people from their own actions.
    The state should have the right to place whatever conditions it likes on the provision of services or help which do not fall within its openly declared remit.
    Driving dangerously is more serious than subjecting a dangerous driver to a severe beating by a group of baton-wielding police officers.
    There is no such thing as race or ethnicity, and the law should not make special cases for what people call their 'ethnic identity'.

    Report message21

  • Message 22

    , in reply to message 20.

    Posted by Cheapjack (U1199036) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Don't know what your getting at here, Jack. One minute you're saying small groups protect, next minute you're saying they're terrorists. Then, you don't like the BBC. Are you an anarchist? An institutionalised one?

    Report message22

  • Message 23

    , in reply to message 21.

    Posted by Iapetus (U551167) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    It doesn't make any difference whether you have the power to enforce it or not. It is still authoritarian. That is exactly why people speak of 'authoritarian personalities' including, not surprisingly, the author of the link contained in a previous poster's message.

    Personally, I hold the following fascist views and have no objection to having them called 'fascist':

    People in public places should have restrictions places on how they behave in such places in order to protect other people in the same places.
    The state should not have to concern itself with protecting people from their own actions.
    The state should have the right to place whatever conditions it likes on the provision of services or help which do not fall within its openly declared remit.
    Driving dangerously is more serious than subjecting a dangerous driver to a severe beating by a group of baton-wielding police officers.
    There is no such thing as race or ethnicity, and the law should not make special cases for what people call their 'ethnic identity'.
     
    Those are all authoritarian views (except for "The state should not have to concern itself with protecting people from their own actions"), but I don't see them as inherantly "fascist". The closest would be "Driving dangerously is more serious than subjecting a dangerous driver to a severe beating by a group of baton-wielding police officers", as that seems to be condoning letting the police mete out violent "justice" without trial to anyone they accuse to a serious crime, but there are plenty of non-fascist regimes and dictatorships that do that as well.

    If "fascist" is to mean anything more than a term of abuse for (supposed) authoritarians, I would suggest it should be based as much as possible on the characteristics and ideologies of the original Fascists (Mussolini's lot), and their allies and admirers (Hitler, Franco, Mosley, etc).

    The most notable characteristics seem to me to be:

    * Extreme authoritarianism, and specifically statist authoritarianism.
    * The use of organised gangs of thugs and paramilitary wings of your political party to intimidate voters and candidates of other parties. (These gangs may be disposed of once no longer needed).
    * Use of legal and extralegal violence to silence critics.
    * Aggressive, militaristic imperialism is celebrated as being a "good thing".
    * Democracy and liberal values are despised.
    * An anti-capitalist element, at least in the early stages of the movement, which in practice eventually gives way to support of and by big business.
    * The belief (in theory at least) that national identity is more important than class identity (this is hardly unique to fascism, and I don't think there is anything inately wrong with it itself, but it is an important distinguishing factor between fascism and other forms of tyranny such as Communism or absolutist monarchy).
    * A cult of personality around "The Leader" (Not unique to fascism, but an important element of the original fascist movements).
    * (Often) severe and institutional racism. (This was a fundamental part of Nazi ideology, and I think was important to the BFU as well, but it wasn't part of Mussolini's ideology, who initially atleast officially repudiated it).

    Report message23

  • Message 24

    , in reply to message 1.

    Posted by Ross Quinn (U14407020) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Well Ian Davidson from the Labour party here called the SNP fascist. It reminded me of suray calling the SNP racists.

    Words like that when used frivolously harms political debate. I disagree strongly with the Condem coalition but I couldn't call them something they were not. They are following a Tory led manifesto so the are to me Conservative, the SNP are following a centre left thing yet are called either racist or fascist just to taint the debate.

    Report message24

  • Message 25

    , in reply to message 23.

    Posted by DG_Young (U13914090) on Monday, 27th June 2011

    Do you make any distinction between 'extralegal' and illegal?

    Report message25

Back to top

About this Board

The BBC Religion and ethics message boards are now closed.

They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available.

Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.

We will be introducing a new blog later in the year. Aaqil Ahmed, Commissioning Editor Religion and Head of Religion & Ethics, has a blog with more details.

or register to take part in a discussion.


The message board is currently closed for posting.

Opening times:
No longer applicable

This messageboard is post-moderated.

Find out more about this board's House Rules

Search this Board

Copyright © 2015 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.