Identifying Fascism and How It's Manifested in Society

[rupol2000]

It seems to me that no one even knows what fascism is, including myself. Can anyone give a strict definition of this system? What it is?

 

[rupol2000]

I just know it had something to do with the Roman fascia.

The American system roughly copied the Roman republic. There were patricians on the right, plebeians on the left. The patricians were nobles because they were native tribes and the plebeians were foreigners.

 

[rupol2000]

And the difference was that the patricians are the senate, and the plebeians are the lower house.

In fact, this system is now everywhere. And this is essentially a dual power.
If all voting citizens are citizens, then the lower house is the fifth wheel.

 

[bripat9643]

It seems to me that no one even knows what fascism is, including myself. Can anyone give a strict definition of this system? What it is?

That's because lefties constantly lie about what it is. The fact is that fascism is indistinguishable from the Democrat agenda.

 

[Thunderbird]

It seems to me that no one even knows what fascism is, including myself. Can anyone give a strict definition of this system? What it is?

I’d say fascism = dictatorship & racism.

Can anybody doubt that some socialist regimes have embraced both dictatorship & racism?

 

[rupol2000]

I’d say fascism = dictatorship & racism.

not

 

[rupol2000]

socialist regimes

Fascism is usually considered a right-wing movement

 

[bripat9643]

I’d say fascism = dictatorship & racism.

Can anybody doubt that some socialist regimes have embraced both dictatorship & racism?

Racism in the Soviet Union - Wikipedia​

​

Stalin reversed much of his predecessor's previous internationalist policies, signing off on orders for exiling multiple distinct ethnic-linguistic groups brandished as "traitors", including the Balkars, Crimean Tatars, Chechens, Ingush, Karachays, Kalmyks, Koreans, and Meskhetian Turks, who were collectively deported to Siberia or Central Asia, where they were legally designated "special settlers", meaning that they were officially second-class citizens with few rights and were confined within a small perimeter.​

​

Also:​

Poles​

Cossacks​

Tartars​

Nakh peoples​

Meskhetian Turks​

Armenians and Azerbaijanis​

Jews​

Kalmyks​

Koreans​

Chinese​

 

[bripat9643]

Fascism is usually considered a right-wing movement

However, that determination is wrong.

 

[rupol2000]

It must have had something to do with the magistrates of the Roman Republic. Fasciae are their attributes. Or rather their retinue.
It is clear that these are not Aryan roots, because the Aryan power is purely patrician, but it was a mixed power, and probably even was in the interests of the plebeians.

 

[Thunderbird]

Fascism is usually considered a right-wing movement

Look at what Vietnamese Communists did to their Chinese and other minorities. Hundreds of thousands died!

https://www.unhcr.org/3ebf9bad0.pdf

Look at what Chinese Communists have done to Tibetan and Uyghur minorities.

Communism and Fascism have much in common: big government and violation of human rights.

One difference: Communists are better at using pretty words to conceal their crimes.

 

[Pellinore]

First of all, I'm trying to keep this on the level. You seem to want to turn this into some kind of fight, but I'm not your enemy here. I'm not trying to fool you or sell you something or call you an idiot I am trying to warn you of something that you don't know about, so just try to tone down the venom and hear me out for a minute.

Horseshit. I've quoted fascists thousands of times talking about how much they love socialism.

Yep, I've seen. The simple answer is that the fascist dictators were lying. They were trying to market their ideas to people with whom socialism was very popular, so they presented their ideas as a type of socialism. It's like how North Korea calls itself a Democratic People's Republic, when they are obviously neither democratic nor a republic.

First you claim socialists want equality before the law, and then you admit the want to "tax the shit out of the rich." That isn't equality before the law, moron.

The rich and poor are unequal in wealth, obviously, so their idea is to use the law to tax the rich, and restore equality. That's how taxing the rich supports equality. Surely you've seen this in the news.

By "not treating people equally" you mean the result is not equality of incomes.

All I did was reword what you had literally just posted: "Making us all equal income wise is not a legitimate function of government." You do not believe that government should make people equal, when they aren't. In your case, it's about hard work: if you bust your ass and become rich, you do not believe the government should take the money you earned and give it to someone who is poor because they don't work. That is a right-wing belief.

The left wing believes that the government *should* do that. They believe in taxing the rich more, and using that money to help the poor. You hate that idea to your core, right? You just said you don't even consider it "American."

Fascists also hate that idea. The last thing they want is for government to take their resources, and give it to people who aren't members of their party, or of their nation. That makes them the opposite of left-wing socialists, which puts them on the same right wing as you. The main difference is that they don't think they deserve stuff because they worked hard, they think they deserve it by birthright.

There is no link that puts fascism on the right wing. You're spewing commie propaganda. So far you haven't produced a shred of evidence that fascism is right wing. You done nothing more than stamp your foot and insist that it's true.

I didn't even get to the Commies. I've just been talking about socialism, which is an economic system used by, well, the Commies, but also by numerous democracies, including ours.

In another thread, I posted a bunch of links to dictionaries, encyclopedias, and university resources that all correctly describe fascism as right wing, but I don't have time to run those down again. It's common knowledge; if you want a source, dig out your high school Social Studies textbook. It's in there.

However, since I see you linked to Wikipedia in another post, I'll point out that the Wikipedia page on fascism describes it as "a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism" in the first few words. For support, it footnotes to a work of Henry Ashby Turner, a Yale Professor who was one of the leading experts on German fascism.

Fascism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And that's about all I've got for you. I hope I've shown you something about this, but if I didn't, best of luck to you on all of your future endeavors.

 

[surada]

You're citing Wiki? Really?

We've had this discussion about whether fascism is right wing or leftwing 1000 times before. Fascist parties all supported socialism, so they were definitely leftwing.

Fascism was embraced by Italian conservatives. Hitler hated socialists and communists. He killed them or put them in the concentration camps.

 

[Rigby5]

I just know it had something to do with the Roman fascia.

The American system roughly copied the Roman republic. There were patricians on the right, plebeians on the left. The patricians were nobles because they were native tribes and the plebeians were foreigners.

Its more complicated than patricians and plebeians.
The patricians were native citizens, but were also the wealthy, land owing, elite.
They were titled, and could only be in the military or priesthood, which included science and teaching, architecture, etc.
The plebeians were also citizens, and guaranteed things like free food, housing, etc.
The foreigners were noncitizens, not plebians, nor allowed to vote.

The lictors were the peace keepers and had axe handle, or fascia, as a badge of office.
The ritual where the facia were tied together into a bundle was to symbolize strength through unity.
But it was only for the wealthy elite, not the plebeians or foreigners.

So fascism is a coalition of the wealthy elite. The way Mussolini and Hitler did it was to also add corporation leader to the coalition.
But there is no one on the left with fascism because they are either bought off or killed.
The best description is to think of it as top down.

 

[Rigby5]

I’d say fascism = dictatorship & racism.

Can anybody doubt that some socialist regimes have embraced both dictatorship & racism?

Yes that has to be doubted because it is contrary to fact.
All regimes are socialist to some degree, but socialism can't be a dictatorship and still be socialist at all.
Socialism is about guarding a democratic republic from corporate dangers that use economic leverage to enslave.

If you are talking about the USSR and Mao's China, they clearly were a one party system, so had no democracy at all, and were ultra capitalists, often known as state capitalism.

 

[Rigby5]

Look at what Vietnamese Communists did to their Chinese and other minorities. Hundreds of thousands died!

https://www.unhcr.org/3ebf9bad0.pdf

Look at what Chinese Communists have done to Tibetan and Uyghur minorities.

Communism and Fascism have much in common: big government and violation of human rights.

One difference: Communists are better at using pretty words to conceal their crimes.

No, communism and fascism are totally and completely different.
But the USSR and Mao's China clearly were never remotely communist, ultra capitalists, under a dictatorship.
The best examples of communism would be a religious community, like an Israeli kibbutzim.

 

[rupol2000]

ts more complicated than patricians and plebeians.
The patricians were native citizens, but were also the wealthy, land owing, elite.
They were titled, and could only be in the military or priesthood, which included science and teaching, architecture, etc.
The plebeians were also citizens, and guaranteed things like free food, housing, etc.
The foreigners were noncitizens, not plebians, nor allowed to vote.

as far as I remember, it was not like that. The Patricians were local tribes. They owned the land as rulers and not as capitalists. The plebeians were originally not local, they were not given land, and they were engaged in trade and crafts. It was among them that the moneybags. After the overthrow of the kings, they divided the power by patricians, and this was the end of "glorious" Rome and the beginning of capitalism. The plebeian rich began to seize power.

 

[Rigby5]

as far as I remember, it was not like that. The Patricians were local tribes. They owned the land as rulers and not as capitalists. The plebeians were originally not local, they were not given land, and they were engaged in trade and crafts. It was among them that the moneybags. After the overthrow of the kings, they divided the power by patricians, and this was the end of "glorious" Rome and the beginning of capitalism. The plebeian rich began to seize power.

The time period is hundreds of years, so it depends on when.
But in general, by the time of Julius and Augustus, the Patricians and Plebeians was both citizens.
But the Patricians were titled, and therefore land owners.
The Plebeians were also citizens, but not landlords or owners.
It was the Plebeians who then created the mechanisms for creating wealth through innovation, since they were not born into it.
But it would be wrong to say the Patricians were not also capitalists, but they just did not have to innovate, and instead inherited or were awarded wealth, like land, slaves, etc.
Foreigners were non-citizens, could not vote, and were not plebeians or have any political representation.
Combined, the Patricians and Plebeians were likely less than 25% of the population of Rome.

 

[Rigby5]

You're citing Wiki? Really?

We've had this discussion about whether fascism is right wing or leftwing 1000 times before. Fascist parties all supported socialism, so they were definitely leftwing.

Never have fascist parties been remotely socialist.
The National Socialists were about the most anti-socialists one could ever possibly get.
Fascism in general and the National Socialists in particular were a coalition of the aristocracy, wealthy elite, corporate owners, and military.
That is about as far from socialism as one could possibly get.

 

[rupol2000]

The Plebeians were also citizens, but not landlords or owners.
It was the Plebeians who then created the mechanisms for creating wealth through innovation, since they were not born into it.
But it would be wrong to say the Patricians were not also capitalists, but they just did not have to innovate, and instead inherited or were awarded wealth, like land, slaves, etc.
Foreigners were non-citizens, could not vote, and were not plebeians or have any political representation.
Combined, the Patricians and Plebeians were likely less than 25% of the population of Rome.

It can be said more simply. The plebeians were hucksters who first shared power with the military aristocracy, then mixed with it and destroyed the ancient military culture. This was not only in Rome, at that time it was the same in India and in many other places.
They did not introduce any innovations, on the contrary, Rome began to degrade and did not develop until its fall, cavalry and Aryan weapons disappeared there, a system of primitive infantry was introduced according to the Macedonian model, slavery, pornography appeared and so on. This was leftish.