I think you perhaps have never heard of socialism, nor the gaystopo both of which are examples of leftist extremism. Many of their environmental demands are also example of extremism given their crippling nature of the mandates, and frankly questionable rational. Anther form of left wing extremism is censoring anyone who disagrees with them.
Yes and no (also yes there are left wing extremist as a matter fact the left tends to be more extreme and violent then the right especially in the United States again left wing and right wing are different in the United States then European right wing. Right wing in the United States is based on classical liberalism which didn’t really take ahold in Europe the left wing in the United States does reflect the left wing in Europe)
now preferably the more center Prevails. Like marriage is between a man and a women but we can have civil unions for gay people. Marriage is between and man and a women with the interest of bearing and raising children. So homosexual being in a relationship should get the same tax break but it’s not marriage. That’s a centrist view on the marriage debate. But we unfortunately don’t live in that world. So you see the extreme on both side coming out and it’s not good for the country. Another centrist view would be fall the path of Europe when it comes to abortion most cut it off at 15 weeks. Now I think abortion should be illegal under any circumstances except if it’s going to cost the mother her life. (Financial life doesn’t count). But I would compromise on a 15 week ban and of course work on farthing it down from there but again that’s a more centrist position. But we’re not going to get there in this country. Sooooooooo we are basically done as a nation.
But you know that it can't be. Either we will have a functioning society. Or we won't. And make no mistake, the racists, the insurrectionists, the misogynists, the xenophobes, have no answers for building a stable society. They can only offer some insanely oppressive authoritarian nightmare. One in which almost every single citizen is controlled and regulated by the "gumberment" strangely enough.
And it would be a society constantly in peril. There is no such thing as a stable dictatorship. Every single one becomes a violent self-destructive failed state or it moves into being a stable democracy.
No, not usually. In fact, I have concluded that one 'side' of extremism creates an equal and opposing force on the other side. Which is sort of akin to 'two wrongs don't make a right' if they were to seek revenge or 'fight fire with fire.'
Somebody has said to me, "You can't reason with kids," but I have always argued that you should at least try to be rational with them. When that fails, you can drop the, "You have to do it because I'm your parent and I said so," but sugar works better bitter medicine or dictatorships.
Wow, that was a lot of metaphors.
One exception, though... I think bullies need equal force. Or making fun of them. Or acting as if they don't exist. But equal force is very effective.
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim, Castro, Breshnev, Trudeau, Ardern, Antifa, and BLM (Burn, Loot and Murder) to list just a few that immediately come to mind. Do you see the extreme left now?
@Cassie88 thanks for the history lesson. I’m talking American politics or I’ll take anything relative. Trudeau…seriously? He’s as moderate corporate dumbo as you could find.
There are extremists on both sides. What is interesting is that I was listening to a radio show this morning while battling the storm so I can run my payroll, and the hosts talked about some interesting polls that show just how distorted the two party apparatus is. Basically 3/4 of each side see the other as evil.
More intriguing is that about 60% of each think the other side is fine with assaulting the opposition, and about 50% actually think the other side is fine with murdering them to get what they want. Yet when asked, only about 4% we okay with assault and the number okay with murder was so small that it rounded to 0% on both sides.
In conclusion, the 95%+ of each side who are not lunatics need to marginalize their own nut jobs and unite in peaceful coexistence.
When you have to BECOME your enemy to fight them at some point you need to sit down and reassess your position. This is why I don't do agenda-driven politics and I REFUSE to allow someone or a group to live rent-free in my head. If this means I have to go live on some island out in the ocean then so be it!
anybody seeing these things as a fight that has to be won... is already and also invariably, and extremist...
more or less extreme? sure... but still, an extremist
but the left and the right the same, want the same thing... they want you divided and against each other while they all sit at the same point of vanguard, and of course, at the top...
No extremism shouldn't be fought with violence. Yes I am honest I dont care when an extremist antifa beats up some nazis. But more violence involving people who dont choose it themselves is allways bad! Also it won't solve the actual problem. Let the state handle extremists with laws. The problem is knowing about these extremists before its too late.
If you are left or right wing you are an extremist. Left wings are too emotional to the point where they can’t dissect emotion from logic while right wings are too logical to the point where they can’t add in emotions into their thinking
I’ve heard on this site that there’s no centrists. everyone is either left or right winged. dunno what’s up with that theory, as i’m generally a centrist
The best defensive to extremism is being in the middle. Two extremists on either side unbalance the whole system, but somebody in the middle is able to make the system more stable.
No. And there is an extreme left, if you think a man can up on a wig and a skirt and identify as a woman or that gender is fuild then you are an extremists and a moron for denying biology 101.
You battle extremists politics by using common sense which today is sorely missing.
extreme left is fascist communism i think, or just communism since all implementations of it in history have caused problems either way both extreme sides have fascism
The extreme right kind of depends on your country as conservative is defined as a desire to restore the past real or imagined. In American politics because our history starts as a tiny goverment libertarian republic.
American Conservationism at its most extreme is some manifestation of that reality or the independent settler reality of our founding generation. Something that is often taken to extremes in the form of "sovereign citizens" which for the most part local governments can ignore as they usually don't pose any real problem for anyone else living more or less as a hermit.
Foreign conservatives by contrast get to work with thousands of years of warfare and monarchies to draw from and romanticize so their conservatives have little problem with using the state to try and restore whatever they want.
I know you‘re a propagandist, but no sane person believes there’s „no extreme left wing“. Your beloved Democrats in government comprise a large number of them.
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
No it must not, and of course there is an extreme left wing. Its those SJWs who are communits. Claiming there is none is like claiming there is no extreme right wing.
The only difference is that extremist leftist places like China how Soviet was is worse.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Why do you keep denying the existence of a far-left? You have been doing that for years. The far-left is the Marxists. They fuel Antifa and BLM. They just preach left-wing beliefs, so they make more sense to you, so they don't seem as bad to you, so they don't seem extreme to you.
If you don't moderate you become the very evil you claim to oppose.
It might help thou if you first define a "fascist". I presume your not referring to the original "fascist" of the 1930's in Italy and Germany or you would be far more concerned with the communist who killed many times more people the same way for the same reasons.
@monorprise I highly fucking disagree. Facists are objectively bad and objectively a threat to the nation and they can not be allowed to operate freely as a result. As for how I define Fascism? I usually rely on the 14 characteristics (there is a few versions of them but they basically boil down to the same things).
@monorprise 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. 6. Controlled Mass Media Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
@monorprise 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
@monorprise 14. Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
1: What exactly is "Nationalism" beyond adherence to a group? That you see symbol and songs to celebrate said group simply more of the same. This of course is necessary for any organization to organize around including communist.
2: I define rights as the spectrum of everything that a person could do in a state of Nature (IE NO state or others to interfere). Technically every living thing regardless of being human has such rights, although among humans we have agreed to cede a select rights for the protection of the remainder from other humans. Thus the subject of rights is not really a subject of humanity but the limitation of said states to which we ceded said rights. Other more recent "Definition" include a list of undefined and complex securities/services which enslave other men to each other to provide. Theses are of course no more rights than they existed in the State of nature without said men.
3: You mean like the way you blindly persecute anyone you deem a so called "Fascist"? Yea i can see how that would become oppressive if you censor and attack anything on your assumption as to prevent you or anyone else from ever knowing what it is.
4: That pretty much describes every country in history. The reason is really quite simple as it is old. Countries without a the means to defend themselfs in the anarchy between nations don't tend to continue to be countries. So by process of elimination a country must start with a military of some sort even if it has nothing else. Hence why most of the worlds countries for most of history really were little more than military organization.
Honestly why would you put something like this in a list and not question the list?
5: Again that pretty much defines every nation on earth for the obvious reasons than among the human species males tend to be stronger and more aggressive and thus also tend to dominant. Countries also tend not to least very long if they encourage homosexual behavior given that tends not to lead to a future generation, so there are not a lot of them.
6: ... You mean like communist regimes or really most regimes in history where the powerful tried to control the means of commutation and what people know and think. Even modern regime we see this in the form of goverment censorship and even elite institution censorship of what they always say is "undesirable" or "miss-information". Never-mind that how frequently it ends up being true.
European states were soo convinced of the correctness of the catholic church establishments view of the world they persecuted people like Galileo. Just like Modern social media elites and governments were soo convinced if the correctness of their view of COVID-19 they persecuted anyone who questioned them.
The first step of wisdom is knowing you don't know everything and allowing everyone to speak.
7: Kind of redundant to Issue #4 8. Historically church and state in most countries on earth has been rather strongly related. Althou here your starting to drift away from the original fascist of the 1930s as they were not particularly strongly related to the church. But of course your list really has nothing to do with any particular ideology, but rather a branding for an enemy of your choice.
9 & 10 What makes a person labor vs "Corporate "? After all a Corporation is simply the cooperation of a great many different people laboring together? Are you simply demonizing the largest and most successful of them which you define as "Corporate " perhaps in the interest of rallying your country against them as scapegoats per #3?
@Soteris 11: We are all equally capable of intellectual arts, our efforts here to talk and explore ideas is an example of an intellectual education and art. We do this freely with our own time and we subscribe and pay to watch and listen to to others making similar education and art.
Why on earth should anyone be FORCED by the state to patronize any particular education/art over that which they would choose to to patronize / partake in? What makes the goverment' politicians choice better than mine? If said goverment politician really does have such choice why then should not anther elected politician be able to make a different choice?
Nobody is entitled to define their own opinion and 'education' as the only one and force others to pay for it.
12. Its had to imaging any state existing without laws, and no law really matters if you don't prosecute and punish non-compliance with said laws. So like everything else on your list this attribute could apply to most countries on earth.
13. Unfortunately Rampant Cronyism and Corruption is also quite common to most countries on earth due to their governments generally being too big for the leaders elected thereof to really be accountable for any of there small choices they make. Which of course means the power you invested in said leader is more valuable to them being sold for money than welded well for electoral favor.
That makes this qualification yet anther non-distinctive one.
@Soteris 14. Unfortunately as Joe Stalin pointed out its not who cast the votes but who counts them. That means the more complicated and opaque your system is the more ways it can be corrupted. This makes election integrity almost impossible the more complex said systems are.
This issue however is not particular unique to any particular ideology but rather a basic flaw in democracy which any organized force can exploit.
@monorprise First of all, I think you have somewhat misunderstood what the 14 characteristics means and what fascism is. Fascism is not like other ideologies, in that it does not have a unified ideology like capitalism, democracy, communism or whatever. Fascism is about power and how to get it more or less. As such it escapes easy classification since you can tailor it to fit into pretty much any other system.
This is where the 14 characteristics comes in. It is 14 aspects that keeps popping up in fascism over and over again and is a good proxy to identify if something is fascistic or not in the absence of a direct way to measure it. Its not like these things are necessarily by themselves fascist, just that its something fascists loves to include for one reason or another.
Also this list is very much abbreviated and put into laymens term which is causing the confusion with 7 and 4 for example sounding similar but actually coming from very different angles. But lets talk a bit about each point.
@monorprise 1: Nationalism in all forms is bad. Being proud of your country and displaying a form of loyalty is one thing but Nationalism is basically turning a blind eye to reality, to for example the potential problems your group suffers. This is part of why its so popular with dictators and fascists, because it provides cover for what they want to do, be it illegal or immoral or just against the public interest.
Another desired part for them is that nationalism replaces social and cultural identities. While social cohesion is nice and all (i personally find it boring), this is about making people easier to control. The confederation of Germany is a master class of how powerful this is and it can be used for both good and bad.
Lastly, it is a very popular thing for bad leaders to "hide behind the flag", as a way to avoid becoming exposed. "You are not attacking me (for all the bad things I have done", you are attacking AMERICA!" *hugs flag*
As such, it is very common in fascism to feed nationalism as a number 1 priority and while things like flags, symbols or whatever is normal, their over-use of them becomes very notable by comparison. Example:
@monorprise 2: This is not really about the philosophy of what is, or is not a "Human Right" but more about making excuses and exceptions to it and using things like fear to justify these excuses or exceptions.
For example; Using something like 9/11 as an excuse to capture and torture people in Guantanamo rather than use the normal process. The goal is to have the people support your infringement of their own rights because they are afraid or angry or some other feeling. Thus allowing the dictator of fascist in question to pretty much do whatever they want with the flimsiest of excuses.
3: This is basically just good ol' fashioned Tribalism. Again, these are the 14 CHARACTERISTICS, its not traits only exhibited by fascists or even necessarily what makes fascists bad. Just something they always tend to do which makes it easier for us to identify them.
In this case it helps them reinforce the previous nationalism and attacks on human rights by turning their group away from attacking or questioning each other (or their leader) and instead become openly hostile towards an outside group.. like Jews.. or Communists.. or whatever.
@monorprise 4: Most countries dont actually glorify their military. This point highlights and UNUSUAL amount of military glorification, and if it feels like USA is checking a lot of these boxes... yeah... that is not a coincidence. USA is pretty fascist as it is and it would not take all that much to push it over the edge to become the next Nazi Germany or whatever.
But back to point 4. This again flows back to earlier points such as Nationalism or Tribalism but is more about power. The military is promoted because it is under the control of the fascists and becomes their tool. It is very normal for dictators or fascists to push military supremacy to reinforce their own rule and protect themselves from enemies and their own people.
5: This is becoming less and less true as time goes on, not in what it is implying but the wording itself. Fascism does not actually have an ideological problem with for example gays or whatnot, as such the specific examples might change as homosexuality or abortion becomes more accepted in society but the point is that they are regressive. They like to pull from the conservative side for these social positions, mostly this is just for convenience as it makes it easier to grab political power but it also later serves to identify their enemies for Tribalism.
Again, its the 14 CHARACTERISTICS and this is often just a result of how they came to power in the first place.
@monorprise 6: Yes, controlling the Media is very popular, especially among authoritarians. Does not mean the Fascists dont do it too. Fascists are perhaps the masters of propaganda in general.
7: Where as 4 is about power, this is about control. By constantly exclaiming alarm about your national security you can very easily manipulate and control people and force them to support you. Example: USA and their stupid Mexican border fetish.
9: This is basically just corruption. Be it taking bribes or putting your family/friends/supporters at the head of both government positions or corporations depending on which became corrupted first.
10: Again, as you pointed out its corruption but specifically about pulling down the workers.
11: Putting aside what you said, because that is a whole other can of worms, this is again about control. More specifically, about protecting their own propaganda. Fascists does not like when others correct their lies and such so they will often attack academia as a result. Same is often true for art too but here it might also just flow back to who the leaders are as a person and their personal biases against art and artists. Point is that its a characteristic that keeps coming up in fascist states so makes our job easier to find them.
@monorprise 12: If its on this list it implies a notable difference compared to normal. Also, this is not about law and order in the traditional sense but removing the "law" part as much as possible to allow them to enforce order according to their own judgement rather than the letter of the law. They are not really concerned about keeping the law, they want to enforce order at any cost as well as use the law enforcement as a tool to accomplish their own goals such as killing/capturing their enemies.
Its about turning the law enforcement into an order/oppression enforcement.
13-14: Again, its the 14 CHARACTERISTICS, its something that they keep doing at a notable degree even though others also can do it.
@Soteris You seem to be operating with some very bad history and a bunch of half truths.
Fascist didn't invent the lust of men for power nor its corrupting nature. That vice goes back to the beginning and can be found in every political ideology and system in which you have humans.
Fascism like every other form of socialism just requires the centralization of too much power into the hands of too few men for said men to then be accountable. It is hardly the only ideology or political system that has this problem. Such a problem is very common thou out history precisely because men particularity those who seek power like politicians always want more of it. So most of them will figure out how to get a little more until one day one of them ends up with too much to be accountable and the system falls.
@Soteris 1: Quite the contrary Nationalism allows an otherwise warring collections of tribal to form a greater level of political and social cohesion and cooperation. Nationalism has little to do with ignoring problems your confusing nationalism with centralization and political misdirection. Both of which are problems with any origination including the alternative tribe. Althou the obscurity of scale makes it easier for leaders to get away with it.
Fascism as such has nothing to do with either nationalism or the problem of political misdirection, nor is it the only ideology that makes it easier via centralization of power.
@monorprise Of course Fascists did not invent the lust for power. I have mentioned this before but Fascism is not an actual ideology, if we go back in history it was basically a concept started in the early 20th century. We base our definition of what Fascism is or is not by comparing it to real world examples AKA the Nazis and Fascist Italy (and arguably Spain). From looking at these movements we then derived the 14 characteristics as something that we could in the future use to determine if something was or was not Fascist AKA if something was SIMILAR to Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in a meaningful way.
The reason I say that Fascism is about pursuit of power is because Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany focused on the pursuit of power. It is that simple.
You also can't go on talking about Fascism as an ideology/political system when I explicitly said its not. Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany was WILDLY different politically but they are both fascist because Fascism is not a specific set of beliefs.
@monorprise 1: As for Nationalism. It very much IS about ignoring problems. Nationalism is about elevating your own nation and its interest above others (which is bad by the way). This goes completely contrary to reality and prevents you from having an honest understanding of your nation and its flaws because you are inherently biased towards thinking your nation is superior where in reality it might be lacking.
Nationalism is a cancer on society that will always lead to its destruction. It is self defeating and leads to wars and suffering. I would even go as far as to say that it is morally evil because of its inevitable consequences not to mention that thinking your country is great without justifying it with facts AKA "blind belief" is fucking stupid.
Also saying that Fascism has nothing to do with Nationalism is farcical.
1: You seem to be failing to recognize what your talking about is are our levels of self-interest.
self-interest is about elevating your own interest about all others, this is a critical part of human nature regardless of ideology. The only thing Nationalism has to do with it as it convenes people the interest of their "nation" is included among their own self-interest generally coming on top of or replacing the smaller more homogeneous tribal interest in the process. Said Tribes themselfs came on top of or replaced kin interest, and said Kin interest came on top of self-interest.
What your pushing as an alternative is the idea that we could somehow ignore our own self-interest in favor of everyone else on Earth and that is a kind of globalism effort to define the human race as a single tribe/nation.
Almost nobody on Earth subscribes to that idea for the simple reason that there are no non-human interest to compete against. So we are simply left competing on the subject of what is in our interest among other humans who presumably share the common human interest.
Thus really your just trying to condemn a particular level of organization which is currently still the highest, while suggesting it both comes at the experience of lower levels and a higher still level few people have ever accepted for obvious reasons.
Said higher levels would likewise be used against lower levels and still higher levels.
2: @Soteris said "This is not really about the philosophy of what is, or is not a "Human Right" but more about making excuses and exceptions to it and using things like fear to justify these excuses or exceptions."
Again that is hardly unusual in almost every state. Politicians always think their reason for doing something which invariably violates someone's rights is legitimate and compelling listing some reason. The only question is how many and whom they must convince to get away with it.
If it is just their own friends then they will get usually away with it.
4: @Soteris said: ""Most countries dont actually glorify their military. " Incorrect most countries do glorify their military, many even glorify their leaders. Historically most countries even required you glorify their leaders and military. Hence the old required imperial say "God save the King"
This is not an unusual trait among nations. Unusual is countries that tend not to glorify their military as that usually only exist when they are in a relevantly secure international situation. We agree of course the military is under the control of the goverment generally being the goverment. One of the reasons Americas Founding fathers forbid Standing armies with a 2 year clause and emphases on the decentralized militia system instead. Ultimately it is the person with the gun who makes the rules. Hence the 2nd amendment and the militia being divided among the states.
5: The historic fascist in Italy, and Germany pulled from the left both regarding themselfs as socialist movement and under leftist leaders. That they had a few position which today you could claim are held by the right has more to do with total domination of the left in the proceeding century moving the Overton window
That said how you define left/right is as different depending upon your country as the history of said country because the definition of Conservative is defined based upon said history.
@monorprise No we are not talking about self-interest. If you believe that then you have already fallen victim for the propaganda surrounding nationalism. But lets say we WERE talking about self-interest. This literally does not change anything since it also introduces an inherent bias against the truth and reality in favor of a version that benefits yourself. It is very easy to delude yourself and very hard to see your own flaws.
But again, this is irrelevant because Nationalism is not about self-interest. What I am pushing is critical thinking, to examine something you care about in an attempt to expose its flaws so that you know what they are and hopefully know what can be done to improve it. I always hold my country to a higher standard than it currently is because I want it to improve and become ever greater. I find that this is a far more "Patriotic" position than any Nationalism ever could conjure up.
Also, just because you personally can't apply the 14 characteristics does not mean they are "useless". It just means you dont understand it. I mean for starters, this was made by experts to be useful so it would be absurd to think they could not apply it.
6: @Soteris said: "Yes, controlling the Media is very popular, especially among authoritarians. ... Fascists are perhaps the masters of propaganda in general" I don't think I agree Italian and German propaganda was better than communist propaganda. The communist simply governed soo disastrous nobody could beleive it.
Had the fascist states survived more than a few decades their people are likely to have stopped trusting their propaganda too. As the Government's ran out of resources to keep everything running.
7: @Soteris said: "Where as 4 is about power, this is about control." There is no practical difference between power and control, and you already listed diversion of interest under "nationalism" #1 So your double redundant.
Regardless there is hardly a country on Earth that doesn't do this.
9:@soteriss said " This is basically just corruption. Be it taking bribes or putting your family/friends/supporters at the head of both government positions " Is that really the responsibility of the company or the politician who has the practical freedom to make his policy on the basis of bribes?
Once again the main problem here is not that someone can offer money for power its that the power is not accountable enough for said money to be more valuable than the votes it would lose.
Perhaps we should ask why are the votes soo undervalued compared to the money? Might it be because almost all of them are already locked in for very different issues?
10: What is a worker beyond someone selling their labor? Might not their same labor be valuable elsewhere or to the person owning it if they are not offering enough for it? The only way to control labor is to monoplane it's utilization. The only power that can do that is the State via force. Otherwise we simply revert to the original system of self-employment.
11: @Soteris said: "More specifically, about protecting their own propaganda. Fascists does not like when others correct their lies and such so they will often attack academia as a result"
Once again you have defined this rule as redundant version of #6 except here you are taking it to an area of speech paid for by the state for the last 100+ years. Of course "fascist" are hardly the only ideology to abuse this particular form of control that includes even these united States. Along with almost every other country on Earth.
So this is even less defining than I supposed.
12: @Soteris said: "Also, this is not about law and order in the traditional sense but removing the "law" part as much as possible to allow them to enforce order according to their own judgement rather than the letter of the law. "
I too am very much against "living constitutionalism" as the abandonment of the rule of law. As well any law which are written vaguely as to give executive discretion. This however is hardly an unusual problem, all dictatorship tends to go in this direction.
Many democracies particular the ones trying to control larger domains of power over the people tend to go in this direction party because leaders given already soo much power want more. Partly because they cannot imagine what sort of power they need to make their state run system work.
@monorprise 2: Actually, it is unusual. Especially when they succeed. This is not about "getting away with it" but to structure the system and law to make it simply normal operation. For example, the Nazis did not "get away with" using their secret police to capture and kill their political enemies or funneling Jews into death camps. That was simply the new "normal" and "socially acceptable" through the justification of fear etc..
If you want a more modern example then you can take America giving up some of their freedoms after 9/11 and now it is normal for example when airport security demands you take off your shoes and whatnot. Something which would be resisted beforehand had they not been shocked and scared into accepting the new norm with decreased freedom.
4: No. Most modern countries do not in fact glorify their military (or their leaders). It used to be much more common until the two world wars more or less ended the era of Nationalism and Monarchy and transformed for example the country of France from Napoleonic ELAN to today where they are more concerned with how you pronounce "Croissant".
To be clear though, France is probably one of the countries that MOST glorify their military in the modern west alongside USA and a handful of other. But otherwise, no. Military might be given some measure of respect but they are not actually glorified anymore.
5: No the historic Fascists in Italy and Germany did not pull from the left. They were a populist movement (at least at the start) that tried to pull voters from the left by making appeals and overtures but that is just politicians being politicians. There was never any substance or honest intentions behind it. Both of them is, and was far right even by the standards of their day.
@monorprise 6: Perhaps we could argue about who had the better propaganda since its somewhat subjective but its not really that important who had the "best" one. Point is that they did control the media with their propaganda and it is something that Fascists keep doing or trying to do which is why its on this list.
7: You can certainly conflate power and control but they do hold distinct differences for the purposes of this conversation. Number 4, AKA the Supremacy of the Military is specifically about the military and their purpose as a "tool" for the fascist government AKA their "power" where as number 7 is about using national security to control the thoughts and feelings of the population hence "Control". As for number 1, "Nationalism", that is less about oppressing the thoughts and feelings of the citizens using fear and insecurity and more about trying to implant a social and national identity using things like pride and whatnot so also very different.
As such, they are very different for the purposes of this list.
9: You misunderstand the intention of this. While it is "Corporate Power is Protected", that is more an observation rather than "why its bad". It is just a fact that Fascists tend to closely connect with corporate power either because that is where they originally came from AKA corporations taking over political power or because the politicians wants to obtain corporate power and takes it from the corporations, perhaps even forcefully.
This then manifested in corporations being heavily involved in the Nazi party, and more specifically in many of its atrocities such as slave labor where people were literally worked to death for the benefit of international companies. Very similar to what is happening in for example China today.
10: Now that is just philosophical nonsense quite frankly.
@monorprise 11: No, this is different from number 6 because this specifically targets the arts and academia rather than targeting general propaganda. More specifically it also specifies that they are the "enemy". You keep trying to overgeneralize all of these points when they are intended to be fairly specific in reality.
12: This has literally nothing to do with "living constitutionalism" or the law at all beyond finding an excuse for why it does not apply. There is no intention of legality, only their attempts to use the law and more importantly, the law enforcement as an extension of their own power to attack their opponents. Any concessions given to the law as written is just them jumping through the hoops to do whatever it was they actually intended. The law is simply a distraction.
2: @Soteris said "This is not about "getting away with it" but to structure the system and law to make it simply normal operation." Everything is normal and accepted after a period of practice in which there is no realistic opposition either out of ignorance or lack of practical power. Its true dictatorships tend to let the dictator do whatever they want simply because said dictator or at least the oligarchy behind him have consolidated soo much power as to remove any practical opposition. The closest thing we have in our system to that kind of power today is our Federal Supreme court whom under the presumption of judicial supremacy popular in the last 100 years has in practice been able to impose almost whatever they want.
This was not originally the case they were simply required to agree to any like the other 2 branches. Instead in the last 100 years since the 17th amendment created a federal political class concerned with just their own power. The same politicians many if not most being lawyers out of office act as if the court they hand picked are oligarchs over the Federal Constitutions and themselfs powerless to stand up for anyone's rights.
they the result of a political culture of power and acceptance of the lack of realistic opposition.
4: @Soteris I don't think you are correct few countries even in a unipolor world fail to glorify their military. Among thoses few are disproportionately western countries due to the post World war 2 generation.
5: I disagree here too, its rather obvious the historic fascist were as leftist as their leaders history. They did try to appeal to everyone including the right but you don't become the editor of the socialist news paper while being a conservative.
6: @Soteris said: "Point is that they did control the media with their propaganda and it is something that Fascists keep doing or trying to do which is why its on this list."
This is something almost every totalitarian political movement does, not just via propaganda but by censorship. The "Fascists" were in no way unique in this regard not even during the early 20th century where they did exist. Such censorship and propaganda was being used by nearly all parties to the conflict.
That said it is most prevalent on the left for the obvious reason that by nature leftist don't trust people to think, do, or speak for themselfs.
7: @Soteris What makes an organization a "military" or "police" or "social security administration" or "IRS"? In every case your are dealing with a group of goverment employees using force to control and provide services to a population.
There it doesn't matter what you call the organization if that is what it does, why it does it, and how it does it.
9: @Soteris What is a "Corporation" and how is it different than any other group of individuals?
Beyond the required competences to run a private sector corporation vs a public sector agency merely requiring election. Why is it any different from when someone in goverment tries to take corporate power than when someone in the private sector tries to take Goverment power?
In both cases your talking about random people who were either elected by vote of ballot or vote of wallet. In either case it could have been anyone.
Your just far more likely to have someone who actually knows what their doing when that person proved themselfs in the private sector.
10: @Soteris It absolute is not philosophical nonsense our right to sell our labor at whatever terms we alone deem fit! This right is essence and central to all other rights.
11: @Soteris What exactly is an "enemy" if it is not someone opposed to your interest? Yes there is no difference between the efforts to control academic, free speech, and arts. Only what we the tax payers are FORCED to pay for.
You can say what you want but you must do so with the dime you earned.
12: Finding an excuse to apply or not apply a law is a executive function. As long as it is done consistently it is a far lesser offense than to decide that the meaning of said law is different now than it was when it was written.(living constitutionalism)
As for selective enforcement of the law that is choosing to enforce the law against certain people but not others that is indeed an executive abuse. Most common in almost every country permitted by an overabundance of laws and thus crimes as to necessitate prioritization. The same 'prioritization' which is almost always done discriminately against the enemies of the ones doing it.
If you want to limit that you have to have different executives representing all factions or you have to limit the domain of laws enough as to have few enough crimes per enforcement to leave no excuse.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
u +1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(30-35)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Most Helpful Opinions