Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Would Irish fascism be all bad?
Options
Comments
-
True.
Back on topic, the answer is no. When has fascism ever been good for anywhere?0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »Back on topic, the answer is no. When has fascism ever been good for anywhere?
If you look at Germany and Italy prior to World War II, there was a general consensus that Fascism was good for them - Churchill and Keynes being examples those who saw positive in the achievements of Fascism in these countries. Even in Fascist countries that did not enter the war (such as Spain), they did no worse and generally better than those that turned to socialism.
This is not to argue that ultimately Fascism was a system that worked out well, with or without the War for these countries, but that your response is just another example of the knee-jerk reaction to this subject - how can we have an objective and mature discussion on it when your answer is basically a throw-away cliche?0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »Oh so you mean multicultural inclusive fascism, that sounds em, what's the phrase...........made up!
Hiw many Jews were persecuted under the Cumann na nGaedhal government?Oh yeah . . . none0 -
Hiw many Jews were persecuted under the Cumann na nGaedhal government?Oh yeah . . . none
I'm an Irish Republican, if Ireland ever became a true a fascist country I'd join the British Army to help destroy the scourge of Fascist, Nazi scumbags in the country. Are you from the DRM? I see you started a thread in Politics about this sh!t as well.
I found Croatian Fascism particularly barbic."Q. And what did you do with the children
A. The weaker ones we poisoned
Q. How?
A. We led them into a yard... and into it we threw gas
Q. What gas?
A. Zyklon."
Witness Cijordana Friedlender testified:
At that time fresh women and children came daily to the Camp at Stara Gradiška. About fourteen days later, Vrban [the Commandant of the Camp] ordered all children to be separated from their mothers and put into one room. Ten of us were told to carry them there in blankets. The children crawled about the room, and one child put an arm and leg through the doorway, so that the door could not be closed. Vrban shouted: 'Push it!' When I did not do that, he banged the door and crushed the child's leg. Then he took the child by its whole-leg, and banged it on the wall until it was dead. After that we continued carrying the children in. When the room was full, Vrban brought poison gas and killed them all.0 -
KingBrian2 wrote: »Americans actually believe Fascists are Left wingers in disguise. In the same sentence Obama is simultaneously a Fascist, Communist, Socialist and a Islamist.
That's pretty strange as the line of the far-right is that Communism is a Jewish plot or at least the right-wing deviation of it.0 -
Advertisement
-
We already had Irish Fas-cism...
Now it's called Jobs-bridge...0 -
And with the last four posts, this thread has officially devolved beyond repair.0
-
The Corinthian wrote: »But is that not just because the Axis (Fascist) powers lost World War II? Had it gone the other way, you could make the exact same statement about liberal democracies.
History is written by the victors, i'll give you that - but I don't think that necessarily means that the it's the opposite of the truth, or even that it's particularly skewed. It usually is to a greater or lesser extent, but not always, and not in the case of fascism - which is pretty much a system without merit as far as I'm concerned.The Corinthian wrote: »This is not to argue that ultimately Fascism was a system that worked out well, with or without the War for these countries, but that your response is just another example of the knee-jerk reaction to this subject - how can we have an objective and mature discussion on it when your answer is basically a throw-away cliche?
fascism
ˈfaʃɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: fascism- an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
synonyms:authoritarianism, totalitarianism, dictatorship, despotism, autocracy, absolute rule, Nazism, rightism, militarism; Morenationalism, xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, chauvinism, jingoism, isolationism;
neo-fascism, neo-Nazism;
corporativism, corporatism;
historicalHitlerism;
historicalFrancoism, Falangism
Sorry for being clichéd and for knee jerking, maybe you could just point out the good parts for me?
0 - an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
-
sbsquarepants wrote: »History is written by the victors, i'll give you that - but I don't think that necessarily means that the it's the opposite of the truth, or even that it's particularly skewed. It usually is to a greater or lesser extent, but not always, and not in the case of fascism - which is pretty much a system without merit as far as I'm concerned.
My earlier point was more practical than who wrote history. Things turned out badly for many fascist counties because they lost the war. Things tend to go badly for countries when they lose wars, regardless of what system they employ.
As to doing well up until the end, you were being logical and then ended with a personal opinion - stated as a fact. You lost credibility at that point.fascism
ˈfaʃɪz(ə)m/
noun
noun: fascismSorry for being clichéd and for knee jerking, maybe you could just point out the good parts for me?
Were I to ask you about the various fascist approaches to things such as macroeconomics or political representation through a corporatist rather than orthodox democratic model, would you even be able to comment objectively? If not, then there's not much point in discussion.
Indeed, the entire discussion has been little more knee jerking, either religiously anti fascist or, in the case of the OP, arguably even less knowledgeable than those opposing.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »My earlier point was more practical than who wrote history. Things turned out badly for many fascist counties because they lost the war. Things tend to go badly for countries when they lose wars, regardless of what system they employ.
As to doing well up until the end, you were being logical and then ended with a personal opinion - stated as a fact. You lost credibility at that point.
.
Well I did say "as far as I'm concerned" so that's not really a statement of fact, just an opinion. I am open to change if I see anything to change it, I just haven't seen anything like that.
And as for things going badly for the countries that lost the war - that's not really true either.
Look at Germany - do you think they'd be better or worse as a society, as a place for germans and non germans alike to live, work, study, raise families, run businesses and do all the normal things that happen in German society today, if they'd triumphed.
There's no way of really knowing - but I know what I'd guess!0 -
Advertisement
-
sbsquarepants wrote: »Well I did say "as far as I'm concerned" so that's not really a statement of fact, just an opinion. I am open to change if I see anything to change it, I just haven't seen anything like that.
For example, we're I to look at a positive in fascism, IMO, I'd probably cite it's attempt to move away from representation as defined in liberal democracies and towards a corporatist system. I'm not saying it did so successfully or we should copy it. But because fascism did employ corporatism , it's meant that even considering doing so today would be effectively taboo.
Why do I think this positive? Because I think that the present system that enfranchises you on the basis of residency is out of date. It favours home owners over renters and is increasingly incompatible in a World where people are expected to migrate for work. Constituencies on something else, such as profession or trade, may be more equitable, as an example.
When people change residency continually, they have less of a stake in their constituency - after all, you won't be around see the fruits of your democratic choices. How many times do we move house as adults? How many times do we change professions?
But no doubt you already got all that from the dictionary definition you offered earlier.Look at Germany - do you think they'd be better or worse as a society, as a place for germans and non germans alike to live, work, study, raise families, run businesses and do all the normal things that happen in German society today, if they'd triumphed.0 -
I don't quite follow what your getting at with the change of residency thing. I don't know how any profession based system would work, or why you think it would be an improvement?You're discussing what the Germans did after fascism and after the War. Or are you suggesting the National Socialism is responsible for the economy of modern Germany?
I'm simply suggesting that fascist Germany was not as nice a place as non fascist Germany is, particularly for non Germans. That seems very much like stating the obvious to me.0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »I don't quite follow what your getting at with the change of residency thing. I don't know how any profession based system would work, or why you think it would be an improvement?I'm simply suggesting that fascist Germany was not as nice a place as non fascist Germany is, particularly for non Germans. That seems very much like stating the obvious to me.
As to 'fascist Germany not being as nice a place as non fascist Germany'; non fascist Weimar Germany was not as nice a place as fascist Germany - why do you think they became fascist Germany in the first place?0 -
Sorry for the slow replies, I'm dipping in and out of this in work!
You say constituencies based on profession could be an improvement - but you don't say how such a thing might work. I actually haven't got the foggiest idea what you mean?
You also say the current system favours home owners (a lot of home owners might disagree) over renters and I'm a bit shaky as to what you mean by that also, and clueless as to why you think fascism would be an improvement?
I would tend to disagree that Weimar Germany wasn't as nice as place as fascist Germany! A mixture of the great depression, worsened by crippling repayments for the whole trying to take over the world thing, caused many of the problems that led to the rise of fascism. Fascism thrives in times of economic hardship, I don't know of too many fair and wealthy democracies with a thriving fascist underground - do you? It basically breeds fear and contempt of outsiders a kind of "we need to protect what's ours from those who would seek to take it from us" mentality. Which is understandable, possibly even commendable even in some circumstances but it tends to be corrupted into much too specific definitions of us and them. It tends to be a slippery slope and I am not aware of any examples were it has ended well - if you are,then enlighten me. I'm open to change!
I do agree with you that it's pretty much a dirty word and there can be a tendency to reject it out of hand without too much thought - but there reasons why it has that reputation!0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »You say constituencies based on profession could be an improvement - but you don't say how such a thing might work.I actually haven't got the foggiest idea what you mean?You also say the current system favours home owners (a lot of home owners might disagree) over renters and I'm a bit shaky as to what you mean by that also, and clueless as to why you think fascism would be an improvement?
As to the present system favouring home owners, I explained my logic already:"When people change residency continually, they have less of a stake in their constituency - after all, you won't be around see the fruits of your democratic choices. How many times do we move house as adults? How many times do we change professions?"
Home owners have more of a stake in where they live than renters. They're also less likely to move location. This makes location-based constituencies of greater relevance to home owners than someone who is simply renting.I would tend to disagree that Weimar Germany wasn't as nice as place as fascist Germany! A mixture of the great depression, worsened by crippling repayments for the whole trying to take over the world thing, caused many of the problems that led to the rise of fascism.Fascism thrives in times of economic hardship, I don't know of too many fair and wealthy democracies with a thriving fascist underground - do you?It tends to be a slippery slope and I am not aware of any examples were it has ended well - if you are,then enlighten me. I'm open to change!
Examples that ended well are few and far between, in large part down to losing World War II. Other than that, fascism has probably fared no worse and possibly better than Communism; Spain, Portugal and Argentina being examples where while fascism was ultimately abandoned, they arguably did better than most Eastern bloc states.I do agree with you that it's pretty much a dirty word and there can be a tendency to reject it out of hand without too much thought - but there reasons why it has that reputation!
Don't get me wrong, I believe it was a flawed system, like Communism, but we ultimately have looked objectively at communism - borrowed and learned from it - we've not with fascism, but not because there is nothing to borrow and learn from it, but because to reject it has become part of the Western credo. And that's an incredibly dumb reason to reject something out of hand.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Be more specific. What are you having difficulty understanding?.
I don't know how much more specific I can be. I don't know what you mean - could you explain yourself a little!
What would a constituency based on profession look like? How would it operate in practice? Is there an example of it somewhere you could point to?The Corinthian wrote: »Seriously, I wrote in pretty clear English. I didn't say anything about adopting fascism, I suggested adopting something that was implemented (imperfectly, IMO) in fascism; a classic fascist policy. You could ignore everything else in fascism and just adopt an interpretation of that if you wanted to.
As to the present system favouring home owners, I explained my logic already:"When people change residency continually, they have less of a stake in their constituency - after all, you won't be around see the fruits of your democratic choices. How many times do we move house as adults? How many times do we change professions?"Home owners have more of a stake in where they live than renters. They're also less likely to move location. This makes location-based constituencies of greater relevance to home owners than someone who is simply renting..
So by renting, do you mean frequently moving long distances? As in what? Between cities, countries, continents - I don't know, you haven't been in any way clear.
There is a difference between renting and globetrotting - there are people who rent fairly long term without moving. There are people who change house frequently but stay roughly in the same geographical location. What about council tenants, are you counting them as renters or home owners?
I really don't know what the point is you're trying to make.The Corinthian wrote: »You're not open to change, so let's not pretend..
I actually am.
I just find what you're saying confusing - hence the request for clarification. I'm not getting at you, there's no need to be so defensive!The Corinthian wrote: »Examples that ended well are few and far between, .
A lot of people would see that as a reason not to follow suit, do you not think?The Corinthian wrote: »Don't get me wrong, I believe it was a flawed system, like Communism, but we ultimately have looked objectively at communism - borrowed and learned from it - we've not with fascism, but not because there is nothing to borrow and learn from it, but because to reject it has become part of the Western credo. And that's an incredibly dumb reason to reject something out of hand.
In the US for example socialism is very much a dirty word and rejected without even a glancing nod to any of it's merits, the result of generations of propaganda and reds under the bed paranoia. That is quite stupid I agree, I just don't see the same thing happening here.
I don't see many, in fact I can't really think of any saving graces of previous fascist regimes - you claim to not only have identified one but also to have explained it, but to be honest you haven't done a very good job of that. I'm still none the wiser as to what exactly your point is.0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »I don't know how much more specific I can be. I don't know what you mean - could you explain yourself a little!What would a constituency based on profession look like? How would it operate in practice? Is there an example of it somewhere you could point to?So by renting, do you mean frequently moving long distances? As in what? Between cities, countries, continents - I don't know, you haven't been in any way clear.
I'm sorry, but nothing I've written is terribly complicated and I've actively avoided going into detail to keep it simple. If you still can't understand, then I'm afraid that I can't help you.I actually am.A lot of people would see that as a reason not to follow suit, do you not think?In the US for example socialism is very much a dirty word and rejected without even a glancing nod to any of it's merits, the result of generations of propaganda and reds under the bed paranoia. That is quite stupid I agree, I just don't see the same thing happening here.
Just because you believe you're open minded, doesn't mean you are.I don't see many, in fact I can't really think of any saving graces of previous fascist regimes - you claim to not only have identified one but also to have explained it, but to be honest you haven't done a very good job of that. I'm still none the wiser as to what exactly your point is.0 -
The Corinthian wrote: »Just because you believe you're open minded, doesn't mean you are..
And just because you believe you're making sense, doesn't mean you are.The Corinthian wrote: »TBH, at this stage I get the impression that the fault is not in my explanation, but in your comprehension.
Maybe the brilliance of your intellect is just too much for my simple mind to grasp, or maybe you're just talking out of your arse. At this stage I don't really care - it's apparent this conversation is going nowhere either way, so I'm off!0 -
sbsquarepants wrote: »And just because you believe you're making sense, doesn't mean you are.
- You debating the topic of an ideology without seemingly knowing anything other than the most 'popular' and superficial things about it.
- My responding to all your arguments against said ideology and you either ignoring those rebuttals or accepting them, yet oddly your faith in your opinion remains unchanged.
- My repeatedly offering to explain what I am what you're having difficulty comprehending, and doing so.
- You having difficulty even explaining what it is you're having difficulty comprehending - foggiest idea isn't very descriptive, last time I checked.
Maybe the brilliance of your intellect is just too much for my simple mind to grasp, or maybe you're just talking out of your arse. At this stage I don't really care - it's apparent this conversation is going nowhere either way, so I'm off!
But you're right, with your definition of 'open minded' this discussion was unlikely to go anywhere, although you were by far the best of a bad lot, to your credit.
Don't forget to close the door behind you0
Advertisement