Would Irish fascism be all bad?

What makes you think it doesn't exist already,in that case I'd say it does well for some and not for others.

4512 wrote: »

With a lack of pride in self, would a fascist revolution in Ireland (whether violent or non-violent) not be what this country needs as a kick-start to an economic and political rejuvenation?

I think you would have to be more specific when you talk about Fascism.

Do you mean one of the historical interpretations of Fascism, and if so which? Italian? German? Spanish? Argentinian?

Do you mean one of the ideologies that has come from historical Fascism, and if so which? Neo-nazism? Post-Fascism?

Or something else again that incorporates some Fascist concepts in an updated ideology?

At the end of the day, Fascism is not a single unified ideology despite the stereotypes that are often trotted out. As such talking about a Fascist revolution, system or whatever is a bit meaningless as it could mean a whole range of things.

4512 wrote: »

With a lack of pride in self, would a fascist revolution in Ireland (whether violent or non-violent) not be what this country needs as a kick-start to an economic and political rejuvenation?

Some others on the thread have asked for clarity with regard to the particular style of fascism you feel we could benefit from, this has left me perplexed. In response I'd like to enquire of those for what ever reason still need of some clarity which form of fascism they feel has a positive lessons for Ireland or indeed any country or peoples ever?

The monstrosity of your proposal is so over powering it makes it hard to even begin to engage.

Perhaps you might assist by illustrating how you feel fascism might benefit our nation.

daUbiq wrote: »

Amerika is a fascist country:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-us-a-fascist-society-examining-the-existence-of-fascism-in-the-united-states/5377146.

Most people believe the nazis represent fascism but there's many more examples...

Americans actually believe Fascists are Left wingers in disguise. In the same sentence Obama is simultaneously a Fascist, Communist, Socialist and a Islamist.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In a way, they are - there are actually numerous overlaps between socialism and fascism in terms of policy, particularly economic. This is actually quite well documented and accepted academically.

The further right you go the closer to the left you go. Their are similarities between the Christian Democrats and Islamists but nobody is suggesting they are remotely the same. Trotskyites hiding in Mexico were completely different to Stalinists in USSR.

daUbiq wrote: »

So you didn't read the article and you haven't been paying attention for the last 30 years...

I read it and it was a ridiculous conspiracy theory based upon a few simplistic correlations that could be applied to numerous countries.

try this one:

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

Another simple minded pile of crap for the mouth breathers out there.

Are you an american?

No. What level of education do you have, seeing as we're getting personal?

And with the last four posts, this thread has officially devolved beyond repair.

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.

You were doing well until the end. Naturally history written by the victors (which wasn't actually my point earlier), does not necessarily mean that the it's the opposite of the truth, but it does mean that it can be unreliable.

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: fascism

What is it that anything more than a short dictionary definition for a concept topic is too much trouble for people?

Sorry for being clichéd and for knee jerking, maybe you could just point out the good parts for me?

I never said there were. I said that contemporaries saw good parts, as difficult as it might seem to you, but we've not even gotten as identifying any parts, given the sum total of knowledge being displayed is a one-line dictionary definition.

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.

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.

I don't get the impression you're looking - you actively seem to be the idea of doing so, hence your sloganized responses and simplistic definitions. I'm not attacking you personally for this - I think you're just the product of post-War Western society that has reduced fascism to an insult that people don't actually understand.

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.

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?

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?

You asked for something that one could take from fascism that may be positive and I gave it. I also explained why it would be an improvement. If there's something you didn't understand let me know and I can explain it.

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.

I thought you were explaining how "things going badly for the countries that lost the war" - that's not really true either?

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?

sbsquarepants wrote: »

You say constituencies based on profession could be an improvement - but you don't say how such a thing might work.

I know; again, you asked asked for something that one could take from fascism that may be positive and I gave it, not send the thread off on a tangent as such a discussion realistically requires it's own thread.

I actually haven't got the foggiest idea what you mean?

Be more specific. What are you having difficulty understanding?

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?

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:

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.

How did the economic situation make Weimar Germany a nicer place to live? You can talk about how it wasn't Weimar Germany's fault that things were so shìtty, but ultimately they were and objectively much worse than under the pre-war Nazis. I simply pointed out this fact, nothing more.

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?

Absolutely, as with Communism. If the system is working, you're unlikely to have much support to radically change it to something like Fascism or Communism, after all. Bit of a no-brainer, TBH.

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!

You're not open to change, so let's not pretend.

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!

Sure, World War II, the Holocaust and 70 years of Western indoctrination.

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.

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!

Haven't got the foggiest idea isn't terribly specific, is it?

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?

Seanad Éireann would be a rudimentary example.

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.

By renting I mean renting. What was so complicated? That I pointed out an inverse correlation between renting and longevity of residency, or between renting and involvement in local politics?

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.

You've been largely responding with cliched dismissals on this topic, so no, not I don't get that impression.

A lot of people would see that as a reason not to follow suit, do you not think?

Yet communism and even socialism has arguable an even worse track record, but there's no shortage of useful idiots who want to see those ideologies re-implemented.

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.

Yet, the arguments you've been using to dismiss fascism are on the same shallow level as those that are regularly used against socialism in the US.

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.

TBH, at this stage I get the impression that the fault is not in my explanation, but in your comprehension.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And just because you believe you're making sense, doesn't mean you are.

Indeed, but I at least can point to:

• 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.

So much for your open mind. Meanwhile I can also point to:

• 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.

So I'm not sure what else I could have done at my end, TBH.

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!

There's no reason to presume that this is down to a gap in intellect - it could just as easily be down to a gap in education. That you entered a discussion to talk about something you have very little knowledge on, might point to that.

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 you