Would Irish fascism be all bad?

4512

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?

cerastes

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

cerastes wrote: »

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

What about mass rallies and proper nationalism being taught in schools? Its about time fascism became more mainstream.

Maximus Alexander

Worth a shot. Nothing bad has ever come out of fascism.

cerastes

4512 wrote: »

What about mass rallies and proper nationalism being taught in schools? Its about time fascism became more mainstream.

Perhaps you could give us what your opinion of the definition of racism edit, (I meant facism)what facism is?
Whatever they call it, we seem to have some form of it here already, not that I think you're serious anymore, mass rallies for what? Could be a good thing or a bad thing.anti govt mass rallies, good, other things? Depends on what it is.

RobbingBandit

Wouldn't work here we hate/begrudge each other too much to hate anyone else on the level required for fascism.

Iwasfrozen

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?

Yes it would be terrible and contrary to what you seem to think would hurt us hugely economically.

The Corinthian

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

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Fascism as in a united political party, no reward without contribution and glorification of ones nation. Fascism does not necessarily mean racism or xenophobia people!

Maximus Alexander

4512 wrote: »

Fascism does not necessarily mean racism or xenophobia people!

It certainly requires at least one of the two.

4512

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It certainly requires at least one of the two.

Not necessarily, fascism is pragmatic, i.e. there is not one definition of fascism.

Maximus Alexander

4512 wrote: »

Not necessarily, fascism is pragmatic, i.e. there is not one definition of fascism.

Well then perhaps the discussion would be well served if you more clearly defined what we're talking about.

The Corinthian

4512 wrote: »

Fascism as in a united political party, no reward without contribution and glorification of ones nation. Fascism does not necessarily mean racism or xenophobia people!

Could you answer the question without resorting to slogans? As you said yourself, there is no one definition of Fascism, so it would help if you actually fleshed out what you see as a positive implementation.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

It certainly requires at least one of the two.

No actually, at least no more than you'll find in liberal democracies - Germany, was as were the puppet regimes that fell into its sphere, but other Fascist nations behaved largely in the same way on matters of race and xenophobia as countries like Britain or France.

daUbiq

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...

The Corinthian

daUbiq wrote: »

Amerika is a fascist country:

America is apparently also ruled by nine-foot high blood drinking lizards - do you think there's a connection between Fascism and reptiles?

jobbridge4life

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.

The Corinthian

jobbridge4life wrote: »

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

Why do you feel his 'proposal' (which is a bit vague, TBH) is so "monstrous"? Or to put it another way, if you feel so strongly on the topic, are you in a position to debate it rationally?

KingBrian2

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

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Americans actually believe Fascists are Left wingers in disguise.

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.

KingBrian2

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.

DubiousV

The Corinthian wrote: »

America is apparently also ruled by nine-foot high blood drinking lizards - do you think there's a connection between Fascism and reptiles?

I didn't but I do now!

daUbiq

The Corinthian wrote: »

America is apparently also ruled by nine-foot high blood drinking lizards - do you think there's a connection between Fascism and reptiles?

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

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

Are you an american?

sbsquarepants

4512 wrote: »

Fascism as in a united political party, no reward without contribution and glorification of ones nation. Fascism does not necessarily mean racism or xenophobia people!

Oh so you mean multicultural inclusive fascism, that sounds em, what's the phrase...........made up!

The Corinthian

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?

The Corinthian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Oh so you mean multicultural inclusive fascism, that sounds em, what's the phrase...........made up!

Where did you get that he meant multicultural, or that if something is not multicultural, then it cannot be inclusive?

sbsquarepants

Well, if you don't exclude foreigners you must include them. What's the alternative? Just pretend they don't exist?

The Corinthian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Well, if you don't exclude foreigners you must include them. What's the alternative? Just pretend they don't exist?

So the only way they can be included is for the society to be multicultural?

sbsquarepants

I think it's a natural side effect of true inclusion. I think that societies that strive to protect their own culture like it was some fixed rigid entity are by their very nature unwelcoming to outsiders. Do you not?

The Corinthian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think it's a natural side effect of true inclusion. I think that societies that strive to protect their own culture like it was some fixed rigid entity are by their very nature unwelcoming to outsiders. Do you not?

Doesn't work like that in Switzerland. Policy is very much one of integrating into Swiss culture and they have a significantly higher success rate in this regard than most other Western countries, which given the fact that 25% of the population is foreign is probably a good thing.

What you're proposing sounds more like a natural side effect of exclusion.

sbsquarepants

The Corinthian wrote: »

Doesn't work like that in Switzerland. Policy is very much one of integrating into Swiss culture and they have a significantly higher success rate in this regard than most other Western countries, which given the fact that 25% of the population is foreign is probably a good thing.

What you're proposing sounds more like a natural side effect of exclusion.

I have to admit I don't know much about Switzerland, I've never even visited, but from what I read here and there it sounds like a very fair and democratic place. I don't see how that could be the case if they were to basically ignore the culture and traditions of a quarter of their population? I'm all for integration but it's a 2 way street surely?

The Corinthian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I have to admit I don't know much about Switzerland, I've never even visited, but from what I read here and there it sounds like a very fair and democratic place. I don't see how that could be the case if they were to basically ignore the culture and traditions of a quarter of their population? I'm all for integration but it's a 2 way street surely?

Switzerland is not a perfect place, but they've done a lot better than most where it comes to integration. That doesn't mean that the cultures that enter the country don't influence Swiss culture too or that all integrate with the same ease, but you do generally find that within two generations the only noticeable difference between an 'Eidgenosse' (Swiss who can trace themselves back a few hundred years to the locality) and a 'naturalized' Swiss is the surname, and perhaps also the first name.

Migratory groups integrating successfully in the countries they move to has been around a lot longer than this modern concept of multiculturalism - does more Irish than the Irish themselves ring a bell?

Anyhow, multiculturalism is frankly off-topic. This thread was about whether Fascism would be a good thing for Ireland and without the OP explaining what he means, the question is too vague. Even if he were to narrow it down for us (and I presently have my doubts on this), there's been so many lazy stereotypes, incorrect notions, emotional reactions and conspiracy theories here that I'm not sure the topic can be discussed maturely.

sbsquarepants

True.

Back on topic, the answer is no. When has fascism ever been good for anywhere?

The Corinthian

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Back on topic, the answer is no. When has fascism ever been good for anywhere?

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.

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?

4512

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 . . . none

DarkyHughes

4512 wrote: »

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.

DarkyHughes

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.

Choodefat

We already had Irish Fas-cism...
Now it's called Jobs-bridge...

The Corinthian

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

sbsquarepants

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

1. 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?
   
   
   
   
   
   • 
     
     
     
   
   
   
   

The Corinthian

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

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!

The Corinthian

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

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.

The Corinthian

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

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!

The Corinthian

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:

"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.

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

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.

The Corinthian

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

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!

The Corinthian

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