What's the actual meaning of fascism?

To bond, to unite, to be/keep strong.

...

The precise characteristics of fascism depend on the nation that's practicing it, as that nation's traditions and values will shape the form it takes.

Broadly speaking you can expect it to be nationalist, to support the interests of tradesmen, farmers, and soldiers, to support the cause of scientific research and advancement, to seek to preserve nature and wildlife as much as possible, and to aim to prevent the growth of cosmopolitanism (and undo it where it has taken hold).

Fascists may be sympathetic towards other countries (Mosley for example disliked outsourcing not just because it cost jobs, but also because the sweatshops that popped up created abysmal conditions of Chinese and Indian workers - people who were not his countrymen at all) but their first and foremost concern is their own people's wellbeing.

That image is completely wrong right off the bat.

Together we are stronger than our own separate parts. A single drop of water is harmless, but get a lot of water together and you suddenly something capable of levelling cities.

That isn't really a good definition of left and right. You can have inequality in left wing state (libertarian capitalism for example). Inequality is necessary but not sufficient for a definition of right wing.

newswithviewstoo.blogspot.ca/2013/12/the-doctrine-of-fascism.html

This is a short read, read it and you will understand what fascism is.

It's hyper-nationalism, that's it. Fascism is very flexible. It can be right wing or left wing. Usually it focuses on a certain group within the nation-state, in Germany and Italy it was the middle class. The only deciding factor on if it will work or not is cultural-homogeneity.

Many countries have experienced fascism in their histories it just didn't have a name to it.

Read "Fascism: 100 Questions Asked and Answered" by Oswald Mosley.

You're pulling that out of your ass or using the retarded leftist "definition"

No he didn't write it. Giovanni Gentile ghost wrote it for him, he also wrote a lot of other fascist theory. He was named the Philosopher of Fascism

Fascism is a worldview.

One rooted in the first world war and the people it created.
It's one that sees life as an eternal struggle against nature, in which your people constitute an army.
This is reflected in how they perceived the relationship between the individual and the state.

To fascists the state is everything. It is the people, their government, the businesses, the churches, the military, etc.
All are part of this great big army arrayed against nature as it fights to survive each day.

There's no strict economic or political program beyond this.
The fascism of Britain emphasised Britains ties to the Empire and called for improvements in the lives of both the British and the colonial peoples.
While German fascism was very strict in its ethnic nationalism.
As Mosley pointed out. A fascist reflects the character and circumstances of his people. So what they call for will vary considerably between nations.

But that basic worldview will remain consistent. Life is a constant struggle and we must work together to succeed.

Fascism is almost impossible to define, since all the fascist movements were different in each country. One could make the argument that there never was any coherent fascist ideology.

Italian fascism and German national-socialism alone were very different.

What they all did share was that they were nationalistic, anti-communist movements.

Anyway that Google definition is stupid. 'Right wing' means absolutely nothing in this case. All those synonyms are bullshit. Fascism is not a synonym for totalitarianism or dictatorship. Soviet Union for example was way more authoritarian and totalitarian than Germany or Italy before the second world war, and North-Korea is not lead by a fascist regime but a communist one.

That's not short.

How is my interpretation wrong?

see

I will translate to you now the words perhaps never translated into English before, by Croatian poglavnik (fuhrer) Pavelić, written in 1938, last chapter of book "Terrors of Delusions".

Fascism today is not one form of ruling, as it was implemented in Italy - with that name is marked one prime idea of new nationalistic state regulation, and of society, and today it is an object of world importance. Fascism is not "antithesis of democracy" as it is casually stated, but it's successor as "antithesis of communism" (or Bolshevsim).
…
Fascism sprung up in in west on wastes of democracy, that was not capable to confront communism when it attempted to breach from Russia into the west. It's system (of democracy), it's way of functioning and the resources it can use were not capable to match, or even less to destroy the ways of Bolshevism and it's tools of combat, as fishing boat cannot match up to war ironclad. There was a need for something new, something stronger and more capable for combating Bolshevism, capable of defeating it. And that found it's outcome in Fascism. Of course, Fascism first had to remove Democracy, which turned out to be incapable for that battle, so it doesn't weave around it's legs as it is fighting Bolshevism…

…

Democracy on it's part will not take credit for it's weakness and inability and it's complete incapability to seriously match up to Bolshevism, but it's trying to justify itself with denying it's danger and revulsion. To make it clear, democracy makes with communism an agreement (compromise), and slowly drowns within it. Fake and insincere are tears of those that cry over ruins of democracy and unjustly swear on fascism, as a cause of dying democracy. On the opposite, it crumbles because it cannot withstand the new dynamics of battle, as abandoned war-forts of middle ages that were not able to withstand newer, more advanced cannons, crumble by themselves as no one had a reason to maintain them.

..

And fascism, the one given by Italy and Germany is reflection of will of the people, it's widest ranges, that is to be differentiated from calculated constructs (speculative combinations), that are used to maintain current rulers in powers of dying democracies, and from "pseudo-fascist" governments that have not sprung neither from democracy, nor from fascism…

..

While these two movements, from one hand fascism as movement of ideas and people, and on the other hand Bolshevism as synthesis of barbarism and destruction, share a giant battle, meanwhile democracy is doomed on role of peaceful watcher or owner of the field on which the battle is occuring, and when the battle is over there will be no remains of "democratic ideology" and democratic social structure.

It was not possible not to have a resistance towards marksist delusions and insane implementation of those delusions into life, and in full measure on that ground, on which over 20 centuries ago was born not only the Roman Empire but also one culture and people.
..
Land of Cato, Cicero, Caesar was supposed to also give Mussolini.

Old German armies have been resurrected, that secure for German people it's homeland, and national-socialistic and racial Germany got rid of infectious Bolshevik racial destruction and tackled the poisonous Bolshevik dragon that started to spread it's wings over entire Europe. And it will crush it's head. It is a mistake to attempt to limit fascism on Italy and Germany. It is mistaken to say that fascism is not goods for export. Bolshevism is common evil and wants to take hold everywhere. Fascism stands to battle it until death, so it must clash everywhere, in every corner of planet Earth, and the inevitable consequence of that to become common, "universal", and to spread even there where it is not exported - by itself, because that is carried in battle of nations for life over death that is carried by Bolshevism…

Fascism, like Communism, equates to a big authoritarian government; the belittlement of personal freedoms; mass censorship; dictatorship etc. Basically you live and do what the government wants. You live according to government ideals. You're taught what the government wants you to know. You think how the government wants you to think. Or you're punished.

Holy shit.

Please stop posting about shit you don't understand. You're even stuck in the retarded "left-wing = big gov't/right-wing equal small gov't" dichotomy.

That's a lot of worthless text right there. It doesn't specifically define Fascism at all. It's some guy's poetic ranting. What's the point?

Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin. Telling me I don't understand this stuff doesn't dispute that.

You clearly have no idea what you're talking about

It's been explained in this thread, You're clearly retarded or just trolling

fuuuuck so close

Did you read that last sentence before you posted it?

You're embarrassing yourself

Try reading with more understanding.

Fascism is natural reaction of people to materialistic and foreign ideology, which democracy is unable to combat.
It is movement of one (group of) people into it's most suitable form of government that works into their benefit.

Your idea of "freedom" Is what allowed Banks and Jews to take over murrica. If there was a strong nationalist government it would be very different today

Fasces - A fasces is a bundle of sticks. It was used to represent the authority of Rome during the empire.

The symbolism is simple, each individual stick is weak. However, these sticks combined will be impossible to break.

Fascism directly means "the way of the bundle of sticks." When we take into account the symbolism, it might mean "the path of collected strength." Your will is a stick, it is strong but it can be broken. Our will together is a fasces, an unbreakable will. Fascism indirectly means "the way of the collected will."

Actually you're just proving to be another little anti-social Nazi LARPing faggot who wants to prove to Holla Forums that he's hardcore and edgy. Provide an actual argument, moron.

By the way, I align more with a Paleoconservative than a Libertarian.

Yes. It's irrelevant. I never mentioned Left or Right. I said Fascism requires a big authoritarian government, which is does.

Fascism and Nationalism aren't the same thing you dumb serf…

So when Mussolini created the Fascist party with the direct goal of countering communism, his goal was actually to become communist.

Great logic newfag.

lurk moar before you make a post

ayy

Yes.

People were afraid of the marxist revolutionary wave sweeping across Europe, and fascists were seen as the only force capable to stop them. This is why Mussolini for example implemented corporatism, to shut down marxist ideas of class conflict and bring social classes closer together

That doesn't outline a form of policy whatsoever. You're basically saying "Fascism is a loose catch-all term," which it isn't. It's a specific political ideology that has a specific form of governance.

One form of authoritarianism to overcome another. Not difficult to comprehend. At the end of the day they both control/influence the educational system. They both enforce censorship. They both infringe on personal freedoms. They both punish dissent.

Got any more buzzwords you wanna throw out there, liberturdian?

Why should I provide an argument when you never presented one in the first place? You made a bullshit, uneducated statement that can and should be dismissed outright.

Then tell me what is common in all fascist states. It has to be something more than totalitarianism because it is not unique to fascism.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statism

Aside from strong controlling leadership being omitted that's actually not that far off.

So does the Jew government today.

i think what he means to say is that socialism is successful for homogeneous populations. there's less aversion to others in your society benefiting from socialist policies.
the reason for this is that naturally you don't want to benefit political rivals who in part are those who exploit welfare.

i think fascism about creating a good country, which implies good citizens. its adherents tend to respect self sufficiency with regards to the individual and by extension, the state.
somehow making it such that your population is healthy, intelligent, strong, and such due to good beliefs, which implies good behaviors, would be what a fascist state is about.
imagine perfect people. naturally, they would form the perfect state.
people tend to have an aversion to such a notion because they envision some kind of sterile, perfectly structure society without any breathing room, but this isn't the case. there would be freedom, theoretically much more than any other state, but those behaviors that are degenerative would not be practiced while those behaviors that actualise the potential of people or the people would be practiced. so i supposed the scope of behavior would be restricted to those that are good, but in terms of good behavior, there is variance. if you're free to choose something that's good for you or somethings that's bad for you, necessarily, you'll choose what's good for you. the problem is that the people don't necessarily know what's actually good for themselves. the idea is to pursue that ethos that is objectively true, and have your population hold that ethos. law enforcement isn't necessary if the people would never behave in a manner that would necessitate it.
it's the movement towards the perfect society, and that perfect society would naturally spread to others like useful technology being purchased and utilised by other people. it replicates like a good meme.
for it to work, the administration has to have the intent of empowering his people and his people have to reciprocate with their support to this end.

just my interpretation of it anyways.
i'd appreciate criticism of it.

Why don't we ask the man who invented it?
These are all quotes by Benito Mussolini. (I'm translating directly from Italian)

"Fascism is a great mobilization of material and moral forces. What are its proposals?
Without false modesty: to govern the nation.
What is its program? The one required to ensure the moral and material greatness of the Italian people."

"Fascism flees from everything that mortgages the future yet unknown"

"If freedom is to be the main attribute of the real man, and not of that abstract mannequin envisioned by individualistic liberalism, then Fascism is for freedom. It is for the only freedom that can be a serious one:
Freedom of the state, and freedom of the individual within the state"

"Fascism makes all men equal in front of work and in front of the nation"

"Struggle is the source of all things, because life itself is full of all kinds of conflict"

"Make it that the glory of the past are surpassed by the glory of your future"

"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"

"I declare that from now on capital and labor shall have equal rights and duties as brothers in the family of fascism"

"Liberty is a duty, not a right".

"The Fascist conception of the State is all-embracing; outside of it no human or spiritual values can exist, much less have value. Understanding this, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist State–a synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values–interprets, develops, and empowers the whole life of all people"

Authoritarianism is natural, though. There isn't anything inherently wrong with authoritarianism if its fulfilling the function of protecting the race & people of a nation, and ensuring their ability to prosper. Democracy is inherently dysgenic.
Not necessarily
If certain freedoms work against the interests of the nation and people as a whole, then why shouldn't they be limited?
Any government inherently infringes on personal freedoms by definition of being a government. You're spouting retarded anarchism at this point
This isn't inherently wrong if what is being prevented is subversive to the wellbeing of the nation like femminism or marxism.

How about we ask a Fascist what Fascism means instead of sources with confirmation bias:

worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

Fascism only puts the state first as long as the state is the will of the people. Read my direct analysis (>>6168924
) and take your shitposting elsewhere.

I just realized, fascism is the way of the faggot. Think about it…

Also, please note that one of the most famous quotes on fascism is FALSE. Worse, it has been invented by the New York Times, by the notorious dealer of falsity that was Molly Ivins.

Mussolini never wrote:
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. "
Indeed, that contrasts HEAVILY with what he believed, stated in my post above.

Beware of disinformation.

Because Italian fascism was so specific, right? :D

As I was saying, that quote is false. Worse, it was invented by a liberal New York Times women journalist.

It would be better for you to read some real works on fascism.

faggot was a corruption of fasces after the invention of rolled tobacco.

alright, that seals it.
i'm a massive fucking fascist holy shit.

Nothing but an anti-white slur.

b-but muh fweedumbs!

i'm not here to argue. i just wanted to make sure you understood that fascism is fundamentally the same as communism; in the sense that its authoritarian.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/statism
oxforddictionaries.com/definition/learner/statism

i only used wikipedia because it had more information than a dictionary website.

I don't support Mussoli but here is the real definition:

Fascism (Mussolini). A movement which is at once the political, syndical, military, and mystic, uniting in one bond all the necessities, the hopes, the passions of the new national soul.

It means the merger of business (syndical) and the state.

By this definition the Soviet Union was also fascist.

By that analogy, I could claim that communism is same as monarchism, because it's authoritarian.

Read Rocco's What is Fascism

These are the guys that got it more or less right, at least for the original meaning and implementation of fascism, which was quite different from other totalitarian regimes (like national-socialism).

How can I say that these guys are more on track than the others? Again, just compare what they are saying to original texts and speech by Mussolini and other fascist intellectuals and philosophers.

Hey I got dubs of truth. Eat shit commies.

How about you actually read the arguments we gave and counter them, instead of moving the goalposts and using logical fallacies to prove your point.

Don't make me laugh. See my previous post there:

And even more so

How can that even be related to the Soviet Union?

Stop equating fascism with communism. It is at best, disingenuous, at worst, intellectually dishonest.

Both were totalitarian regimes, but fascism was even further than communism/socialism than national-socialism was.

Well you argue just like a University Marxist. So apparently it's a personality type, or lacking intellect that leads ones to desire to be led. Should I just address you as Comrade?

What's unique to Fascism? Some semblance of Nationalism, I suppose. Well, I doubt it's unique in that form of governance, but in comparison to Communism it's one of the minor differences. Nonetheless, all the other aspects are so horrid I'd avoid it. Nationalism is good when applied to a good form of governance. Having a Nationalist government that harms your standard of living and your way of life is not a good, to me, in spite of the fact that it protects your existence as a people.

I'm not for the current system of government and I never said I was. I'm not stupid enough to submit to an oppressive government just because this current corrupt government isn't working in my favor. That's absolutely ridiculous. That's like being surrounded by fire and begging not to be shot, only to be burned alive 20 minutes later. I'd rather find a way out of the fire.

Except all forms of government work toward the benefit of the government and the individuals that comprise it. What are the checks and balances in a Fascist government that hinder corruption? From what I can tell, the system is ripe for corruption, given its wide-reaching control in a nation.

No I'm not. I never said absolute freedom from governance. There is a norm here in the US that we expect in regards to personal freedoms. A system like Fascism would be akin to be tossed in a prison, comparing our current standard of living to that under Fascism.

The dissent that would be punished would be any person seeking to lessen the influence, reach, or power of the government. Anyone that threatens its ability to control and/or expand its influence. Yeah, that's a bad thing. If a government has more power over its citizens than its citizens do over it, then its going to oppress its citizens for the sake of its very survival.

You sound like the kind of retard I'd meet an an anti-Trump rally…

stay mad faggot

All three share a goal to unite the state and economic production.

How about reading fascist literature from 1930s?
Or maybe the people who influenced fascism?

Also check out this channel-
F101 gives an interesting insight into the basics of fascism (in general not just italian fascism)

Now you sound like the kind of retard I'd come across on Xbox Live in 2010…

The fact that you are "moving the goalposts" of your argument and rephrasing it at every post makes me a bit suspicious of your intellectual honesty, sorry.

I seem I'm not the only one noticing this (as observed also by ) - So I don't think it's worthy of my time to continue this discussion.

Feel free to check out the original sources from the XX years of fascism, they have been translated in several languages, English included

Here's a pretty good text explaining the relation fascism had with communism:
quora.com/Are-the-differences-between-communism-and-fascism-mostly-semantic

Read their fucking manifesto you faggot

A couple relevant excerpts from Fascism: Doctrines and Institutions:

"Our State is not an absolute State, still less an absolutist State far removed from men and armed only with laws, inflexible as laws should be.

Our State is an organic, human State, desirous of adhering to the realities of life.
The bureaucracy itself is no longer, and in future will be even less desirous of acting as a diaphragm between that which is the activity of the State and those which are the interests and effective and concrete needs of the Italian people."

"It is for this reason that corporative economy arises at a time when the two concomitant phenomena, capitalism and socialism, have already given all that they could give.
We inherit from both that which was vital in each."

more like
If I make a blatantly absurd baseless claim about something I don't understand, then why should I expect anyone to waste their time making a valid argument to respond to my dumbfuckery?

Not at all. Modern democracy doesn't work towards the benefit of the people, since the people are easily manipulated by destructive ideologies and vote people in who are controlled by special interests. Communism also doesn't work towards the benefit of the people since it tries to force an unnatural ideology down their throats and destroys the fabric of society by tearing it over class warfare.

What are the checks and balances that hinder corruption in any government, and can you show me one example of where they've ever succeeded in preventing corruption? If you think our modern "democracies" are an example of something uncorrected, then you're incredibly foolish. No system will ever be corruption-free, but that doesn't mean a fascist government couldn't have functions in place to root out and remove corruption.

says you.

again, says you. A fascist government could also have a constitution and guidelines it must follow, and does not necessarily have to restrict individual rights. For example, I consider myself a fascist, yet am a proponent of individual gun rights, because I believe that an armed populace is a good check and balance against the government.

Where do you get this idea that a government is inherently in opposition with the people? The government exists as a tool to order and maintain society, it isn't an entity in and of itself with a mind of its own that naturally wants to eat the population. Governments have always existed and will always exist. Having "the people" exert a lot of control over the government like in democracy is also not favourable, considering the majority of the people are incapable of making competent decisions and are easily manipulated by (((private media))). You end up with a government where a mysterious private government rules from the shadows that is equally, if not more corrupt than any visible authoritarian dictatorship could ever be.

Why people are so damn lazy? How can you improve yourself if you don't do your own research on topics you care about?
If you want to be spoonfed everything, at least be aware of the degree of manipulation that you can be exposed to.

Skepticism, critical thinking, independent and daring thought should be goals worth attaining.

because that's the whole point of debating. why are you even replying comments if its just to antagonize?

If I shit on a piece of paper and call it art, I wouldn't expect anyone in their right mind to analyse and critique it as though it was.

Well it was mainly meant for this fucking guy:

The (((communist))) and the (((libertarian))) may seem to be in violent opposition, but with the emphasis on the material and on what is considered to be the "rational," the two are alike, though one may seek the end of "justice" and other that of "freedom." Both are hostile to movements built on national, racial, or cultural instincts.

This is probably the coolest fucking Italian name I've ever heard of. Nice 11 by the way.

maybe he'll stop calling his shit art if you point out his ignorance. i wouldn't blame you if he knew what he was doing, but he clearly doesn't.

I get your point. Sorry for the outburst then, it was a bit misdirected and out of opportunity.

Literally translates to:

"John Kind"

Then explain how so we might correct it. "Any government that's nationalistic and right wing" is obviously bullshit.

Here you go, fam.

Fascism is an ideology (worldview) and not a set of policies.
You can read into it for month and years on end to understand it's mode of thinking.
Generally it's characteristis are:

Corporativismo (Corportaism or right wing syndicalism)
Integralism
National Revival (rome/ germanic tribes)
Traditionalism
Nationalism
Romanticistic (futuristic in italy) and neo-classicist in Arts and Culture
Populism (also Elitism in form of the SS in germany)
Militarism (as a role model for organizing society)
Anti-Materialistic
Anti-Parlimentarian
Anti-Egalitarian
Anti-Globalism
Anti-Capitalism (outlawing earning money from the manipulation of money)
Anti-Communism
Anti-Imperialism (mostly german fascists. Not in Italy)
Anti-Liberalism
Anti-Universalism (Rejecting the idea that you can impose one set of ideas on every society/culture/people like the french revolutionaries claimed they could)
Anti-Freemasonry (or any other secret clubs)
Oligarchism (in the neutral greek meaning)
Class-Cooperation instead of Class-warfare
Rejection of Enlightenment
Racialism
Eugenics

And then you have tons of concepts attached to it like:
Fin de siècle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fin_de_siècle
Clerical Fasicm: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clerical_fascism
Influences from Plato's Republic
Influences from Sorelianism
Influences from Nietzsche
Influences fromk Hobbes Leviathan
green politics (enviroment)
Absoluteism
Integral Natationalism
Aryanism (and Hinduism)
Rejection of linea history
Concept of Vitality vs Degeneration
Concept of Spiritual action vs Materialistic nihilism
Many muse that it was heavily influenced by the idea of a ressurection of ancient civilization in a modern context while rejecting the other modernist alternatives: liberalism, communism and the monarchies that just had succumbed to it's own decadence and staleness a century before.
and more . . .

Most fascist systems looked very different because of cultural differences between the different countries. The idea being that the national (or tribal) identity would influence each form of fascist nation.
For example: The Iron Guard movement in Romania was extremly devoutly Orthodox and even called their version of 'Fuhrer' the 'Archangel' and was generally clerical. The german fascists on the other hand favored a more anti-clerical and pagan movement that was to reflect the german character originating from the ancient german tribes.

Italian here, fascism is fantastic. Heavy nationalism with a strong cultural element and economic autarchy to be indipendent.

Fascism is not patriarchal, because there is no need for a man to control their woman: the state already forbids and punishes all woman degeneracy.
A woman's role is not to sit home leeching all day but work to support their fascist husband because children are raised by fascist schools to be strong men not raised a faggot by mommy, much like what happened in Sparta.
Also to women their husband is a fascist hero so they worship you, it's not mere submission that you get from patriarchy, it's much better because if she fails you she's not just a whore to you, she's a traitor to the entire nation.
That applies to men too, if you become a degenerate you are a traitor too.

Unlike nazism, fascism has no race stuff for the most part (but maybe because we killed all the kikes back in medieval so we didn't even have to clean up like Germany).
If you're a shitskin you are regarded as inferior in some form, but you can still get a good life if you are a good fascist.
Exceptions: kikes, because they are the source of every anti-fascist thing, and niggers because their IQ is too low to be a good fascist.
But Slavs are ok for example, they can be full fascists.

All identities are removed and replaced with one, single nationalistic fascist identity. You are your nation.
There is no identity politics infighting like in America during fascism because you're all fascists - and there is no "class" bullshit like communism/socialism.
When you're a fascist, you must abide by all the culture, behaviors, etc, which essentially mean being a Holla Forumsack kind of person (you guys wouldn't have to change much to be fascists, if at all), anti-degeneracy to the max and all.
And if you are a good fascist you get access to govt-controlled HC/Edu/Transports (it worked for us because it was implemented correctly), and literally everyone will help you.

Fascism gives a lot of freedom unlike what they tell you in the US. You could do anything as long as it was not forbidden (i.e. degeneracy). You have to love your leader and your culture, but that isn't really limiting. Religion isn't obligatory infact it's seen as a competition to fascism because your loyalty should be primarily to fascism and your leader not to some imaginary figure. Christianism is favored in some way due to compatibility, but still seen as personal choice, unlike fascism. Islam is banned. Judaism is banned.

Today a good 40% of Italians are still fash, unlike for nazism there aren't a lot of counter-arguments to shame us.
For every "but" there are 5 "yeah but"s in favor of fascism. We can do the Roman salute in public, no one is bothered.
Every city has a fascist group and we're all heavily armed, fit and with STEM diplomas/degrees.
We're just waiting for America to drop the kikery and join nationalism with Trump so we can cleanse the west.

I disagree, but nonetheless I never mentioned Libertarianism, so I don't give a shit.

I'd respond to this in a witty and belittling manner, but I just got done exercising and I don't feel like it. You misread what I said and proceeded to respond accordingly, so most of what you said doesn't apply to what I actually said.

Forgot:
Autarky: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

...

No genius, I don't need to refute it, you literally responded to something I did not say. I said "all forms of government work toward the benefit of the government and the individuals that comprise it," and then you stupidly go on the defensive and base over half of your responses on the notion that I said "people" and not "government," as if I'm defending any form of governance, and not saying they're all bad. Passive aggressive little faggot…

Gee. You're quite the hypocrite, aren't you?

That wasn't the only thing I said in my refutation, though, you arrogant little cunt. You're just using my misreading of that one line as a means of escaping having to actually argue.

Oh, so you're an anarchist. Let me laugh even harder.

This is how my history teach described it.

"Fascism is an empathize on culture and identity coupled with security"

followed by "You better the state you better the people"

I'm to tired to really thing up of a better explanation, there was a "describe fascism" thread on Holla Forums a while ago and i replied with a great response which was almost exact of what my teacher said. though now i can remember the exact words i think the above explains it to some extent.

If somebody has that definition or a screen cap of the threads response that would be great to see it. Ill ask her tomorrow what she defined it as.

Kek it took 20 years of heavy handed fascism to get you fucking wops to run your trains on time

No, it was only the underlying basis for your responses. You stupidly thought I was defending Democracy, and went on the extreme defensive of Fascism for no reason. You're also now bitching instead of providing a corrected and appropriate rebuttal.

My comment was basically stating that all governments corrupts, and people should have more power over the government than it has over them. You, in your attempt to defend Fascism, basically stated "government can be trusted." Well I disagree. If the government has the ability to enforce its will on the people, it assuredly will. If that government even senses a threat to its existence, it will do everything to suppress the people to maintain its existence. So people should have more power over the government than vice versa. End of story. Disagree? Okay. I don't care. History is on my side here. Even your beloved Fascist Nazi government was oppressive and acted against the populace to retain and expand its own power within Germany. There will never be a complete agreement amongst the populace of a nation for how a government should be run, and I don't believe a large segment of people should be actively oppressed by an authoritarian government just because they don't agree with its political stance. A government shouldn't have that power. A government without that power can't then be co-opted by external forces, as you suggest, to harm the people, because the people have power over it, not vice versa.

...

Lolol this faggot.

I thought you were defending democracy because I didn't want to entertain the idea that you were retarded enough to be an anarchist. Excuse me for having some faith in your mental abilities.

Wrong. Government doesn't corrupt, government attracts the corrupted.

Why not? The people are largely incompetent and don't know what they want or what's best for the nation as a whole. The government fills a vital role in this regard. There is absolutely nothing wrong with a powerful government.

No, I defend fascism because I see that a strong government is necessary and inherently natural. Corruption will always be a problem in absolutely every system of government, and to think that one can remove government entirely makes you a naive child.

What is this "will" you describe? I don't mind a government enforcing it's "will" on the people if that "will" is one based on fascist principles and works to strengthen the nation as a whole. Describe to me what you mean by "will".

Literally every government ever. This is not unique to fascism. The exact same is true even for a democratic nation. Just because they will do everything they can to maintain the existence of their nation doesn't mean they will succeed. Governments have been overthrown countless times over the centuries.

If people have more power than the government itself, then government is inherently dysfunctional because it's incapable of enforcing laws and other boundaries.

Said like a true child.

Not really. History proves that the only successful societies have been ones with strong governance and a shared identity and spirit. History proves that anarchistic, "power to the people" nations are weak and degenerate and are easily overrun. I care not about petty ideas like "maximum freedom" if they cannot guarantee the survival of my race and ensure the greatness of my civilisation.

True, but disagreement doesn't automatically make everyone's ideas equally valid. Certain ideas are subversive and destructive to the nation itself such as Marxism and feminism. These ideas should not be enabled or acknowledged, they should be actively suppressed.

I don't really give a shit what you "believe" ought to happen because I can reject your moralism outright. The only valid society is one that can ensure the success of its people and their ability to reach their maximum potential in both body and spirit. People can be wrong. Why should their ideas be given acknowledgement and validation?

You really are foolish. A government that is weak doesn't need to be co-opted, it can simply be overran by an invading army. Also, power in the people's hands is rarely, if ever, a good idea, considering the people are naive, stupid and easily manipulated. Media and other (((special interests))) can easily manipulate public opinion, and thus manipulate the state as a whole.

Fasces is a bundle of rods around an axe, and was the symbol of magisterial authority during the Roman Republic.

(((Libertarian))) can't refute.

I already specifically stated that I'm not. I just acknowledge the reality that governments corrupt.

Semantics

The "will" is the continued existence and expansion of that government.

That's what I said; hence why I believe a government should have less power over the populace than it has over them. A government has its purpose, and should be relegated specifically to tending to those tasks. Like you said, it's a tool. It should be used as a tool, not a guiding light. We can continue to create governments to lead us, or we can sit down and try to structure a government that exists to suit our needs, without finding it necessary to exert a force upon us.

Not true. Also that's heavily dependent on what these supposed "laws" are. We all agree theft is bad. We all agree murder is bad. We therefore fun police to go after people that commit crimes that we, as a people and culture, deem bad. As for things such as border security and whatnot, that's a task that should be tended to by the government, to the benefit of the people of the nation.

No, you have your opinion and I have mine. I'll tell you right now, from what you're saying, you're not going to convince me of anything today.

You're again commenting under the assumption that I support something that I don't. Also yes, history is on my side in the context of what I said, and that is that governments corrupt, and governments do to the people what they must to continue their existence.

I agree, however people shouldn't be harmed in any way for their dissenting beliefs, as they typically are under authoritarian governments. There is no "Freedom of Speech" under an authoritarian government.

"I don't really give a shit what you "believe" ought to happen because I can reject your moralism outright."

How's that? A government is not the military.

These comments are too fucking long…

My PKD Hitler quote. Holla Forums was a lot more fun back then.

This is a pretty good definition of fascism:

anesi.com/Fascism-TheUltimateDefinition.htm
archive.is/bzQn2

It's pretty even handed.

Just read Ride the Tiger.

t. Some dead spaghettinigger

Except one is enforcing objectively good morality and spirituality while the other is an objectively evil set of morality.

I don't agree with fascism either. A decentralized feudal society as we had in the middle ages is ideal. But fascism is necessary if we're ever going to get past the Jacobin mess we are in.

No it's not just semantics, you dumb shit. It's an important distinction to make. Governments do not corrupt people, Governments attract the already corrupted. You can fill a government with virtuous people and that government will function flawlessly without those people being corrupted. The guide of any regime is to ensure that virtuous men are put into positions of government.

so basically some abstract thing you can't really describe and isn't really applicable to reality. The "will" of the USSR's gov't was very different from the "will" of Fascist Italian government. Governments are the sum of their parts. If you make up a government based on certain principles and ideals and you ensure it stays true to these ideals, then the "will" of that government will be very different from one that doesn't.

And I feel that it's purpose includes preventing degeneracy in a society, limiting the dissemination of harmful ideologies, ensuring each citizen lives up to their duties as a member of this society. A government is a tool with the express purpose of ensuring the success and vitality of its population. Any government that doesn't have this ideal as central to its function is an abomination.

You're a foolish idealist whose ideology is not based on reality. People will always create governments to lead them because they are incapable of leading themselves, especially in matters of governmental importance. Hierarchies in a society are natural, and not every person is capable or worthy of being part of the governing body.

Force will always be necessary to ensure the functionality of a state. What is wrong with force being used anyway? Force is necessary to keep people from being harmful to the function of the nation as a whole.

I agree, but I would go further and say that subversive ideologies like feminism and marxism are bad, degeneracy is bad, loose morals are bad, mindless consumer culture is bad, a lack of duty and responsibility is bad, etc. The state should also be heavily involved in these things to ensure the vitality of the nation is maintained and rot does not set in.

And your opinion is based on flawed naivety. Christ, you still believe in tropes like "the will of the people".

Again, governments do not corrupt, they attract the corrupted. Also, governments are perfectly necessary to ensure the functionality of a nation. Also, saying that "governments will do everything they can to ensure their own existence" is kind of irrelevant. It's not arguing anything, but merely pointing out a fact of history. There is nothing wrong with a government maintaining its power if it is virtuous and follows the guidelines I've already set out. A government deserves to be overthrown when it ends up working against the survival of the race and civilisation.

I bet you thought you were clever by copying and pasting that, but it just goes to show your completely lack of understanding. You're an assertion based on moral grounds that I do not need to accept. I never did anything of the sort, so it's not applicable to me. I never made any moralistic statements.

You're retarded. There would never have been any scientific or technological advancement in this kind of society. Feudalism is not a good system to live under.

This is false and we did indeed have advancement, even past Roman prime.

Civilization collapsed after Rome. It brought itself back. There was huge advancements in areas like smithing, forging, theology, engineering, amongst others. It was just put at the immediate time towards uses mostly geared towards warfare.

The "dark ages" myth is just that. A myth.

Well it is a fact that Europe declined dramatically right after the Roman Empire, but that was mainly due to the destruction of a unified political and military body.

Besides, all of that "advancement" was peanuts compared to what happened in the 1700's onwards as Europe started moving further away from medieval feudalism. Medieval feudalism = uneducated peasant farmers who are essentially property of their land owners. This is not an ideal system of living by any means. What a modern nation needs is an educated industrious population.

That is not how shit worked.

Look at the organization methods of Anglo-Saxon England.

Oh! And

Communism is internationally focused, Fascism is nationalistic…so you're theory kind of fizzles out at that point.

wow. It's almost like the decline in serfdom in the west coincided with the greatest advancements in civilization and technology known to man!

Wow, it's almost like the Germans were always the leading power of Europe until the French committed the high moral heresy of centralizing power and usurping the freedoms of individual communities and lords.

France's centralization basically meant more serfdom, while as the HRE remained decentralized it meant less, and also meant more freedom. War was always on the marches against some barbarian or the French themselves.

Which is to say nothing of the English and their method of organization, which I believe to during the early and mid middle ages to have been the ideal for of national organization.

Anglo-Saxon society was by far the idealism the west should strive for (true Anglo-Saxon society, not that cucked perfidious shit post Norman invasion)

National Socialism followed exactly that principle in it's economic policies, otherwise it wouldn't be called fascism it would be called communism. The only reason socialism is in the name was two parts appeal and to try to co-opt the word (the second part failed).

...

Wait… If Fascism is a governing system based on faggots, why do liberals hate it so much? Seems like they'd be all over that.

Politically its a one party totalitarian system where the party typically has a large amount of approval from the population under them. I don't think its necessarily nationalistic but most fascist states are/were.

Economically its a fusion of corporation and state, where government works closely with businesses and sometimes groups like unions to develop and implement planned economic policy.

Capitalism is a core component of fascism because the means of production are privately owned unlike in a communist system where the means of production are collectively owned. From what I understand Hitler sold many of the government assets (businesses, banks, etc) to individuals.

Unless you have these conditions its not fascism, for example Pinochet wasn't fascist since he implemented free market economic policies developed by a bunch of graduates from the Chicago school of economics (the head of the Chicago school is Milton Friedman).

This seems like the perfect thread to ask; Is Singapore fascist?

Way ahead of you user, by The Way of The Faggot.

the axe makes it no homo

That dictionary definition is terrible. Look at the second part of it. Note the word "or". That means SJWs are "fascists" according to that shitty definition.

Lolbergtardians