[SpaciousBox]

Good Morning PoFo Fascists!

I have a slightly weird question for you today, and a follow up. It's one that I fear may be asked of you quite a bit, but I've read your sticky and done a bit of searching, and still feel I'd like some further thought on the matter. Hopefully this will lead to some light political philosophy, as well as my answer.

Generally speaking, I - and I believe most others - would consider the word fascist to be a bad word. I'm fairly sure I've used it as an insult before, calling someone a "fascist" in a derogatory manner in order to make a point about how wrong their actions or beliefs are. This seems something that is also quite common in modern culture, especially the media world. My question, is how you deal with this sort of established dogma, both on a level of living within it, and on the matter of self identification. Do people move away from you in the pub? Would you argue the association of your political thoughts, with historical dictatorships is incorrect? Or do you wear the past attempts as a badge of honour.

To expand a little; I was well aware quite early on in life I was a Liberal. But then again, most people of different values consider Liberals to be simply misguided, rather than an innate summation of everything we are fighting against. The values of freedom and democracy which are founding principles of the western world do at least appear in Liberalism. Not sure I could say the same for most forms of dictatorship. When I think of the far-right, my mind tends to move towards street thugs, and straight-edge anarchists who have no real values at all. Having read the sticky explaining your group’s point of view, I felt a little more understanding was in order. I would really like to get to grips with how you see yourselves, and come to terms with what you believe.

My follow up is on the distinction between established fascism/dictatorship theory, and Platonism. When most people debate Plato and his republic, they would generally associate it with an interesting take on the idea of Academic superiority, or the wisdom of one a superior person, rather than Godwins Empire. My follow up thoughts, would be how many of you associate with this idea of an Academic dictatorship created through logic and an almost paternal wisdom, rather than the rule of the Iron Fist based on "us" and "them". To put in another way; Right to Rule, or Rule of those who have the Power, even if they have no "right".

My apologies if this is not an appropriate discussion for this sub-section, I will naturally remove the topic if this is the case. Posters should also note I'm asking a purely Philosophical, Anthropological, and Academic question meaning no offense or attempted anti-fascist flame is intended with this post. I am however very curious about political philosophy, and have never before met a group of self-admitting fascists, if you will, for whom I could place this sorts of questions.

Many thanks for your time.

[Decky]

They have tried to solve this already by calling themselves "third positionists" rather than fascists. As far as I know it hasn't fooled anyone thus far. One of the actual fascists will know more. I'm pretty sure I was a thread on pofo at some point discussing this exact issue.

[Fasces]

Generally speaking, like most communists in Western countries, fascists, when discussing politics, will discuss issues on an individual basis without naming their ideology. If this is the case, one finds that while fascist views together are distinct and coherent as an ideology, generally speaking, individuals, even in heavily liberal western societies, will find much to agree with on an individual issue level, or at the least, nothing significantly outside the norm.

There was a post, a while back, claiming that because the ethos represented by fascism was fundamentally different - marked by a rejection of the system of values that have dominated Western thought since the 18th century - but the issues remained constant, while fascist come from an extremist and marginal position, their view on issues, taken independently of that title, make them appear to be political moderates and centrists. We are seen as such in public, as we discuss the issue alone, rather than the title and ethos that inspire our views in that regard.

To give an example, since you have called yourself a liberal, and I am assuming you mean it in the American sense. You and I will agree on issues of universal healthcare, the environment, and even the economy [largely]. Meanwhile, while we may have some disagreements on the military or civil rights, you would not find that divide to be much more substantial than that between yourself and the American right on the issue. In any case, it remains relatable.

I am not particularly in the mood in the moment to tackle your secondary question, so I'll leave it there.

[Potemkin]

There was a post, a while back, claiming that because the ethos represented by fascism was fundamentally different - marked by a rejection of the system of values that have dominated Western thought since the 18th century

This is only really true for the educated elite of Western society. The majority of the population never really abandoned their pre-Enlightenment ideas regarding politics or social issues. However, they have been indoctrinated to regard certain master signifiers, such as 'communism' or 'fascism' as being 'evil', and therefore automatically reject any discourse governed by these master signifiers. This is why Communists or fascists often find it relatively easy to get ordinary people to agree with them on most things so long as they avoid those master signifiers. Bourgeois liberalism actually has rather shallow roots, despite its pervasive nature in modern society.

[Tup]

Good Morning PoFo Fascists!

I have a slightly weird question for you today, and a follow up. It's one that I fear may be asked of you quite a bit, but I've read your sticky and done a bit of searching, and still feel I'd like some further thought on the matter. Hopefully this will lead to some light political philosophy, as well as my answer.

Weird questions are the best kind! I am not an uppercase 'F' Fascist but I am a revolutionary inegalitarian collectivist (RIC), which is what is often meant by 'fascist'. The sticky is more than a little inadequate for the purpose of introducing newbies to fascism/RIC. It should be changed. It was made a long time ago by a member with his own peculiar viewpoint who is now long gone.

Generally speaking, I - and I believe most others - would consider the word fascist to be a bad word. I'm fairly sure I've used it as an insult before, calling someone a "fascist" in a derogatory manner in order to make a point about how wrong their actions or beliefs are. This seems something that is also quite common in modern culture, especially the media world. My question, is how you deal with this sort of established dogma, both on a level of living within it, and on the matter of self identification. Do people move away from you in the pub?

The word fascist is often used as a slur which vaguely means "fascistic in a bad way". People who use fascist as a slur like that are usually not serious about it. They know that it is just a slur and they know that the person they are talking to knows that it is just a slur. It completely throws them off their game when they encounter someone who proudly self-identifies as a fascist. That really takes the sting out of the slur. The slur only works when the person being slurred shares the negative opinion of fascism. Every time I've told someone that I'm a fascist I've been surprised by how subdued and pleasant the response was.

Would you argue the association of your political thoughts, with historical dictatorships is incorrect? Or do you wear the past attempts as a badge of honour.

The association of my political thoughts with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is justified and I don't shy away from it. I think that there was much about those two governments that was commendable but also much that was condemnable. I make that clear.

To expand a little; I was well aware quite early on in life I was a Liberal. But then again, most people of different values consider Liberals to be simply misguided, rather than an innate summation of everything we are fighting against. The values of freedom and democracy which are founding principles of the western world do at least appear in Liberalism. Not sure I could say the same for most forms of dictatorship

First of all, the values of freedom and democracy are not founding principles of the Western World. The West existed long before the enlightenment. Fascism is part of the West. Second, you really ought to distinguish between the classical sense of liberal and the modern American usage. It seems you are using the modern American usage. And yes, there is a huge fundamental divide between fascism or RICism and the current individualist/egalitarian paradigm. Compared to fascism all mainstream ideologies appear very similar.

When I think of the far-right, my mind tends to move towards street thugs, and straight-edge anarchists who have no real values at all. Having read the sticky explaining your group’s point of view, I felt a little more understanding was in order. I would really like to get to grips with how you see yourselves, and come to terms with what you believe.

This seems to me to be another question entirely. It is a very broad question that probably deserves its own thread and would take a lot of text to answer properly. Maybe you could ask something more specific?

I don't think of street thugs when I think of the far-right, though I admit that many far-rightists have thuggish tendencies. Have you heard about the antifa street thugs? Most of the thuggishness these days, in the West at least, seems to be coming from the Left.

My follow up is on the distinction between established fascism/dictatorship theory, and Platonism. When most people debate Plato and his republic, they would generally associate it with an interesting take on the idea of Academic superiority, or the wisdom of one a superior person, rather than Godwins Empire. My follow up thoughts, would be how many of you associate with this idea of an Academic dictatorship created through logic and an almost paternal wisdom, rather than the rule of the Iron Fist based on "us" and "them". To put in another way; Right to Rule, or Rule of those who have the Power, even if they have no "right".

I don't think that there really is a single established fascist/authoritarian theory as such. Platonism isn't especially relevant to modern authoritarian thinking. Plato has influenced more modern thinkers but the connection is several degrees removed.

I hate that word "right". It is vague and misleading at best. There are no rights.

I don't know what you mean by "us" and "them", who are these us and them to which you refer? Usually the us vs. them idea refers to ingroup-outgroup dynamics, but in this case I can't figure out what ingroup you are intending.

I don't support an "Academic dictatorship" nor rule by some superior cast. I support rule by a single individual or a very small (less than 15) group of people. The division of power leads to corruption. An absolute ruler has every incentive to crush corruption but when there are too many people with power those people end up playing power games and are given the opportunity to abuse their power for personal gain. They also have to curry favor.

They have tried to solve this already by calling themselves "third positionists" rather than fascists. As far as I know it hasn't fooled anyone thus far. One of the actual fascists will know more. I'm pretty sure I was a thread on pofo at some point discussing this exact issue.

The funny thing is, the fact that fascism now refers to so many ideologies is largely a consequence of anti-fascist usage. The word originates in Italy and at the time was mostly just used in Italy. So in a sense, someone whose views deviate substantially from those specific to Fascist Italy would be justified in considering himself a non-fascist. Nonetheless, I personally have no problem with this new and more general usage, in fact I am in favour of it.

This is only really true for the educated elite of Western society. The majority of the population never really abandoned their pre-Enlightenment ideas regarding politics or social issues. However, they have been indoctrinated to regard certain master signifiers, such as 'communism' or 'fascism' as being 'evil', and therefore automatically reject any discourse governed by these master signifiers. This is why Communists or fascists often find it relatively easy to get ordinary people to agree with them on most things so long as they avoid those master signifiers. Bourgeois liberalism actually has rather shallow roots, despite its pervasive nature in modern society.

I think you are hugely overplaying the reactionary tendencies of the masses. The masses tend moreso towards apathy and ignorance relative to the upper class but their views aren't actually that different. The prevailing ideologies of the modern West have percolated their way even all the way down to the trailer park. Of course, the lower down the status totem pole of the modern West one goes, one is more likely to encounter those with unabashedly verboten views, but these people are still a minority even in the trailer park. And fascism is way more taboo than Communism.

I don't think fascists or Communists find it relatively easy to get ordinary people to agree with them on most things even when they avoid the master signifiers. I think it is true for some things such being tougher on crime, using forced prison labour, and reducing immigration, but mostly it isn't true. I think they can get people to at least consider them though, and can persuade people that they don't have good reasons for rejecting such views.

[starman2003]

It was made a long time ago by a member with his own peculiar viewpoint who is now long gone.

Along with a bunch of others--vivisekt, sapper, drummond, New Era etc. I'm the only holdout of the good old days around here.

First of all, the values of freedom and democracy are not founding principles of the Western World. The West existed long before the enlightenment. Fascism is part of the West.

It is a revival of Caesarism at the expense of intervening nonsense like christianity and democracy.

[Tribbles]

It is a revival of Caesarism at the expense of intervening nonsense like christianity and democracy.

I disagree. Catholicism and traditionalism was important for Mussolini, Franco and Salazar.

I find Fascism to be a bit frustrated however, it has come to my attention, that it is kind of core-less and spine-less. It started to loose shape during the second half of the nineteen thirties, and it has grown even worse after the war.

Piecing it back together is difficult due to - among other things - the changing opinions of the Duce himself.

[SpaciousBox]

Thank you for your answers everyone, very interesting stuff. I took a few days to brood on the replies, but feel I do have more to continue the discussion, if your are up for it.

Generally speaking, like most communists in Western countries, fascists, when discussing politics, will discuss issues on an individual basis without naming their ideology. If this is the case, one finds that while fascist views together are distinct and coherent as an ideology, generally speaking, individuals, even in heavily liberal western societies, will find much to agree with on an individual issue level, or at the least, nothing significantly outside the norm.

I appreciate this quite a bit actually; it certainly makes a lot of sense to me. I've often found that "extremists", be them left, right, or liberal, can often persuade others on a simple logic or reason basis. The difference I find here is that although we may find similarity on many issues, I would imagine most are not quite so open to the disbanding of democracy and the burning of human rights. These at least are fundamentals near everyone would say they support (even if their policy says otherwise sometimes..).

The slur only works when the person being slurred shares the negative opinion of fascism. Every time I've told someone that I'm a fascist I've been surprised by how subdued and pleasant the response was.

I would certainly agree with you there and that sort of attitude seems to be found all over politics. I've often found the use of the word "liberal" or "socialist" to be given in a derogatory context. The difference here is that I hold my assigned title up as a banner of pride. I can't think of group who has produced more positive change and ideology than my own. So I just laugh it off when someone uses it with that context, to make a point. This is kind of why I am still chasing the question of how you yourselves might view fascism. Is it a value set that is simply misunderstood? Or do you honestly believe there is some form of superiority (moral? social? anything?) to the sorts of governments that have adopted it.

The association of my political thoughts with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy is justified and I don't shy away from it. I think that there was much about those two governments that was commendable but also much that was condemnable. I make that clear.

I think we would all agree. The Germans for instance had one of the best investments in young people the world had seen at that age. Post war Germany looked after their veterans better than any other nation as well. The focus however is on the parts that directly associate with Fascism. It’s quite possible to gain the above results without it, for example. Unless you would argue that a strong centralised state run by a few elites is the only method to gain those sorts of results? My thoughts however lead to the assumption that you would only pick a Fascist ideology if you believed it could bring something that good democracy never could. This is what I’m aiming to discover really. Do you have values outside of the modern western mainstream? Or do you still hold the same principles just believe our nations would reach them better under a dictatorship?

I should ad at this point my “foundation of western values” comment was referring to the modern western world. As a student of history I am well aware of the place that both fascism and monarchism has held within forming our states. They were also the driving forces behind many of our prized beliefs; Equality under the law, Liberty, to an extent even much of economics.

You really ought to distinguish between the classical sense of liberal and the modern American usage.

As a point of clarity, I don't for a second see Liberalism as restrained to two points of thought. It’s more of a mind frame, than a political party. I however am a Contemporary Liberal – if you like tags to use. I accept economic inequality and the need for a competitive free market. But I also support Social Welfare, Civil Liberties, and the involvement of the state to secure everyone has an equal chance at life. From there however I'm meritorious. Chances are we would have much to agree on, but also much to disagree on. As a liberal I accept the idea of universal rights, for example, something that doesn’t seem to appear in Fascism.

The funny thing is, the fact that fascism now refers to so many ideologies is largely a consequence of anti-fascist usage. The word originates in Italy and at the time was mostly just used in Italy. So in a sense, someone whose views deviate substantially from those specific to Fascist Italy would be justified in considering himself a non-fascist.

What would you consider a correct definition of Fascism to be then? I did study Italy, though only briefly. I'm going with a National Socialism of centralized government and civilian responsibility to the state. The problem with this however, is it doesn’t come with freedom for the citizens, or choice of how they can live their lives. Considering this, what would you say is the justification for taking control for yourself? You mentioned you don't accept rights; well what is the goal then? Do you want what’s best for everyone? What’s best for the state? How would you know what’s best for the state? - As you can see I do have a little trouble getting my head into the Fascist mindset, but that’s why I'm here to learn.

[starman2003]

I disagree. Catholicism and traditionalism was important for Mussolini, Franco and Salazar.

The latter two perhaps, but I've heard Mussolini was really an atheist, as were many fascists. It's just that, to win broad support, they had to pay lip service to the holy joes.

[myrmeleo]

The latter two perhaps, but I've heard Mussolini was really an atheist, as were many fascists. It's just that, to win broad support, they had to pay lip service to the holy joes.

Probably true, but that does not eliminate the important spiritual elements fundamental to fascist thought.

The difference I find here is that although we may find similarity on many issues, I would imagine most are not quite so open to the disbanding of democracy and the burning of human rights. These at least are fundamentals near everyone would say they support (even if their policy says otherwise sometimes..).

I think you are merely imaging this hypothetical conversation going in the wrong direction. I don't think a fascist-to-non-fascist private conversation would start with, "so, what do you think of human rights..."

[Section Leader]

Probably true, but that does not eliminate the important spiritual elements fundamental to fascist thought.

The Fascists were spiritual in a sense, but in an atheistic Pagan way rather than a Christian way.

[myrmeleo]

The Fascists were spiritual in a sense, but in an atheistic Pagan way rather than a Christian way.

I agree. I more meant it as a counterpoint to materialist ideologies.

[Bridgeburner]

The Fascists were spiritual in a sense, but in an atheistic Pagan way rather than a Christian way.

I'm not sure if you mean the Thule Society and the Neo-Paganism that the NSDAP tried to channel, I'd argue that this was more racialist. My interpretation of Fascist spirituality is the same single-minded puritanical devotion to religion that many fundamentalists have - except in place of the religion is the nation.

Likewise, modern liberals and conservatives have the same kind of pathological devotion to either the acquisition of material wealth or the redistribution of it.

[starman2003]

My interpretation of Fascist spirituality is the same single-minded puritanical devotion to religion that many fundamentalists have - except in place of the religion is the nation.

And a secular ideology, and Leader as embodiment of the nation.

[Andropov]

I usually identify myself as a Futurist, not a Fascist per se, since I am more of a globalist than a nationalist and have no problems with drugs, prostitution, and other "degenerate" activities.

[starman2003]

I am more of a globalist than a nationalist

Same here, ultimately.

and have no problems with drugs, prostitution, and other "degenerate" activities.

I do, not because they clash with traditional, religion-based morality, but a Statist viewpoint which opposes or deemphasizes, petty individual gratification, and lack of collective purpose.

[Saim]

I usually identify myself as a Futurist, not a Fascist per se, since I am more of a globalist than a nationalist and have no problems with drugs, prostitution, and other "degenerate" activities.

What is a "Futurist"? My father is a futurist, but only in the sense of someone in the discipline of futures studies. I've never heard of the word "futurism" referring to an ideology before.

EDIT: Does it actually have to do with the art movement?

[Andropov]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurist_Manifesto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filippo_Tommaso_Marinetti

Personally, I support a global pan-human totalitarian state, a strong-arm eugenics program to improve the quality of future human stock, and the killing of all degenerates (rapists, robbers), retards, liberals, etc. The goal of this ideology is to improve civilization at all costs; things like "morality" and "human rights" are atavistic and hold back the species from achieving its true potential.

[starman2003]

Personally, I support a global pan-human totalitarian state,

Same here. It would be tough to create and consolidate though. One work addresses this and much else.

a strong-arm eugenics program to improve the quality of future human stock, and the killing of all degenerates (rapists, robbers), retards, liberals, etc.

Sounds good but you got to take into consideration the possible effect of advancing technology. It's possible that in 50 years machines could surpass humans to such a degree we'd all be "retards" in comparison, or (perish the thought!) all equally superfluous. Or, artificial means of improving humanity might become so effective even the lowest retard might be brought up to genius level. Highly speculative, but who knows(?); you gotta be flexible and pragmatic. Also, it's not wise to kill say, a robber who's just swiped a single $5 item.

The goal of this ideology is to improve civilization at all costs; things like "morality" and "human rights" are atavistic and hold back the species from achieving its true potential.

Right.

[Andropov]

What work??