• Fascism (an Explanation and Discussion)
    79 replies, posted
National Socialism [I]requires[/I] war in order to mobilise the people within the nation state to achieve the 'totality' Fascism presumes it operates under and to invigorate the populace under the state. Furthermore, how on earth would you go about achieving racial homogeneity in states without significant degrees of displacement of non-pure societal elements, a process which would upset the balance in the theoretical neighbouring National Socialist states? The notions that a) totality towards the state can be achieved and b) racial purity can be achieved are utterly naive. The issue wouldn't be corruption in your hypothetical state, the issue would be the completely broken ideology that is National Socialism
National Socialism requires unity, not war. War is just one way to achieve it, you can do it though promotion of patriotic pride or even mandatory public activities like a gathering every month. The people just have to be involved with each other and the government. As for already multicultural and ethnic countries, it would either involve mass deportation or segregation within the country. Of course now your thinking of places like America and the fact that it has immigrants is because they were trying to leave their terrible country. Fixing those countries is just another necessary step for anyone's ideal world, not just mine.
[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40944203]National Socialism requires unity, not war. War is just one way to achieve it, you can do it though promotion of patriotic pride or even mandatory public activities like a gathering every month. The people just have to be involved with each other and the government.[/quote] Totality is a myth no matter how hard you try and revise history Professor Thrall. Even when promotion of patriotism and mandatory public events took place war was still integral to Italy or Germany as a means to allow the silencing of domestic opposition to a perceived enemy. [quote]As for already multicultural and ethnic countries, it would either involve mass deportation or segregation within the country. Of course now your thinking of places like America and the fact that it has immigrants is because they were trying to leave their terrible country. Fixing those countries is just another necessary step for anyone's ideal world, not just mine.[/QUOTE] The whole idea of mass deportation or segregation is utterly ludicrous
[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40944203]National Socialism requires unity, not war. War is just one way to achieve it, you can do it though promotion of patriotic pride or even mandatory public activities like a gathering every month. The people just have to be involved with each other and the government. As for already multicultural and ethnic countries, it would either involve mass deportation or segregation within the country. Of course now your thinking of places like America and the fact that it has immigrants is because they were trying to leave their terrible country. Fixing those countries is just another necessary step for anyone's ideal world, not just mine.[/QUOTE] I don't mean to argue with you, but fascism and especially national socialism, while not requiring war, see it as a necessity and a goal. Hitler, for instance, saw war as necessary to mobilize the masses, appropriate [I]Lebensraum[/I], and create [I]autarky[/I]. Plus, it got rid of undesirables and German colonies created slave labor. It was not necessary, but it was seen very highly of. Additionally, I would say that your world view of separatism is more fascist than national socialist, and even then even less fascist than "race realist" and nationalist. Fascism and especially Nat Soc is [I]supremacist[/I], in nation and in race, and as we've seen historically, this form of supremacy was acted out radically and brutally through elimination and enslavement.
I never considered myself completely Nat Soc, so if just plain Nationalist is what I really am then I'll continue to use that instead. As for Hitler and Germany I'd argue against the accusations of them wanting war. I wont do it in this thread though as it's not the purpose of it.
Also the fact that it is literally impossible
[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40945145] As for Hitler and Germany I'd argue against the accusations of them wanting war.[/QUOTE] His government set everything up for war. Maybe they didn't want a war with the great western powers but they clearly took aggressive actions to unite the fatherland and Poland was clearly invaded. Authoritarian governments need war to rally the people and inspire a sense of nationalism. The fear and hatred of the other is a good tool for uniting people under a government but this fear/hatred inevitably leads to a war. Either way, war.
[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40945145]I never considered myself completely Nat Soc, so if just plain Nationalist is what I really am then I'll continue to use that instead. As for Hitler and Germany I'd argue against the accusations of them wanting war. I wont do it in this thread though as it's not the purpose of it.[/QUOTE] I will. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum[/url] "War alone keys up all human energies to their maximum tension and sets the seal of nobility on those peoples who have the courage to face it. All other tests are substitutes which never place a man face to face with himself before the alternative of life or death. Therefore all doctrines which postulate peace at all costs are incompatible with Fascism. Equally foreign to the spirit of Fascism, even if accepted as useful in meeting special political situations -- are all internationalistic or League superstructures which, as history shows, crumble to the ground whenever the heart of nations is deeply stirred by sentimental, idealistic or practical considerations. Fascism carries this anti-pacifistic attitude into the life of the individual. " I don't care a damn „ (me ne frego) - the proud motto of the fighting squads scrawled by a wounded man on his bandages, is not only an act of philosophic stoicism, it sums up a doctrine which is not merely poli*tical: it is evidence of a fighting spirit which accepts all risks." -Mussolini "I want war. To me all means will be right. My motto is not 'Don't, whatever you do, annoy the enemy.' My motto is 'Destroy him by all and any means.' I am the one who will wage the war!" -Hitler "Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless" -Hitler Additionally, Hitler was creating a wartime economy since at least 1936, if not earlier, and this conversion saw his power expand significantly. If you want a more in depth discussion on the economy of the Reich under Hitler, I suggest "The Third Reich: The Rise and Fall of the Nazis" by Martyn Whittock, which I am currently reading. If you want an [I]incredibly[/I] in depth discussion, I'd also suggest "Fascists" by Michael Mann, which is probably the most dense book I've ever read on political ideology (it's more or less literally a text book) and looks extremely in depth on not just Germany and Italy, but on all of the authoritarian corporate states of 1930s-40s Europe.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;40949140]His government set everything up for war. Maybe they didn't want a war with the great western powers but they clearly took aggressive actions to unite the fatherland and Poland was clearly invaded. Authoritarian governments need war to rally the people and inspire a sense of nationalism. The fear and hatred of the other is a good tool for uniting people under a government but this fear/hatred inevitably leads to a war. Either way, war.[/QUOTE]War would have likely happened without hitler and the nazis, the germans were fucking pissed at france for the treaty of Versailles
[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40943175]Here's how I see it: The world has so many different cultures, countries, and ethnicity it would not only be a waste to merge it all together, but would also result in a very destructive process. Why? It's all about stability. It's simply natural for one group of people to dislike a new group moving in their territory. This has happened every where across the world, even in animals. It takes generation after generation for them to be fully integrated and even then it might not end up working. And all while this is happening both natives and immigrants are going to clash and become uncomfortable. Countries have crumbled throughout history before from this, Humans are naturally racist, not as a defect but a defense mechanism to preserve stability. National Socialism is just one way I see of preserving the diversity of Humanity. If every country in the world was National Socialist I genuinely believe we'd all be a lot happier and a lot better off. Of course, this is assuming corruption stays at a minimum, which sadly is probably impossible. I don't just want whites to be racially pure, I also want it for everyone else. I imagine a space faring Humanity where we work together well not because we have all been assimilated into one race and culture but because we have preserved the difference between us and respect each others space and stay clear of it. It's all so ambitious and likely foolish, but it's what I want.[/QUOTE] Wow, that was quite a read. All I've got to say is that I am happy you'll never run a country
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;40951483]War would have likely happened without hitler and the nazis, the germans were fucking pissed at france for the treaty of Versailles[/QUOTE] Utterly ungrounded speculation, the blame for WW2 lies pretty damn squarely with the Nazis for attempting imperial expansion in the European mainland. Had anyone else except for the Fascists gotten to power I doubt any attempts at absorbing Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland would have been attempted.
[QUOTE=Lonestriper;40955163]Utterly ungrounded speculation, the blame for WW2 lies pretty damn squarely with the Nazis for attempting imperial expansion in the European mainland. Had anyone else except for the Fascists gotten to power I doubt any attempts at absorbing Austria, Czechoslovakia or Poland would have been attempted.[/QUOTE] He's right, many historians agree that war was inevitable, because Hitler's views on the treaty were common- and honestly before he took power, the two other leading parties except for the sopade (and even them in part) were just as extreme. The borders on the east were open to negotiation. Rearmament was probably going to happen no matter what, and so would appeasement. What wouldn't have happened is the takeover of Czechoslovakia or Austria (probably), sure, but war with Poland or France was likely.
[QUOTE=Professer Trall;40945145]As for Hitler and Germany I'd argue against the accusations of them wanting war. I wont do it in this thread though as it's not the purpose of it.[/QUOTE] What so you honestly think that endlessly provoking the allies by annexing Austria and Sudetenland, then invading Poland isn't war mongering? Oh and stop calling yourself a national socialist, no one buys that bullshit, just go with nazi.
[QUOTE=N0 WAR;40955295]What so you honestly think that endlessly provoking the allies by annexing Austria and Sudetenland, then invading Poland isn't war mongering? Oh and stop calling yourself a national socialist, no one buys that bullshit, just go with nazi.[/QUOTE] nazi is just short of national socialist. it's the same thing.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40955350']nazi is just short of national socialist. it's the same thing.[/QUOTE] Yeah I know that, but saying 'national socialist' is just a flat out wrong description of their ideology.
The idea that anyone could believe that mass deportations and segregation could help any country, let alone America, is horrifying to me. Mixing of race and culture is not a problem, and if different ethnic groups always hate each other as much as professor trall claims, then America as we know it today would not exist.
[QUOTE=N0 WAR;40955885]Yeah I know that, but saying 'national socialist' is just a flat out wrong description of their ideology.[/QUOTE] Well, it's actually not. The economic system is actually a form of socialism or syndicalism, and it is nationalist in nature. Italian fascism openly called for a socialist economy.
[QUOTE=_Kent_;40956453]The idea that anyone could believe that mass deportations and segregation could help any country, let alone America, is horrifying to me. Mixing of race and culture is not a problem, and if different ethnic groups always hate each other as much as professor trall claims, then America as we know it today would not exist.[/QUOTE] That is because the cultures merging together were at least somewhat similar to each other. It's a lot easier to assimilate ethnic French, British and Germans all together because they're all somewhat connected in culture and they're aesthetically similar and to a lesser extent the Irish and Italians who came here. The problem is that with in the case of Sweden for example, the incoming groups of Arabs and Somalians are so different both in culture and aesthetics to the ethnic Swedes that they're not assimilating into the system at all and in the example of the United States the original French/British/Germans/Irish/Italians are dealing with the African-Americans as well as the influx of Hispanic immigrants that won't assimilate into the original country's culture. In regards to mixing of race, a lot of white genetics are recessive and when dealing with African/White race mixing often times the child displays more of the African's features than the White's features. This racemixing of white people and the other races is destroying the diversity of the world as a whole and within a few hundred years the globe will be homogeneous and appear to be something like Brazilians are today at this rate of racemixing. Nationalists view diversity on a global scale rather than on a country scale. With Homogeneous countries, the people of the world are diverse. However, when the countries are diverse, the world will become homogeneous instead.
I see that economic programs enacted by fascist countries tend to be mad, and the focus on autarky or self-reliance, along with protectionism, makes no economic sense. The restriction of the ability of people to travel and move around also means that a globalized economic system cannot exist simultaneously with the concept of the nation-state.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;40959380]I see that economic programs enacted by fascist countries tend to be mad, and the focus on autarky or self-reliance, along with protectionism, makes no economic sense. The restriction of the ability of people to travel and move around also means that a globalized economic system cannot exist simultaneously with the concept of the nation-state.[/QUOTE] Yep. You're right, and as far as the latter part fascists do not try to hide it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.