Fascism? What were the plus points?
Discussion
Genuine question here.
As far as I know, no-one ever sets out in politics to be bad.
Every other political viewpoint from communism to anarchy to capitalisn has been based on a belief that it was the best way forward for mankind (and to be honest, I can see some good in most ideas myself) , just a massive failing in implementing most of them.
But I don't know about any positives to do with fascism, can't see why anyone would choose to go in that direction. Maybe it's just the way I've been educated/brainwashed by the history I've been taught and they started out with the best of intentions, but I just don't have any information to enlighten me.
As per the thread title, can anyone explain what was good about fascism?
As far as I know, no-one ever sets out in politics to be bad.
Every other political viewpoint from communism to anarchy to capitalisn has been based on a belief that it was the best way forward for mankind (and to be honest, I can see some good in most ideas myself) , just a massive failing in implementing most of them.
But I don't know about any positives to do with fascism, can't see why anyone would choose to go in that direction. Maybe it's just the way I've been educated/brainwashed by the history I've been taught and they started out with the best of intentions, but I just don't have any information to enlighten me.
As per the thread title, can anyone explain what was good about fascism?
Desiderata said:
But I don't know about any positives to do with fascism, can't see why anyone would choose to go in that direction.
I don't like using the term, but I'd say the attraction of fascism is that allows absolute c
ts to gain power by pandering to the fears and prejudices of a proportion of the population, and then hold onto power by terrifying and/or liquidating absolutely anyone who objects.So, popular with those who are absolute c
ts, and fancy a career in being so, and those who like their fears and prejudices being pandered to, not so much with everyone else.wisbech said:
Cool uniforms
True. Some might say that those running the Greek military junta in the late sixties and early seventies had a whiff of it about them, but cunningly managed to deflect attention by encouraging the use of traditional ceremonial uniform.
About as far from the Hugo Boss all-black Nazi chic as you can get.
Usually it is a knee-jerk response to a previous line of government failing miserably - either the fault of the govt. in question, a perfect storm of circumstances or a combination thereof. It rarely ends well.
Germany under the Weimar Republic (democracy) was hammered by the Great Depression. Hitler managed to rebrand the Nazis as a solution to the problems such as unemployment, a feeling of being slighted by the ruling classes, animosity over the perceived marginalisation of Germany by the victorious Allies as per Treaty of Versailles, etc. People voted Hitler in, remember - so the arguments were persuasive to a man/woman on the street of 1930s Germany.
Arguments could be made on both sides as to whether Germany would have gone down that route had the Treaty Terms been a bit less vindictive and the Great Economic Crash hadn't hit it so hard to boot.
Russia's autocratic system under the Tsars was corrupt from top to bottom - combined with systemic cronyism and a class-based system that did very little for the common people. Communism seemed like a good idea at the time....everyone being equal and all that. It wasn't fascist technically, but it shared a lot of similarities as time went on under Stalin, etc. Again, whoops.
Italy was another one where the blackshirts gained power due to the fall-out after WW1. Mussolini got the economy going and managed to rekindle some past national pride by rebuilding the Italian military and using it to conquer some easy targets. All fun and games until WW2 when it went a bit pear-shaped.
The thing they all have in common is that the hardline, totalitarian approach does seem to work well *for a time* in solving problems via brute-force, especially when there is a convenient external enemy to rally the population against. It is rarely sustainable long-term however and will more often than not collapse under it's own weight. See also - Romania, Argentina, etc.
Arguably all systems of government we've tested out have some glaring weaknesses - it's just that some are more harmful/harmless than others!
Germany under the Weimar Republic (democracy) was hammered by the Great Depression. Hitler managed to rebrand the Nazis as a solution to the problems such as unemployment, a feeling of being slighted by the ruling classes, animosity over the perceived marginalisation of Germany by the victorious Allies as per Treaty of Versailles, etc. People voted Hitler in, remember - so the arguments were persuasive to a man/woman on the street of 1930s Germany.
Arguments could be made on both sides as to whether Germany would have gone down that route had the Treaty Terms been a bit less vindictive and the Great Economic Crash hadn't hit it so hard to boot.
Russia's autocratic system under the Tsars was corrupt from top to bottom - combined with systemic cronyism and a class-based system that did very little for the common people. Communism seemed like a good idea at the time....everyone being equal and all that. It wasn't fascist technically, but it shared a lot of similarities as time went on under Stalin, etc. Again, whoops.
Italy was another one where the blackshirts gained power due to the fall-out after WW1. Mussolini got the economy going and managed to rekindle some past national pride by rebuilding the Italian military and using it to conquer some easy targets. All fun and games until WW2 when it went a bit pear-shaped.
The thing they all have in common is that the hardline, totalitarian approach does seem to work well *for a time* in solving problems via brute-force, especially when there is a convenient external enemy to rally the population against. It is rarely sustainable long-term however and will more often than not collapse under it's own weight. See also - Romania, Argentina, etc.
Arguably all systems of government we've tested out have some glaring weaknesses - it's just that some are more harmful/harmless than others!
Hugo boss did make uniforms during WW2, but just that. They were not designed by Hugo boss. They were just another contractor making uniforms to a design from the government.
Hugo boss’ son was the the famous designer from the sixties.
This is a great podcast about the usual suspects,
https://facesoffascism.podbean.com/
Hugo boss’ son was the the famous designer from the sixties.
This is a great podcast about the usual suspects,
https://facesoffascism.podbean.com/
Eric Mc said:
Exige77 said:
I heard the trains run on time.
Effective propaganda - which Fascist regimes trend to be very good at - especially if all other sources of information are restricted or banned.Based on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CYUxLbl_PM , other than the charismatic leader bit, does that make the labour party fascists?
Big-Bo-Beep said:
streets would be safer im guessing,
petty criminals, paedos, drug sellers, rapists, junkies, car thieves, degenerates, pederasts and other
miscellaneous undesirables would just be carted off to a " re-education centre ", never to be seen again.
Except for the ones in power petty criminals, paedos, drug sellers, rapists, junkies, car thieves, degenerates, pederasts and other
miscellaneous undesirables would just be carted off to a " re-education centre ", never to be seen again.
Camelot1971 said:
Based on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CYUxLbl_PM , other than the charismatic leader bit, does that make the labour party fascists?
You came to the conclusion that it might based on a 69 second You Tube video?Well done.
A Winner Is You said:
The Nazis devloped a lot of advanced equipment, which we made use of post WW2. As uncomfortable as it is, that includes their medial experiments.
in a similar unpleasant fact, the ghastly experiments done by Japanese scientists [?] on Chinese prisoners in theinterwar period were [ and maybe still ] used in western textbooks, i.e how many will be killed or wounded at
varying ranges by mortars, grenades and shells, how long it takes to die from loss of blood from
wounds and blast injuries.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff