[Martyn*]

Fascism is bad, and much worse than Communism and Capitalism combined. An interesting article on the ideology of fascism:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/wh...iers_britt.htm

Looking at the list anyone would think that we were living in a sort of fascism. We have democracy which is supposedly incompatible with any form of fascism, but there seems to me little difference between any of the three main parties now. Voting is a curious phenomena. I find it hard to find any voter who knows what any of the party's stand for, and I think it has been this way for some time. A component of fascism is the use of propaganda to maintain control and power. All three parties are guility of this. A certain amount of gusto is needed to win any competition, but all three parties have used political, religious and social tactics (including lies, subversion, false promises, U-turns, and smear campaigns) which the Nazis may well have used in the formation of the Third Reich.

I have seen over the years an increase in patriotic sentiment and Nationalism, and of course, euro-sceptism. There is more intolerance in the UK now than there ever has been in the last two hundred years. I think that the tolerance towards homosexuality may be an exception, but elements of this fascist tendency can be seen in the Church, although traditional Christianity is incompatible with fascism.

We have seen rampant cronyism and corruption. This is all too well known. The three main parties no longer stand for the people, but for city bankers and corporations. This is a hallmark of fascism.

We have a free press, but I think it can be shown that the media is just another corporation aligned with the government of the day.

We have organisation of labour, but I think that the unions are corrupt. Thatcher crushed the unions in the 1980s. One theory maintains that she allowed Liverpool to decline, or managed decline. Not all Tories show the fascist tendancy but some do, and where it does it almost often associated with elitism. At least 15 members of the Tory party are millionaire Etonians, and three of the current cabinet were members of the Bulingdon Club.

[ApresAlkan]

Well, that list shows trends that are common to fascist society. Fascism itself refers to the restriction of rights of a group of people. I disagree with you that our state is similar to a fascist one, and I shall explain why.

The three main parties are more similar than they have been, but are still widely different. Globalisation has forced the West to the right, which it shouldn't have done, but we are recovering. I have qualms with all three 'main parties', my 2015 vote is going to the Greens, but they are different.

I think that comparing 'spin', which is necessary because of a hideously inefficient civil service and a monstrosity of a free press, to Goebbels is quite ridiculous.

Patriotism is decreasing in the general populace, making the polarised right (think acronymous acrimonious parties) stand out even more. I don't think it's growing. Euro scepticism is more of a problem with right wing spin and the right wing tabloid media than anything else. I don't think there is more intolerance in the UK now, in the slightest. Traditional Christianity, as Christopher Hitchens said, is borne out of ancient race myths.

The media is not aligned with the government. At all. That is ridiculous,

I don't think that people who were bred for power should be excluded from it, though the exclusivity is a problem. You have made The wrong conclusion. We have shifted to the right, but not the extreme right.

[unclej]

You are totally spot on here.
The only differentiation between the three party's seems to be the colour of their ties.
I also think there's a rise in radical racist fascism with the EDL and Anders breivik which is becoming a greater threat to society.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Well, that list shows trends that are common to fascist society. Fascism itself refers to the restriction of rights of a group of people. I disagree with you that our state is similar to a fascist one, and I shall explain why.

The three main parties are more similar than they have been, but are still widely different. Globalisation has forced the West to the right, which it shouldn't have done, but we are recovering. I have qualms with all three 'main parties', my 2015 vote is going to the Greens, but they are different.

I think that comparing 'spin', which is necessary because of a hideously inefficient civil service and a monstrosity of a free press, to Goebbels is quite ridiculous.

Patriotism is decreasing in the general populace, making the polarised right (think acronymous acrimonious parties) stand out even more. I don't think it's growing. Euro scepticism is more of a problem with right wing spin and the right wing tabloid media than anything else. I don't think there is more intolerance in the UK now, in the slightest. Traditional Christianity, as Christopher Hitchens said, is borne out of ancient race myths.

The media is not aligned with the government. At all. That is ridiculous,

I don't think that people who were bred for power should be excluded from it, though the exclusivity is a problem. You have made The wrong conclusion. We have shifted to the right, but not the extreme right.

I have not made any such conclusion. Well, my theory was that certain fascist elements in society can be seen and may be growing stronger day-by-day. Traditional Christianity was about the sovereignty of each individual, that each person has a soul and is free; this is incompatible with fascism which emphasises that each individual is the instrument of the Nation and that each person should exist purely for the hopes of the Nation (and by that I mean that whatever ruling elite is in power). I don't agree with Hitchens anyway. I do not think Christianity was borne out of ancient race myths, but even it was, it is besides the point. Traditional Christianity accepts that each person is unique. Fascism does not accept this.

[EssexDan86]

Surely multiculturalism and free speech (both of which are in abundance) are at odds with fascism? Of course all modern political systems share a few traits with it - all political ideologies around the world are always going to do that, as they jus treflect human nature.

Also, didn't fascism originate as a labour movement originally? The Nazi party was not the party of the super rich and aristocrats, but of ordinary workers. The right wing elites in 1920s Germany had their own party, the DNVP. Hitler himself would have hated insitutions like the Bullington Club and the aristocracy.

[ApresAlkan]

(Original post by Martyn*)
I have not made any such conclusion. Well, my theory was that certain fascist elements in society can be seen and may be growing stronger day-by-day. Traditional Christianity was about the sovereignty of each individual, that each person has a soul and is free; this is incompatible with fascism which emphasises that each individual is the instrument of the Nation and that each person should exist purely for the hopes of the Nation (and by that I mean that whatever ruling elite is in power). I don't agree with Hitchens anyway. I do not think Christianity was borne out of ancient race myths, but even it was, it is besides the point. Traditional Christianity accepts that each person is unique. Fascism does not accept this.

Traditional Christianity? As in, pre c1st Christianity? Maybe. Seems more comparable to a cult of personality against some contradictory and occasionally offensive ideas. Christianity was borne out of ancient race myths, that's what the Old Testament is. Read Exodus, for example.

Fascism can be individualist as well as collectivist, as can libertarianism. Your 'fascist elements' are just features of society that ours might (I would argue mostly doesn't) have as well as a few cases of fascism. Just my thoughts.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by EssexDan86)
Surely multiculturalism and free speech (both of which are in abundance) are at odds with fascism? Of course all modern political systems share a few traits with it - all political ideologies around the world are always going to do that, as they jus treflect human nature.

Also, didn't fascism originate as a labour movement originally? The Nazi party was not the party of the super rich and aristocrats, but of ordinary workers. The right wing elites in 1920s Germany had their own party, the DNVP. Hitler himself would have hated insitutions like the Bullington Club and the aristocracy.

We are discussing fascist tendancies and sentiments rather than full-blow fascism. I think fascism started in ancient paganism and extended to Roman times. I think that Rome might have had the first stirrings of the fascist state. Just look at the Nazi Third Reich, it was the pagan revival, or the worst elements of it at least. The motif as the standard symbol of the nation, the golden eagle, the flag poles, the military organisation and supremacy, the civil service, the stamping out of subversive religious cults, were all elements of Roman society as well. It is true that the Nazi's were made up of ordinary workers and not the upper classes or aristocracy (prince Christoph was an SS office), but I think that some of the aristocrats supported him. I am told that Germany's middle class, shop keepers and the like, who found the Nazi ideology suited to their tastes.

But look at the aristocracy now in this country. They are the middle classes, or at least upper middle. The current PM, for example, is the Queen's cousin and has inherited wealth. He could be considered an aristocrat - he was certainly brought up as one. But Cameron is the son of a stockbroker and his family are linked to chartered financiers from Germany.

[Martyn*]

(Original post by ApresAlkan)
Traditional Christianity? As in, pre c1st Christianity? Maybe. Seems more comparable to a cult of personality against some contradictory and occasionally offensive ideas. Christianity was borne out of ancient race myths, that's what the Old Testament is. Read Exodus, for example.

Fascism can be individualist as well as collectivist, as can libertarianism. Your 'fascist elements' are just features of society that ours might (I would argue mostly doesn't) have as well as a few cases of fascism. Just my thoughts.

The Exodus was not a race myth in its entirety; it was a teaching from ancient Egypt which had been retold later by the Jews according to their own culture. I do not doubt that there was some xenophobic element in the transmission of this story, but that is besides the point. Traditional Christianity accepts that each individual is unique, whereas fascism does not.

[Kibalchich]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Fascism is bad, and much worse than Communism and Capitalism combined. An interesting article on the ideology of fascism:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/wh...iers_britt.htm

Looking at the list anyone would think that we were living in a sort of fascism. We have democracy which is supposedly incompatible with any form of fascism, but there seems to me little difference between any of the three main parties now. Voting is a curious phenomena. I find it hard to find any voter who knows what any of the party's stand for, and I think it has been this way for some time. A component of fascism is the use of propaganda to maintain control and power. All three parties are guility of this. A certain amount of gusto is needed to win any competition, but all three parties have used political, religious and social tactics (including lies, subversion, false promises, U-turns, and smear campaigns) which the Nazis may well have used in the formation of the Third Reich.

I have seen over the years an increase in patriotic sentiment and Nationalism, and of course, euro-sceptism. There is more intolerance in the UK now than there ever has been in the last two hundred years. I think that the tolerance towards homosexuality may be an exception, but elements of this fascist tendency can be seen in the Church, although traditional Christianity is incompatible with fascism.

We have seen rampant cronyism and corruption. This is all too well known. The three main parties no longer stand for the people, but for city bankers and corporations. This is a hallmark of fascism.

We have a free press, but I think it can be shown that the media is just another corporation aligned with the government of the day.

We have organisation of labour, but I think that the unions are corrupt. Thatcher crushed the unions in the 1980s. One theory maintains that she allowed Liverpool to decline, or managed decline. Not all Tories show the fascist tendancy but some do, and where it does it almost often associated with elitism. At least 15 members of the Tory party are millionaire Etonians, and three of the current cabinet were members of the Bulingdon Club.

ironic, given your prediliction for old Nazi conspiracy theories

[Kibalchich]

btw, for a regime to be considered fascism, we would expect to see an organised extra legal goon squad (with some political protection) breaking strikes, smashing left wing demos, beating and murdering immigrants etc, like Mussolini's Blackshirts or the SA in Germany.

[rmpr97]

(Original post by Martyn*)
The Exodus was not a race myth in its entirety; it was a teaching from ancient Egypt which had been retold later by the Jews according to their own culture. I do not doubt that there was some xenophobic element in the transmission of this story, but that is besides the point. Traditional Christianity accepts that each individual is unique, whereas fascism does not.

Sorry, how does his upbringing matter? Yes he's rich, yet he clearly showed a love for politics, to become one, otherwise he could have easily lived unemployed of 'mummy & daddy'.

Unless you're part of the conspiracy that he's trying to destroy us and the underclass and take all the money for the rich.

[walkingbeard]

For the key points of fascism, you must look at the fascists: Benito Mussolini said that fascism was 'the merging of state and corporate power'. That doesn't (just) mean that state and industry merge, but that all corporate entities merge into the state - members' clubs, youth clubs, community associations, trade unions.

Too much attention is paid to Italian fascism's most obvious symptoms - the closed heirarchy of leadership, the use of paramilitary squads to beat down political opponents and suppress dissent.

But those things are also symptomatic of the society that fascist Italy inherited. At that time, Europe was rife with extreme poverty, and correspondingly highly militant trade unions; significant numbers of young European men were involved in military occupation and colonial matters.

In our current political climate, there has been absolutely no need for a fascist to use a hit squad. They smile for the cameras instead.

Now, in the UK today, I don't think that any of the three main parties is currently particularly fascist, although the threat is always most present in the Labour Party. At a basic level, the key difference between a socialist and a fascist is one of democracy and class analysis on the one hand, and authority and one-nationism on the other.

That is why I believe that the greatest threat to British freedom in recent times has not come from the Conservative Party (which is objectionable in its own way), but from Tony Blair's Labour Party. Blair's MO was absolute authority and he required obedience. He was rightly accused of a presidential style of Government, keeping the Cabinet under his thumb. Under his leadership, the Government introduced more new crimes than all there had been before. He was renowned for his cast-iron grasp on the media and for allowing unprecedented fraternisation between big business and Government. He crushed Whitehall.

If you look below the surface, the fascist analogies become more apparent, both in the ideology and in the practice.

The guiding light behind New Labour is the work of the sociologist Anthony Giddens. One of the key concepts in what is considered by some, his holistic view of society, is the Third Way. The Third Way has been a key concept in fascism right from the beginning - a third way, not capitalist, not communist, acknowledging what it considers the best aspects of both, and trying to formulate an ordered society without class antagonism.

On the practical front, New Labour's malign influence could be felt nowhere more strongly than Glasgow, where I lived for several years. Fully buying in to the New Labour ideas of private financing and partnership between the state and community groups (corporatism in the language of 20th century fascism), the City Council sold all its housing to an arm's-length management company, Glasgow Housing Association (GHA). The stated intention was to further transfer the stock to local housing associations some time down the line.

In the mean-time, the local housing associations did a lot of the administrative work for GHA and part of that was looking after things like repairs. For each area there was a local residents' group to control this in partnership with the local housing association. Each group was filled with local New Labour cronies, who were often the same people who ran the local Community Councils. Neither the tenant groups, nor the community councils ever advertised their meetings, or elections, or the fact that hundreds of thousands of pounds were technically waiting to be spent on repairing run-down estates.

Eventually, many of the GHA housing stocks were knocked down. The land was sold to local private housing associations run by New Labour cronies.

Corporatism is the essence of fascism. Racism barely comes into it, and neither do the hit squads.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by unclej)
You are totally spot on here.
The only differentiation between the three party's seems to be the colour of their ties.
I also think there's a rise in radical racist fascism with the EDL and Anders breivik which is becoming a greater threat to society.

So why do you call out the EDL and Anders Breivik as the rise in fascism. You have referred to one man here! while completely ignoring Islamofascism, i.e. radical elements of Islam that want to forcefully control, dominate and change?

[cpfc12]

(Original post by Martyn*)
Fascism is bad, and much worse than Communism and Capitalism combined. An interesting article on the ideology of fascism:

http://www.oldamericancentury.org/wh...iers_britt.htm

Looking at the list anyone would think that we were living in a sort of fascism. We have democracy which is supposedly incompatible with any form of fascism, but there seems to me little difference between any of the three main parties now. Voting is a curious phenomena. I find it hard to find any voter who knows what any of the party's stand for, and I think it has been this way for some time. A component of fascism is the use of propaganda to maintain control and power. All three parties are guility of this. A certain amount of gusto is needed to win any competition, but all three parties have used political, religious and social tactics (including lies, subversion, false promises, U-turns, and smear campaigns) which the Nazis may well have used in the formation of the Third Reich.

I have seen over the years an increase in patriotic sentiment and Nationalism, and of course, euro-sceptism. There is more intolerance in the UK now than there ever has been in the last two hundred years. I think that the tolerance towards homosexuality may be an exception, but elements of this fascist tendency can be seen in the Church, although traditional Christianity is incompatible with fascism.

We have seen rampant cronyism and corruption. This is all too well known. The three main parties no longer stand for the people, but for city bankers and corporations. This is a hallmark of fascism.

We have a free press, but I think it can be shown that the media is just another corporation aligned with the government of the day.

We have organisation of labour, but I think that the unions are corrupt. Thatcher crushed the unions in the 1980s. One theory maintains that she allowed Liverpool to decline, or managed decline. Not all Tories show the fascist tendancy but some do, and where it does it almost often associated with elitism. At least 15 members of the Tory party are millionaire Etonians, and three of the current cabinet were members of the Bulingdon Club.

A well put post, but i can't agree with all of your points, mainly the part i highlighted in bold.
Firstly nationalism is not entirely bad, it depends on the circumstances, take in reference the african nationalism in the decolonisation period, would you say those nationalists who were fighting against white rule, were bad ? bigots ?
Nationalism in the 21st century isn't the same as nationalism around the times of Mussolini and Hitler, in these days you have supranational organisations, undermining soverignity and nation states, in a very undemocratic way. I see the European Union as being a wolf in sheeps clothing, and i find it amusing how people who are against the EU, are accused of being Eurosceptics, and nationalists, xenophobics, when the EU is the most xenophobic organisation in the northern hemisphere. It undermines nation states, soverignity, and sets out to destroy their individual identities. I don't understand why people are so stuck in their way of thinking, that they can't come to a compromise or a balance, were we have a european economic commission but decline the anti democratic organisation which centralises power away from us and prevents any democratic referendum by stating its "populist" the EU is the rise of fascism which you talk about. Going back to my point about nationalism, can you really brand someone who doesn't want their country to join a supranational organisation, but wishes them to still maintain economic trade with other nations around the world, as being fascist

I don't believe are an intolerant nation, mosques, synagogues, different variations of churches are allowed to flourish, and our media is very pro multiculturalism, even our so called far right groups like the EDL and BNP, try to pretend to be not racist and call for members of different ethnicities, no doubt this is just a stunt, but it still shows that they have to come across as being tolerant to not be completely shunted from society (Which they mostly are)
The reason why these groups are gaining support is not for the same reasons in which the the fascists gain power in Europe during the 1930's, which was due to middle class people and business owners, reacting towards the threat of communism to the east, and deep rooted anti semitism. Today far right groups like the BNP, gain support due, to the new left racialising the working class, in a bid to promote the concept of meritocracy, focusing on identity politics and not the working class as a whole, and of course middle class bigotry, has lead to the white working class become a minority group of itself. Add poverty to the mix, and immigration which changed communities (often white working class communities) and you can't be surprised to see groups like the BNP rising.
I blame the middle class intellectuals who have spoiled the left, rather than playing the snobbery card on the white working classes, by just calling them stupid bigots, it creates a self fulfilling prophecy as well in the long term.

Going back to your first point, i believe the communists were just as bad as the fascists, I believe Karl Marx had the best intentions, but the socialist states turned quickly into cult of personality fascist states, due to people not reading the small print. Socialism killed tens of millions of people, so it wouldn't be fitting to ignore that. Nu labour are just as bad as the tories in the long run, as they were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of brown people in Iraq, and hundreds of working class boys from the U.K. Well i suppose this was a "liberal war", Not a "fascist" war.

[between_the_lies]

(Original post by cpfc12)
........nationalism is not entirely bad, it depends on the circumstances, take in reference the african nationalism......

The liberal ideas believe that to preserve the ethnic, cultural, historical, religion and values of the Tibetan people is noble, but anyone who argues this same thing for a European country is a "vile racist". The liberal ideas have come to deconstruct in such a way that this is what many people believe.

[EssexDan86]

Nationalism is just one manifestation of basic human nature. It's ingrained in humans to want to be part of something bigger, and before the idea of nation states existed, people were passionately loyal about their tribe or religion instead.

This instinct can't really be removed - it'll show one way or another, whether it's based on nationality, religion, skin colour, tribe or even musical taste or football club.

[cpfc12]

(Original post by between_the_lies)
The liberal ideas believe that to preserve the ethnic, cultural, historical, religion and values of the Tibetan people is noble, but anyone who argues this same thing for a European country is a "vile racist". The liberal ideas have come to deconstruct in such a way that this is what many people believe.

It's not really "liberal" in the truest sense of the word, and there is a wide spectrum of nationalism, especially in the 21st globalised world we are living in.

[cpfc12]

(Original post by EssexDan86)
Nationalism is just one manifestation of basic human nature. It's ingrained in humans to want to be part of something bigger, and before the idea of nation states existed, people were passionately loyal about their tribe or religion instead.

This instinct can't really be removed - it'll show one way or another, whether it's based on nationality, religion, skin colour, tribe or even musical taste or football club.

True but i don't believe its completely primal, it is rational and practical.
It preserves diversity, and maintains checks and balances, blocks tyranny as well. Of course there are negatives and positives to every system or belief in place, but to eradicate national sovierginity in a bid to start up some airy fairy post modernist world, is going to end up badly, especially knowing who will be in charge of these supranational organisations.

[EssexDan86]

(Original post by cpfc12)
True but i don't believe its completely primal, it is rational and practical.
It preserves diversity, and maintains checks and balances, blocks tyranny as well. Of course there are negatives and positives to every system or belief in place, but to eradicate national sovierginity in a bid to start up some airy fairy post modernist world, is going to end up badly, especially knowing who will be in charge of these supranational organisations.

Not sure I agree completely about the whole EU thing. Yes it's a concern that national laws and identities are eroded, but the economic benefits of being part of a huge free-trade bloc are enormous (and far more beneficial to us than all the waste of money stories the Daily Mail digs up).

The fact that we're in the EU is the reason a LOT of foreign companies from Asia, the US etc have set up factories and offices here, as it gives them a foothold in Europe and access to the whole market, without trade barriers. If we hadn't joined in the 70s, we'd probably still be suffering a lot more in terms of mass unemployment from old inefficient industries.

Up the Palace, by the way!

[Rhadamanthus]

(Original post by Kibalchich)
ironic, given your prediliction for old Nazi conspiracy theories

Wow, wouldya look at that, I'm in agreement with you.