Join TSR now to have your say on this topicSign up now
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    No, it wasn't. I don't recall Stalin, Pinochet or Gadaffi expressing National Socialist ideals.
    You just confirmed I am right as you are thinking Nazism not Fascism under 'Partito Nazionale Fascista' and Mussolini. My comparison is just, you just have zero idea of what Fascism is.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    They presided over fascist movements entering the political mainstream in Italy and Germany, but to assert that they invented fascism itself is certainly a very crude statement. Who are these historians mangling history?
    I didn't exactly say they 'invented fascism', but that what is understood as fascism by most today is largely the heritage of Mussolini and Hitler, which I think is fair.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Yeah, I noticed your sad attempt to become Libertarian-lite.
    Petty personal attacks with no basis in reality won't compensate for the intellectual shortcomings of your arguments.

    You're doing a great job of ignoring what I'm saying so you can keep going on Fascism=Hitler.
    I responded carefully to each of your points. You have omitted much of what I said. Rather hypocritical.

    That's fine but it disregards both the fact that Mussolini was right at the centre of left-wing fascism during and immediately after the Great War (which is what I was getting at having never once denied the importance of Mussolini) and the fact that fascism extended beyond Italy and Germany (if we must) to countries such as Spain and Romania, both of which I've mentioned. Fascism as it's known in school textbooks today may focus on Mussolini and Hitler but there's no reason for us to do so here. Why disregard, for example, the most successful and long-lasting of European fascists: Franco?
    Because what most people conceive fascism to be was what was relevant in the original discussion between tehFrance and myself. You have somewhat picked up a 'fag-end' and soared completely off the original topic to your own conception of what the debate was about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    You just confirmed I am right as you are thinking Nazism not Fascism under 'Partito Nazionale Fascista' and Mussolini. My comparison is just, you just have zero idea of what Fascism is.
    What? I just gave examples of other fascists who were not nazis and you're accusing me of believing fascism to be an interchangeable term with naziism? You're not making much sense.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Birchington)
    The moderators have asked us not to discuss Morgsie in this forum, and they would probably appreciate you to respect that request as well.
    Not probably; definitely
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    What? I just gave examples of other fascists who were not nazis and you're accusing me of believing fascism to be an interchangeable term with naziism? You're not making much sense.
    Stalin was not a Fascist, admittedly he wasn't exactly Socialist either. I don't know who Gadaffi is, I know a Gaddafi and he was Socialist, look up 'The Green Book' although in all honesty it is a muddle but to say he followed Fascism is wrong. Pinochet was a military dictatorship if I recall correctly, I would have to go research the politics more as I'll admit that I am rather ignorant to this man.

    Overall it is you that seem to have a distinct lack of understanding of whom is a Fascist and what Fascism is, especially if you try and play Stalin and Gaddafi off as Fascists :rofl:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Petty personal attacks with no basis in reality won't compensate for your intellectual shortcomings.
    It's unfortunate that English doesn't have a distinguishing form for the collective "you" and the singular "you". In this case, it would have save you (sing.) from misinterpreting a statement directed at you (pl.), the Liberal Party.

    Because what most people conceive fascism to be was what was relevant in the original discussion between tehFrance and myself. You have somewhat picked up a 'fag-end' and soared completely off the original topic to your own conception of what the debate was about.
    I'm not tehFrance and he can fight, more than adequately, his own battles with you. Instead, I took up an aspect of what was being said and turned it into a different discussion. Most people are not trained historians therefore what most people conceive fascism to be is often grounded less in fact than in hearsay. Hence the unfortunate conflation of fascism with national socialism that is so common. Fascism in its true formation is linked to the Catholic Church and to hyper-nationalism over and above the military-industrial complex that sustained national socialism. That is why it's fallacious to put Mussolini and Hitler, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in the same pot, however common it may be in wider discourse.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Stalin was not a Fascist, admittedly he wasn't exactly Socialist either. I don't know who Gadaffi is, I know a Gaddafi and he was Socialist, look up 'The Green Book' although in all honesty it is a muddle but to say he followed Fascism is wrong. Pinochet was a military dictatorship if I recall correctly, I would have to go research the politics more as I'll admit that I am rather ignorant to this man.

    Overall it is you that seem to have a distinct lack of understanding of whom is a Fascist and what Fascism is, especially if you try and play Stalin and Gaddafi off as Fascists :rofl:
    You are a little to naive in your acceptance of what foreign military dictators like to call themselves. People's Republic of China; Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The fact that these dictators call themselves and the countries they rule certain things doesn't mean you should automatically accept that they adhere to the ideologies implied by those names. If you seriously can't see fascistic elements in the regimes of Gadaffi and, (:facepalm:) Josef Stalin then you are definitely not one to be telling others they lack understanding of what fascism means.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    Who are these historians mangling history?
    Folk like Niall Ferguson probably.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    It's unfortunate that English doesn't have a distinguishing form for the collective "you" and the singular "you". In this case, it would have save you (sing.) from misinterpreting a statement directed at you (pl.), the Liberal Party.
    It is unfortunate that you don't understand that an institution can sustain personal attacks just as people can, especially one such as a political party which is no more than a collection of like-minded people.

    I'm not tehFrance and he can fight, more than adequately, his own battles with you. Instead, I took up an aspect of what was being said and turned it into a different discussion. Most people are not trained historians therefore what most people conceive fascism to be is often grounded less in fact than in hearsay. Hence the unfortunate conflation of fascism with national socialism that is so common. Fascism in its true formation is linked to the Catholic Church and to hyper-nationalism over and above the military-industrial complex that sustained national socialism. That is why it's fallacious to put Mussolini and Hitler, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, in the same pot, however common it may be in wider discourse.
    This completely misses the point. Whether or not you think public opinion is 'fallacious' or not is not relevant to the original discussion, which you appeared to be trying to continue as opposed to begin your own one. Frankly I think there will always be distinguishing factors between the political administration of any country at any one time; you can separate Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany just as you can separate Cameron's Britain and Brown's Britain. It is somewhat splitting hairs and for all your protestation of the major differences between them you don't seem to actually offer any as example. Whatever is supposed to be meant by 'fascism's true formation' I do not know. How anyone is qualified to identify the 'true formation' of a political ideology as complex as fascism is beyond me.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    You are a little to naive in your acceptance of what foreign military dictators like to call themselves. People's Republic of China; Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The fact that these dictators call themselves and the countries they rule certain things doesn't mean you should automatically accept that they adhere to the ideologies implied by those names. If you seriously can't see fascistic elements in the regimes of Gadaffi and, (:facepalm:) Josef Stalin then you are definitely not one to be telling others they lack understanding of what fascism means.
    No I am not as I don't believe for a second, China, Congo and Korea are as they say.

    Stalin practically has his own ideology, in-fact a fair few would go as far to say he most certainly does and it doesn't come under Communism, Fascism or Socialism, it is at best a mixture.

    Gaddafi I admitted was muddled but he did go from 'The Green Book', a book that was required reading of everyone and it was not Fascist in the sense of the roots of Fascism especially as it took Socialist ideals as well as Nazi ideals. In-fact I would say Gaddafi was one of the most muddled of everyone I have looked at.

    You question my knowledge however I most certainly question yours as you seem to think that people with a tiny bit of Fascist element within their policy is Fascism 100%, Mussolini was the champion of the roots Fascism although there were others that helped, Italian Fascism wasn't like Nazism or Ba'athist Iraq which took a bit of everything but was overwhelmingly Fascist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    It is unfortunate that you don't understand that an institution can sustain personal attacks just as people can, especially one such as a political party which is no more than a collection of like-minded people.
    Well that's your view but I certainly don't share it. An attack on a person is quite distinct from an attack on an institution. One is quite rightly discouraged here, the other is perfectly normal.

    Frankly I think there will always be distinguishing factors between the political administration of any country at any one time; you can separate Mussolini's Italy and Hitler's Germany just as you can separate Cameron's Britain and Brown's Britain. It is somewhat splitting hairs and for all your protestation of the major differences between them you don't seem to actually offer any as example.
    Well we could divert this thread even further by providing a full comparative account of the fundamental differences between fascism and national socialism but that would seem to be a waste of our time (you were moaning about hot air a short while ago). Needless to say, if you read my post carefully you would have noted a key distinction between the two which is the fusion of the Catholic Church and nationalism in Italy (and Spain) in contrast to a fairly pure military-industrial complex in Nazi Germany.

    Whatever is supposed to be meant by 'fascism's true formation' I do not know.
    It means the intellectual and socio-cultural foundations of fascism in Italy in the aftermath of the Great War. Admittedly formation is the wrong word and I should probably have used foundations but nevermind.

    How anyone is qualified to identify the 'true formation' of a political ideology as complex as fascism is beyond me.
    Well there are people with PhDs and a lifetime of research in the field, so I suggest to you that makes someone qualified to identify the "true formation" of such a political ideology. Just as there are people with PhDs and lifetimes in research in communism, liberalism, conservatism, socialism and so forth. The way they're able to do it is by looking at both the intellectual foundations of the ideology and its social origins and sustenance. In this instance, that points to the formation of fascism in Italy in a particular set of intellectual and social circumstances.

    It is, of course, important to distinguish neo-fascism and contemporary revivalist movements from the twentieth century development of fascism in Italy, Spain and other parts of east-central Europe, but only in the sense that these offer a slightly different formation of fascism in contrast to the 'traditional' notions that are rightly associated with Italy under Mussolini and are popularly associated with Nazi Germany too.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    No I am not as I don't believe for a second, China, Congo and Korea are as they say.
    Yes, precisely.

    Stalin practically has his own ideology, in-fact a fair few would go as far to say he most certainly does and it doesn't come under Communism, Fascism or Socialism, it is at best a mixture.
    As with all political leaders. Truism. But to say there weren't pronounced fascistic characteristics present in his regime is laughable.

    Gaddafi I admitted was muddled but he did go from 'The Green Book', a book that was required reading of everyone and it was not Fascist in the sense of the roots of Fascism especially as it took Socialist ideals as well as Nazi ideals. In-fact I would say Gaddafi was one of the most muddled of everyone I have looked at.

    You question my knowledge however I most certainly question yours as you seem to think that people with a tiny bit of Fascist element within their policy is Fascism 100%, Mussolini was the champion of the roots Fascism although there were others that helped, Italian Fascism wasn't like Nazism or Ba'athist Iraq which took a bit of everything but was overwhelmingly Fascist.
    Please direct me to the post where I 'seem to think that people with a tiny bit of Fascist element within their policy is Fascism 100%'.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    As with all political leaders. Truism. But to say there weren't pronounced fascistic characteristics present in his regime is laughable.

    Please direct me to the post where I 'seem to think that people with a tiny bit of Fascist element within their policy is Fascism 100%'.
    Where did I say that he didn't? I said he had a mixture.

    Well considering you are going off on a tangent dragging other leaders into this debate when it was a direct comparison to Italian Fascism and the fact that you don't appear to understand Fascism at all with the aforementioned leaders being dragged into it, it is plausible to come to that conclusion whether you explicitly wrote it or not.

    You are the one that led us down this dirt track by making other comparisons that were not present in the original comparison nor were they intended to be due to the lack of actual Fascism involved with those people and their regimes. You only have yourself to blame for this farce.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by obi_adorno_kenobi)
    Well that's your view but I certainly don't share it. An attack on a person is quite distinct from an attack on an institution. One is quite rightly discouraged here, the other is perfectly normal.
    I don't agree that personal attacks of any kind are 'perfectly normal'; even if they were, their commonality wouldn't acquit them of their intellectual bankruptcy.

    Well we could divert this thread even further by providing a full comparative account of the fundamental differences between fascism and national socialism but that would seem to be a waste of our time (you were moaning about hot air a short while ago). Needless to say, if you read my post carefully you would have noted a key distinction between the two which is the fusion of the Catholic Church and nationalism in Italy (and Spain) in contrast to a fairly pure military-industrial complex in Nazi Germany.
    See end

    It means the intellectual and socio-cultural foundations of fascism in Italy in the aftermath of the Great War. Admittedly formation is the wrong word and I should probably have used foundations but nevermind.
    Why are you focusing especially on Italy? When has anyone specified Italian fascism? Since you are so keen on differentiating between different kinds of fascism.

    Well there are people with PhDs and a lifetime of research in the field, so I suggest to you that makes someone qualified to identify the "true formation" of such a political ideology. Just as there are people with PhDs and lifetimes in research in communism, liberalism, conservatism, socialism and so forth. The way they're able to do it is by looking at both the intellectual foundations of the ideology and its social origins and sustenance. In this instance, that points to the formation of fascism in Italy in a particular set of intellectual and social circumstances.
    I'm going to go ahead and guess you don't have a PhD or a lifetime of research in the field, so presumably you aren't qualified, by your own definition, to make those kinds of judgements.

    It is, of course, important to distinguish neo-fascism and contemporary revivalist movements from the twentieth century development of fascism in Italy, Spain and other parts of east-central Europe, but only in the sense that these offer a slightly different formation of fascism in contrast to the 'traditional' notions that are rightly associated with Italy under Mussolini and are popularly associated with Nazi Germany too.
    It's clear you want to be recognised as knowledgeable in this matter but you don't seem to have any point to these posts. Why is it important to distunguish neo-fascism and contemporary revivalist movements? You seem to be blabbering on mindlessly, much of what you say often more heat than light.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    When has anyone specified Italian fascism?
    Winner, winner, chicken dinner... I did, a few times actually.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Winner, winner, chicken dinner... I did, a few times actually.
    I wasn't responding to you. It was a response in the context of my discussion with the other one.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    I wasn't responding to you. It was a response in the context of my discussion with the other one.
    I am well aware but if you read through, he was linking to mine or am I the only person making that connection?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    I am well aware but if you read through, he was linking to mine or am I the only person making that connection?
    I don't see that, no.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    Where did I say that he didn't? I said he had a mixture.
    Gaddafi I admitted was muddled but he did go from 'The Green Book', a book that was required reading of everyone and it was not Fascist
    Well considering you are going off on a tangent dragging other leaders into this debate when it was a direct comparison to Italian Fascism and the fact that you don't appear to understand Fascism at all with the aforementioned leaders being dragged into it, it is plausible to come to that conclusion whether you explicitly wrote it or not.
    What is this obsession with Italian Fascism? As I explained to you before, I brought examples of other fascist leaders to demonstrate my understanding, against your groundless accusation that I didn't, that fascism =/= naziism. Stop decontextualising it.

    You are the one that led us down this dirt track by making other comparisons that were not present in the original comparison nor were they intended to be due to the lack of actual Fascism involved with those people and their regimes. You only have yourself to blame for this farce.
    See above for why I made those comparisons. In fact, here is the conversation to demonstrate how you invited them with your groundless accusation:

    (Original post by tehFrance)
    No you most likely associate it with Nazism, am I correct? if you do that is not Fascism as Fascism was intended thus your opinion is based on false beliefs in Nazism.
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    Don't make these blind assumptions. I associate fascism with what it is: unjustifiable control and repression which only a lunatic could see the TSR Liberals as similar to.
    (Original post by tehFrance)
    My assumption was correct though wasn't it.
    (Original post by Tuerin)
    No, it wasn't. I don't recall Stalin, Pinochet or Gadaffi expressing National Socialist ideals.
    It should be clear as to the relevance of evidencing other fascist leaders to disprove your accusation that I thought fascism was equated with National Socialism. How you can blame me for the farce of your own intellectual circus act...
 
 
 
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: May 6, 2015
Poll
Which Fantasy Franchise is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.