Gaia's republicans?

[Lord Bitememan]

Nazism really isn't the same as Fascism to be fair. Nazism could best be thought of as racial communism, with the proletariat being replaced by the "folk."  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Ah. See I never realized that Nazism was actually a political system, I thought it was more of a... well just a Aryan superiority belief that trickled into the gov't  

[Lord Bitememan]

Nazi is simply a conjunction of the terms National and Socialist. The underpinnings of the NSDAP were essentially socialist but reserved the goals of socialist policy for the enrichment of "pure Aryans," which they interpreted as being Germans. The functioning of the governmental system did involve redistribution along this racial distinction, though it did eventually degenerate into a corrupt system of sycophancy and nepotism.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Wow! They really need to up the amount of stuff they teach in our school, I don't remember talking too much about the politics of it, but I would have loved to.  

[Lord Bitememan]

High school education, short of the AP or IB level, is by and large a waste of time in general overview of subjects.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

>.>
Yeah, it's quite annoying, because I feel like they move soo slow and don't talk to much in detail...  

[Garrett31212]

Lord Bitememan

"lol Examples?"

Saddam Hussein, Fidel Castro, Kim Jong Il, the Argentine Junta, Fulgencio Batista, François Duvalier, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Yasser Arafat, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, Ruhollah Khomeini, oh, and let's not forget Benito Mussolini.

"Also outline how that differs from democracy, aside from Totaltarianism"

Fascism assumes an enlightened and perfect state of man under which the rule of virtuous men leads the the pinnacle of humanity. This is no different than the founding notions of Communism or Fundamentalism, they just differ in their ideas of the pinnacle of man and the definition of virtue. Democracy is cynical. It assumes people are greedy, paranoid, megalomanical individuals who will abuse and corrupt all they can. Fascism clears the obstacles from the way of the Duce and his government because it presumes he will lead with the end goal of fascism at heart. Democracy clings to roadblocks, barriers, and muckrakers because it assumes only that those in power will get away with all they can, and the inconvenience of getting little done is preferable to the horrors of the unscrupulous made unstoppable. So yes, even in Democracies, the corrupt will attain office. . . for a while. But just like we are learning with Rod Blagojevich, those roadblocks and muckrakers inevitably get in the way and correct the problem. In this case, Blagojevich will be corrected out of office and into a federal prison. A fascist leader can dip into the till for all to see, and the elimination of the roadblocks and barriers on his power will render him immune from consequences to his actions. That's the difference.

You just basically just listed a bunch of non-Fascists, with the exception of Mussolini and a Falangist or two. Benito Mussolini's rule was a perfect example of a selfless Fascist leader:

He:
-restored order
-ended the Socialist revolution underway in Italy
-revamped the Italian economy into a powerhouse, making Italy's GDP grow 2% annually
-kept Italy out of the Great Depression, while all the other Capitalist countries around it suffered
-expanded the Italian empire to include Eithiopia
-restored national pride amongst the people

Also, the action that shows his true character is when he returned to form the Italian Social Republic. Surely you've heard the story of the Gran Sasso Raid. Once Mussolini was rescued, Hitler gave him two options:

1) Form the Italian Social Republic

2) Or retire, yet live with knowing your denial of Hitler's will was what made German forces annihilate the norther Italian cities of Milan, Turin, and Genoa

Mussolini was much older and wanted to retire, yet he chose option 1. Why do so if he was just in it for himself?

Now democracies on the other hand are corrupt and unreliable. You're right that some of the corrupt get arrested. Ask yourself this: If Blago was so comfortable not trying to cover up his corruption, then what many other things has he done in the past? Also ask yourself this: Why do certain families such as the Bushes, the Kennedys, and the Clintons maintain political positions? Because they have rich and influential contacts. And last but not least ask yourself why incumbent politicians are able to maintain their positions of power for many elections after their first. Because by that time they've made friends, been corrupted a little, and have funds for their campaigns and having funds for campaigns means success in the ballots. In democracy money is power. If you can get enough, you can have power.

Also, unreliable. We all know liberals and conservatives have been debating over the issues for decades now, yet noone ever stops to ask why neither side ever makes and progress. Effective laws are impossible to pass. Political Opinion also shifts too quickly to make lasting progress for either side. The people see that one party is incapable so they vote the next one in. When they see the next one is incapable, they forget that the first one was incapable and say let's give them a try again.

Bottom line: Nothing ever gets done for either side, and even if it did it wouldn't be of the correct collectivist and nationalist nature. Giving power to the people breeds individualism.  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

Democracies have their cons... but

Quote:

In addition to explicit opposition to these ideologies and systems, fascist governments permanently forbid and suppress all criticism and opposition to the government and the fascist movement.

I deserve the right to say my government sucks when it does. I would never want such a thing, nothing civil would get accomplished... I'm sure gay rights wouldn't be allowed if this 'dictator' had been against gay rights  

[Lord Bitememan]

I said:

Quote:

In practice if you place all power and control of a nation in the hands of a few people those people serve one interest first and foremost, themselves, and they do so at the detriment of the people as a whole.

You said:

Quote:

lol Examples?

Notice nowhere in there did you specify that the examples had to be exclusively fascist. The same problems plague all one man absolutist rule, so I gave you a litany of examples of such. If you want to confine it strictly to fascist examples we have a bit of a problem. You really only have one true example of where a full-blown fascist government was ever instituted, Italy. And, while every reputable academic in the world concurs that graft was so prevelant in Mussolini's Italy that it even hampered economic development, you have done your utmost in your mind to sanitize this through ideologically shaped rose-tinted glasses. There's not much point in trying to discuss the matter with someone who wants to believe rather than seeks proof.  

[Garrett31212]

1) We're debating on whether Fascism is the best form of government or not. Not Monarchy, not Communism, and not Nazism. They do all implement authoritarian measures, and in all of them politicians are significantly more powerful than democratic politicians. However, they are different ideologies because of philosophy, what the politicians want to accomplish, how the nation lead by these ideologies is organized, exactly how the politician's wills are met, and what the end results of the politicians' actions are. On those things, these systems differ greatly. Now, with that being said you should now know why I will not debate over other systems.

2) And no, there were more Fascist nations than just Italy. Falangist Spain under Francisco Franco is a prime example. However, the ideologies of the two only differ on how the Corporatist economy should be organized. Should there be only one Corporation? (Falangism) Or should there be many? (Italian)

3) The opinions of scholars worldwide on the matter are irrelevant. People in Western nations grow up being taught against Fascism and Nazism, with Fascism being presented as a form of Nazism to the public, even though the Nazis and Fascists never identified themselves as a single ideology. This enviornment was even worse back when most of these scholars were growing up in the world right after WW2. You yourself have said your ideology is similar to that of neoconservatism, and there are many scholars against that, and the neoconservative presidency of Bush is a clear example of that failure.

4) On terms of economy, even if corruption was a factor, that still doesn't change the fact that the Italian Corporatist economy was far superior to that of any other Capitalist economy. So if corruption halted any development, it would have been development that would never occured due to the flawed Capitalist system.

5) In conclusion, it is not I: An ex-conservative and an independant thinker, that has stared politics through "ideologically shaped rose-tinted glasses", but you. There's not much point in trying to discuss the matter with someone who wants to beleive rather than seeks proof.  

[Lord Bitememan]

Quote:

1) We're debating on whether Fascism is the best form of government or not. Not Monarchy, not Communism, and not Nazism.

Is one-man absolutist rule common to Fascism, Monarchy, Communism, and Nazism? Last I checked it is. Did I argue that the problems of hyper-corruption and abuse of power plague all forms of one-man absolutist rule? That's what I said. Legislative government is common to both Democracies and Republics. That doesn't mean you can't bring one in on a discussion of the deficiencies of legislative rule in the other.

Quote:

However, they are different ideologies because of philosophy, what the politicians want to accomplish, how the nation lead by these ideologies is organized, exactly how the politician's wills are met, and what the end results of the politicians' actions are.

And they have many of the same practices, including state-directed economies, supression of civil rights, political repression and the elimination of political competition, and a shared failing historical track record. So, yes, valid comparisons of the problems that beset communism, which lasted far longer than fascism, are fair game so long as the common elements are in focus and one is used as a lens for what the other may have lacked (in this case, longevity and empirical record of success).

Quote:

Now, with that being said you should now know why I will not debate over other systems.

And you don't have to debate the merits of fascism vs. communism or fundamentalism. But you DO have to be able to address concepts, such as governmental corruption in absolutist rule, if you want to make statements of the caliber you make about fascism. If you can't handle dealing with comparisons of concepts in rule, even if they may originate in somewhat different systems, prepare to have a very frustrating future discussing politics with people.

Quote:

Falangist Spain under Francisco Franco is a prime example.

Los Años de Hambre. That means "The Years of Hunger" and describes the period in Franco's rule when 200,000 people starved to death. By 1959 he had driven Spain into bankruptcy and was forced to economically liberalize by the IMF. Since economic liberalization Spain has been financially successful, and also made a transition to democracy as a result. Right there your own example contradicts your general premise. So, I kept Franco out figuring you knew all this already and would chime in "Franco wasn't really a fascist."

Quote:

The opinions of scholars worldwide on the matter are irrelevant.

And I'm supposed to take whose opinion, yours? Have you read the internal government memos of Mussolini's regime? Do you even speak Italian? Did you interview contemporaries, members of government, army officers, the populace in general? Till YOU can boast any of these accomplishments I will weight YOUR opinion as irrelevant on the matter when compared with people who have done just that.

Quote:

On terms of economy, even if corruption was a factor, that still doesn't change the fact that the Italian Corporatist economy was far superior to that of any other Capitalist economy.

The US and UK both had larger GDPs than Fascist Itlay. Next.

Quote:

In conclusion, it is not I: An ex-conservative and an independant thinker, that has stared politics through "ideologically shaped rose-tinted glasses", but you. There's not much point in trying to discuss the matter with someone who wants to beleive rather than seeks proof.

Rote memorization of neo-fascist propaganda websites and dismissive attitudes such as "The opinions of scholars worldwide on the matter are irrelevant" isn't being convinced by the perponderance of evidence. It smacks of teenage rebellion and petulence. Nobody is ever going to "prove" to you that fascism is an inferior form of governance because you won't weigh the cases for and against by equal standards of proof. Your desire for fascism to beat all creates an uncrossable hurdle for even the most blatant proof. It's as simple as that.  

[Garrett31212]

1) You seem to be under the false impression that I'm trying to convince you that Fascism is right, instead of trying to debate with you over it's successes. I'm not trying to live up to your expectations for a government.

2) Yes, but it is not "one-man absolutist rule" that brings these systems down. There are many different factors at hand.

3) Economy. Proportionate. Next.

4) That's exactly what a neoconservative would say. You speak of Fascism as though it is a complete failure, but you fail to see that your own values don't work either (as though Fascism was a failure).  

[Rainbowfied Mouse]

4) No form of government will ever be perfect... so we have to go with the best form. Unfortunately a government is always run/represented by people, some of these people are always corrupt, unless we had a form of speedy direct democracy, then I think we'd get closer. Unfortunately I think you're making it seem like Fascism is a much better answer than other forms of government, rather than viewing it's ideology as to how it would affect the people, you're viewing as it would affect the group. Societies like that have next-to-always failed throughout most of our history. Am I saying it's impossible to have societies to exist like that, no, but let's look at the big picture, the Rule of Law has provided people with a way to pursuit civil happiness, and allow utilitarianism to run throughout societies indirectly. Look how much America has changed since it's creation, even in the past 50years, so much more things that we take for granted as rights have been given, whereas countries that look at the whole society (eg; China, Cuba) have been slower to allow a happy people (though they are communist, I'm referring to the principal of individualism vs. collectivism.) Even so the Fascist movement is Authoritarian, meaning ruled by a single party, just as communist societies are, which prevents the movement of people to show their wanting. Single-party systems disallow the motion of the people to petition their wanting, especially considering that some protest movements could result in domestic violence between the police force and citizens. Do you truly believe that African-American rights would have been given if America were to be under Fascism before the mid 1800's?! Too many problems dealing with individualism and collectivism occur in these authoritarian societies, such as fascism, books can give us a good example, and in fact have predicted such events.

1984 - Shows a society where people are monitored strictly, example of similarity would be China
Anthem - Shows a society where things are slowly done, and new ideas slow to come
Fahrenheit 451 - Society that monitors how people are allowed to show ideas, and prevents anything that would disrupt government through indirect things.