What is a fascist?

[Drake]

fascist aye?

Funny
As
Somebodys
Cat
I
Saw
Tuesday

The drake is confused as to why people want to put such stock into the definition of a 7 letter word....just seams logical to me that if the word is use and not ment offensively then it shouldn't be taken as such....and if it is ment to be offensive then the problem is not with the definition of the word but with the relationship of the person using it and the person being called it....but thats just the way I see things...I suppose I tend to see things a bit oddly...

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Drake: fascist aye? Funny As Somebodys Cat I Saw Tuesday The drake is confused as to why people want to put such stock into the definition of a 7 letter word....just seams logical to me that if the word is use and not ment offensively then it shouldn't be taken as such....and if it is ment to be offensive then the problem is not with the definition of the word but with the relationship of the person using it and the person being called it....but thats just the way I see things...I suppose I tend to see things a bit oddly...

mmmm maybe because the political system represented by those 7 letters was responsible for killing millions of people? Just a guess.

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Attalus: Actually, Yorick, I don't like your definition. Webster's says: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. That one I agree with, without all of the slanted analysis.

Even though "fascism" did start out as a "normal" though controversial ism in Italy (also see this article), the term is later on commonly applied to most revolutionary nationalist movements in the period before and during the Second World War, including nazism. And honestly, Attalus, not taking the "slanted analysis" into the proper context is in my opinion a bit narrow-minded.
The term "fascist" is a lot more loaded than the definition from your dictionary may imply, especially in Europe. Fascism had been pretty much put on par with nazism and its devestating ideologies during and after the Second World War, and even though you and your dictionary and even pre-War history books may disagree with that conclusion, experience, decades of post-War events and the Second World War itself have given fascism the loaded meaning it has now; and people in Europe often *do* use fascism and nazism as terms inextricably bound with another, whether you think that's fair or not. And even though you and other non-Europeans may think it's pretty harmless to use as a classification, it's by experience commonly taken as an insult at least as bad as, for example, "racist" here in Europe; if not worse. It's all a matter of context and experience.

[ 05-27-2003, 05:28 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Ramon de Ramon y Ramon]

Originally posted by Attalus: Actually, Yorick, I don't like your definition. Webster's says: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. That one I agree with, without all of the slanted analysis.

Would you care to elaborate where and how the encyclopedic definition you posted substantially differs from the more lengthy description posted by Yorick? And in doing so justify your perplexing assessment that the latter constituted a "slanted analysis"?

Oh, and by the way, if you want to be taken serious by anybody who recognizes the historic and political relevance and gravity of the issue at hand, you should start to acknowledge that fact yourself, for instance by refraining from using indefinitely witty and impressively "fitting" emoticons.

[Chewbacca]

Although I go by the "sticks and stone will break your bones but words can never hurt me" motto I learned when I was seven years old, I will now on refer to people who would infringe on the liberty of a person or business to allow smoking if so chosen as "health dictators".

Does that work? I usually don't resort to labels, but if a bird quacks, it's probably a duck.

I do this out of sympathy for people who are offended by using the words "facist" or "nazi" as a descriptive metaphor for person who thinks their point of veiw is the only correct POV without compromise.

I realize that although WW2 has been over for more than 50 years and these terms have been used metaphorically since I can recalll, that some people are still hurt by the memories they conjure and despise the ideals they represent.

At the end of the day though, it is just a metaphor, the context of the word more than a rigid dictionary definition.

Peace.

[ 05-27-2003, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Grojlach: Even though "fascism" did start out as a "normal" though controversial ism in Italy (also see this article), the term is later on commonly applied to most revolutionary nationalist movements in the period before and during the Second World War, including nazism. And honestly, Attalus, not taking the "slanted analysis" into the proper context is in my opinion a bit narrow-minded. The term "fascist" is a lot more loaded than the definition from your dictionary may imply, especially in Europe. Fascism had been pretty much put on par with nazism during and after the Second World War, and even though you and your dictionary and even pre-War history books may disagree with that conclusion, and even though in the most technical of definitions there's a truth in your words, experience, decades of post-War events and the Second World War itself have given fascism the loaded meaning it has now;

I gotta side with Attalus here. Fascism is a *type* of government. Nazism is a *regime.* Extrapolating the bad connotations of one regime onto the general governmental category to which it belongs leads to the narrowing of the mind, not an expanding of it as you suggest.

For instance, all terrorist states have had Muslim fundamentalist governments. All terrorists have been fundamentalists. However, not all Muslim fundamentalists are terrorists. And, not all fundamentalist states support terrorism. We hope. So, in our current thinking, we attack the particular terrorist, not all fundamentalist regimes. Now, equating all fundamentalists with those "bad example" terrorists states is exactly what the extreme right wants to do in this country. It is a prejudicial knee-jerk reaction born of a narrow mind. Unless we decide fundamentalism itself is an evil. Then we go to war with a LOT of countries.

Theoretically, fascism could exist as a workable governmental form. To equate it with Nazism pretends to preclude this, which is a fallacy.

As I said, I have willingly hung up the term Nazi from my IWF vocabulary. However, I have yet to be given a real reason to hang up the term fascist.

Simply put, there is nothing wrong with using a word rightly, by its definition.

[ 05-27-2003, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Grojlach]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Simply put, there is nothing wrong with using a word rightly, by its definition.

I believe I've made clear that I agree with you on this dryly definition-wise, but context- and experience-wise, I don't think it's very smart to use "fascist" at all, especially not in conversations with Europeans. The mere use of the word and the automatic association with nazism (even though technically perhaps incorrect, but it has simply grown that way over the years - blame "naive" use of language if you want) make it a rather painful insult.
Don't be surprised when people lose respect for you and when your possibly well-made points lose all of their merit and get ignored by the mere use of "fascist" in it - nitpicking about definitions won't always help you from being tagged as a troll because of its use, and a classification like "fascist" *does* tend to end up being taken the "wrong" way.

And out of curiosity - you know now that a lot of people take "fascist" as a pretty harsh insult, whether you think they should feel insulted or not. Would that stop you from using it, even if it's only on Ironworks, if we ask you nicely not to use it?

[ 05-27-2003, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[FelixJaeger]

Erm I dont really think Fascism is even present that much anymore, I believe most political systems are more in the favour of Fascism than they would like to admit, Racial differences or Religion and such are used as excuses for war as much as 'disarmament' of other countries.
I think calling people it is just for when yoru argument is stronger than theirs and they are too stubborn to fold and say that you're right.

I totally back this idea Yorick, I cannot say I have called anyone Fascist on this board.

Heil Yorick!

J.W.K

p.s. Only joking.

[Timber Loftis]

I don't know Grojlach. Thank for asking, though. [img]smile.gif[/img] I'm still looking for appropriate words for two types of instances (that are VERY related) as I mentioned on p.1. I just can't think of something better to tag someone who has picked a position and become entrenched despite all logic. Or someone who argues just to hammer their point home again and again and again and not to educate themselves or expand their view.

Here's when the term comes to mind: when someone yells, with spittle blowing heavily, "THERE CAN BE NO COMPROMISE." Hitler said that, btw, or at least the Hitler movie I saw recently (Hitler: The Rise of Evil) attributed it to him.

Plus, to be completely blunt, my arguing style makes use of insults when I feel it's appropriate. In certain circumstances, the fact it is an insult is a *plus* rather than a *minus.* And, someone with a doggedly-entrenched, beyond-reason, beyond-compromise viewpoint is the perfect target to toss an insult at. I mean, let's be real, when someone won't argue/discuss sensibly, what else is there but name-calling? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

But, after this thread I'll certainly use it less. Mainly because I've "outed" myself so my intentions for using the word will be more obvious in the future. Plus, I promise not to use it against you ... ever.

I still hold that we should be working to educate the world on the correct use of this term rather than convince the world of a new definition that bars its use. The governmental form still exists, and we are forced to rename it if we 86 the use of the word defining it.

And, as we've discussed before, I feel the same about the word "niggard."

It occurs to me that it is a failing on my part if I let someone else's ignorance influence my behavior. Plus, is it really "considerate" at all to allow their ignorance to remain and flourish? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Ramon de Ramon y Ramon: Would you care to elaborate where and how the encyclopedic definition you posted substantially differs from the more lengthy description posted by Yorick? And in doing so justify your perplexing assessment that the latter constituted a "slanted analysis"? Oh, and by the way, if you want to be taken serious by anybody who recognizes the historic and political relevance and gravity of the issue at hand, you should start to acknowledge that fact yourself, for instance by refraining from using indefinitely witty and impressively "fitting" emoticons.

Actually, the only emoticon that I used was the "eyebrow-raised" one, and if you don't like it, well, too bad. I am perfectly serious, here. The objection that I have to misusing emotionally freighted terms is that once the misusage grows, all original meaning is lost and it becomes mere common abuse.

Originally quoted by Yorick:Fascism has a complex relationship with established elites and the non-fascist right. It is never a mere puppet of the ruling class, but an autonomous movement with its own social base. In practice, fascism defends capitalism against instability and the left, but also pursues an agenda that sometimes clashes with capitalist interests in significant ways. There has been much cooperation, competition, and interaction between fascism and other sections of the right, producing various hybrid movements and regimes."

That is the part I object to, as it carries the term without proof forward into the present day into areas that it was not meant to. Fascism did not "cooperate" with Capitalism, it replaced it.

[ 05-27-2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: Attalus ]