It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Definition of Fascism -- Who What Where and How they reDefined it

page: 5
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 10:07 AM
a reply to: Bluntone22

"Fascism /ˈfæʃɪzəm/ is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."

Correct. Not many people get what fascism actually is -- the term is used incorrectly all the time, and has nothing to do with liberal or conservative values.

Fascism is simply the idea of all people pulling together in one direction (being forced in one direction) to multiply strength and power. Many people think the term first originated from the latin word "fasces", which is just a bundle of sticks tied together to make them strong.

Wearing uniforms, following orders, supporting the common effort, standing together, promoting team work and patriotic thought -- these are all fascist ideas. All countries are imbued with some fascistic thought (yes, the USA in particular, such as the phrase "United We Stand", for example.)

The good thing about fascism is that it can get a lot done for the common good.

The bad thing about fascism is that is can do immense damage, at the same time destroying human liberty and freedom of thought and action, and in general running everyone and everything to doom and destruction, like lemmings going over a cliff together.

Another bad thing about fascism (even when working towards the benevolent and common good) is that it makes for a very brittle system. Although there exists a lot of strength in fascism, when a fascistic system breaks, everything breaks at once. Like a bundle of sticks, it is very strong, but when it breaks you have broken all the sticks holding things together.

Really, this intrinsic brittle nature of fascism, is why the Allies could totally break the Axis powers in WW2 -- the Nazis created a very strong but brittle form of government. That is how we could break NK for example (where NK exemplifies one of the most fascistic states that may be theoretically possible.)

The opposite of fascism would probably be "diversity" -- not as strong as fascism, but extremely enduring and hard to break, and IMO a lot more fun to live with, and FWIW, what I think is a much better mode of existence for everyone. To be clear, I hate Fascism -- I am just explaining how a lot of people don't really know what that word means.

posted on Aug, 12 2017 @ 12:20 PM
a reply to: Asktheanimals

That is like saying "American Patriotism" used to mean Loving the USA.
"American Patriotism" can also be Ultra-Globalist (USA as world leader)
This is how "American Patriots" can be fascist as they are the tools of the Globalists.
Liberating nations, spreading democracy, imposing their history, destroying traditional norms and morals.

See how reDefining works?

posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 09:01 AM
a reply to: PassiveInductor

A similar definition to yours, from Webster's New Riverside: A philosophy or governmental system marked by stringent socioeconomic control, a strong central government usually headed by a dictator, and often a belligerently nationalistic policy.

2) Oppressive, dictatorial control.

posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 07:40 PM
a reply to: PublicOpinion

Thanks I'd not looked at it from the

Saxe-Coburg and Gotha
angle. The Fourth Reich is alive and well in disguise

posted on Aug, 13 2017 @ 08:15 PM
A lot of people here seem to be missing the point, leftists are genrally collectivists and rights generally individualists.

Being a classical liberal was much like being a libertarian today as I understand it, some might consider themselves fiscally con servative (small government) and socially liberal (individual freedoms, self reliance etc)

The disturbing thing about antifa and the neo Nazis is they don't seem to understand that extremes of the political spectrum always leads to either horrible collectivism like communism (which has probably killed more people than Nazism but I'd have to check) or extreme anarchy where corporations run amok over civil rights and the environment etc.

There has to be a balance of both ideologies for success this is why we have the opposing party voting on legislation, to temper any "full retard" laws. The left and the right need each other to keep the balance. But try explaining that to any antifa they are scary because they will not engage in dialogue or reason from my experience.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:01 AM

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: xuenchen

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." Benito Mussolini

Lobbyist control the politicians. CEOs own the lobbyists. Corporations ARE the government!

Did you know that Marxism also aims at giving total monopoly to "cooperatives"? of course, with the state having total control of these cooperatives. Cooperatives are a form of corporations. They both aim to centralize all power. Centralization of power is something the left has always, and to this day continues to demand.
edit on 14-8-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add and correct comment.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:05 AM

originally posted by: Hazardous1408
I mean... if you're not a fascist, why do you care?

Silly humans.

...Because the left keeps on trying to claim that fascism is right-wing when it has always been another left-wing ideology. The left also uses propaganda claiming "the right is fascist".

In your opinion if the left are using defamation of character as a tool with nothing but lies people who lean to the right have to be silent about it instead of denying such lies?...

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 01:14 AM

originally posted by: introvert

D'Sousa needs to get his facts straight.

Mussolini was kicked out of the Italian Socialist Party and switched his ideologies away from socialism, and Hitler hated socialists. The Nazis fought against them on the streets and the socialists hated National Socialism.

Stalin hated Lenin, some people even say that Stalin ordered the death of Lenin. Not to mention that Trotsky himself wrote that Stalin wanted him dead, and after many tries Stalin was able to murder Trotsky...

If you look at the history of "socialist/communist/revolutionaries" you will find that those who wanted power would fight amongst each other, and would kill each other. if those in power saw that the common folk loved another figure, like in Cuba with Camilo Sesto, figures in power like fidel castro would order for their deaths.

fidel castro ordered the death of many socialists because they complained that fidel was allowing too many communists into the revolution.

Because socialists have turned against other socialists, or because communists have turned and fought other communists it does not make any of them any less "socialist or communist"...

edit on 14-8-2017 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 07:42 AM

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
If you look at the history of "socialist/communist/revolutionaries" you will find that those who wanted power would fight amongst each other, and would kill each other.

The irony, I'm sure, is lost on you.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:41 AM
Facist, racist, ...
Name caling is so much easier than inteligent argumentation.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 08:56 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

If you are so wrapped up in the definition then you really need to listen to Benito.

But to label it as left or right is useless as it simply does not fit, and a political system by no means needs to be easily defined as either.

Just another crappy piece of hackery to do so, and characterising Fascism as generally accepted as left is utter bollocks too as we all know, yourself included. Hence this thread.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 09:28 AM
a reply to: xuenchen

We are ALL genuine authorities over our own opinions.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 09:30 AM
a reply to: skalla


Benito is the best source ever !!

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 09:31 AM
a reply to: theultimatebelgianjoke

Your post is like saying you must tolerate intolerance or you are intolerant argument.

People use labels so they can scapegoat groups of people and treat them without human rights because they are not humans. They are the scapegoat label they are given.
edit on 14-8-2017 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 09:38 AM
a reply to: dfnj2015

When the argumentation is made of name-calling, there is no debate anymore ...
Is not about tolerant or intolerant, it is about ackowledging that people may have different views than yours.

posted on Aug, 14 2017 @ 10:31 AM

originally posted by: xuenchen
Benito is the best source ever!!

He is the one who put it into effect.

That is like saying Marx is not the best source on Marxism.

top topics

<< 2  3  4   >>

log in