Who are the fascists?

[wickedsolo]

Sorry for that tangent, but it does seem the left is the more authoritarian side of the political spectrum. I think that's a better term to describe it.

The only thing where the right comes off authoritarian is with their position on abortion and gay marriage, where the left takes the individual liberty stance. Otherwise, the left wants to control what fuel you use, what speakers are allowed to visit college campuses, what people get access to the vast infrastructure of Twitter, Google, YouTube, Facebook, what guns you're allowed to own, what you choose to wear on your face or not, what pronouns you're supposed to say, etc. They also have the institutional power to enforce it, while the right doesn't, which makes them more dangerous. And worst of all, they're convinced they're doing the right thing, so they are largely incapable of being convinced their tyranny is a bad thing.

Abortion, sure. However gay marriage? Is that even a thing anymore? Gay marriage was so 2005.

[FadeToBlack]

Not a fan of drag queens or things similar, but that's not the type of society I want to live in so I'll pass.

The point is they would be allowed to flee. You wouldn't hold them hostage.

[FadeToBlack]

Fascism, Socialism, and Communism are all political ideology that is predicated on citizens working towards a "common" objective, good, goal...whatever. Your point that we don't have a "common" culture in the US is spot on. The US was built on individuality and self-reliance. Everyone is their own king and everyone's property their own kingdom.

Thus, those political and social ideologies that are built around the idea of everyone working for eachother and working towards a common objective is in diametric opposition to that of the "American" way of life - especially now.

When religion started to be replaced by political and entertainment idolatry, we lost a lot of values and morals that made us more similar than different.

If we want to get back to a place where we all can share similar core values, we have to collectively stop idolizing people like Trump, Obama, Pelosi, McConnell, Brad Pitt, Beyonce, Lebron James, etc.

This version of America contradicts itself. On one hand you admit American society values individualism, while not realizing how that same individualism will lead to people adopting more than one form of religion. In a collectivist society working toward a common good, you could have a Christian culture. In an individualist society like America, all religions are fair game for people to practice, including secularism or the worship of celebrity culture.

Also, in a society where people become their own kings, they do so through capitalism, which forms the basis for the Trumps, LeBrons, Brad Pitts, to become worshipped in this individualist society.

If you want society to become more Christian let's say, like it was in earlier periods of America, you'd need a more monolithic society of people who are like-minded, like we had in earlier periods. Communism was once blasphemous here in the U.S. but today it's welcomed by millions, just under a different brand name that makes it sound "progressive". That right there shows that the people of 2021 are much less like-minded than they were just 50 years ago.

[Vlad the lad]

I think the term "fascist" itself isn't well understood.

Fascism isn't necessarily a bad form of government, in fact if it was done right, I see it as a far superior form of government to the one we currently have. It's not like communism where people joke about "if only it was done correctly, it could work", fascism really could work. Fascism is more socialistic in the sense that all citizens are prevented from getting too rich or too poor, which would appeal to many progressives of today. People would be on an A-Z level of income where nobody goes above A and nobody falls below Z. Industries are regulated by the government to ensure they serve the good of the people (theoretically), which would destroy large multinational corporations from exploiting resources, ruining the local environment, etc. However, free markets would otherwise be tolerated, class differences would be tolerated, it would just be managed with the common good in mind and regulated. Sure there are flaws in this system too, but it's ironically a better alternative for progressives than finance capitalism where all decisions are made only to appease shareholders, to the detriment of customers, locals in the community, etc.

The big issue with fascism working in the U.S. is that there is no common culture across people of different ethnicities, religions, ideologies etc. to unify behind. No incentive to serve the greater community because there's no sense of community. Maybe "Ravens fans" could be the thing that unites people across these boundaries.

you seemed to skip over the whole "dictator" part of fascism. So who gets to be the dictator? and in a country like ours, you have two major parties, who wins? And lets say you start the system today (since we have some that appear to favor fascism in the dem leadership). Lets say we make Nancy the new dictator. how long would she have power? The dem party is made up of a bunch of small hate groups. The BLM group hate whtes and want to take over. The LGBT group wouldn't be too happy to give up the power they have. The victim group would have a hard time giving up power. and that doesn't even get into the money part of it. Do you really think all of the life time poltiians that are banking millions, are going to step aside and allow one group to appoint a new leader?

[FadeToBlack]

you seemed to skip over the whole "dictator" part of fascism. So who gets to be the dictator? and in a country like ours, you have two major parties, who wins? And lets say you start the system today (since we have some that appear to favor fascism in the dem leadership). Lets say we make Nancy the new dictator. how long would she have power? The dem party is made up of a bunch of small hate groups. The BLM group hate whtes and want to take over. The LGBT group wouldn't be too happy to give up the power they have. The victim group would have a hard time giving up power. and that doesn't even get into the money part of it. Do you really think all of the life time poltiians that are banking millions, are going to step aside and allow one group to appoint a new leader?

You're thinking of this in terms of America. I'm saying fascism can work in certain setting and America isn't one because everyone has competing ideologies. If Nancy Pelosi was a dictator in a socialist state, she could get shit done fast. She wouldn't have to work with conservatives, she'd just ban them and move on, to the cheers of millions. They could have universal healthcare, green energy and not have to go through the red tape to make it happen. Sure, it would suck if you're a conservative living there, so she gladly let's you GTFO or stick around for the abuse, either way she and everyone else is happy.

[Vlad the lad]

You're thinking of this in terms of America. I'm saying fascism can work in certain setting and America isn't one because everyone has competing ideologies. If Nancy Pelosi was a dictator in a socialist state, she could get shit done fast. She wouldn't have to work with conservatives, she'd just ban them and move on, to the cheers of millions. They could have universal healthcare, green energy and not have to go through the red tape to make it happen. Sure, it would suck if you're a conservative living there, so she gladly let's you GTFO or stick around for the abuse, either way she and everyone else is happy.

Along with alll the conservatives leaving, anyone with money would also leave. Why on earth would the many millionaires stay here, when they can more and keep 50% of their money. As the money leaves, Nancy wouldn't be getting much done.

So basically, it is a failed system that has never worked anywhere. No reason to think it would work here.

[FadeToBlack]

Along with alll the conservatives leaving, anyone with money would also leave. Why on earth would the many millionaires stay here, when they can more and keep 50% of their money. As the money leaves, Nancy wouldn't be getting much done.

So basically, it is a failed system that has never worked anywhere. No reason to think it would work here.

I. Just. Said. It. Wouldn't. Work. Here.

Fascism has worked before. We just think of it in terms of Mussolini or Hitler, and fascism wasn't what failed those societies. Fascism could work in a smaller part of our country if a homogeneous portion of society could branch off as a sovereign state.

As for people with money leaving our hypothetical Pelosi Fascist California, not necessarily. For one, she could make exceptions for Silicon Valley tycoons to keep them there. Secondly, others might pay higher taxes to get money for a high speed rail line, a green new deal, to open jail cells to throw all the conservatives in, perhaps a reality TV show on state TV showing police throwing Trumpers in jail and beating like animals to high ratings, the possibilities are endless. Lots of people would see value in that.

[wickedsolo]

This version of America contradicts itself. On one hand you admit American society values individualism, while not realizing how that same individualism will lead to people adopting more than one form of religion. In a collectivist society working toward a common good, you could have a Christian culture. In an individualist society like America, all religions are fair game for people to practice, including secularism or the worship of celebrity culture.

Also, in a society where people become their own kings, they do so through capitalism, which forms the basis for the Trumps, LeBrons, Brad Pitts, to become worshipped in this individualist society.

If you want society to become more Christian let's say, like it was in earlier periods of America, you'd need a more monolithic society of people who are like-minded, like we had in earlier periods. Communism was once blasphemous here in the U.S. but today it's welcomed by millions, just under a different brand name that makes it sound "progressive". That right there shows that the people of 2021 are much less like-minded than they were just 50 years ago.

I don't want society to become "more Christian". What I am suggesting is that when we were more Christian as a society, we all had more of an interest in sharing the same ideals set forth by Christ, the Bible, etc.

Now, we just simply don't share a lot of the same values anymore.

Things like free speech, right to assembly, right to defend yourself, and right to privacy shouldn't be controversial items. But they are - and a lot of that is because we have grown into a position of idolizing politicians and celebrities; people that generally don't care or aren't impacted by the outcomes of such controversial debates because they are wealthy and powerful.

[darb72]

I. Just. Said. It. Wouldn't. Work. Here.

Fascism has worked before. We just think of it in terms of Mussolini or Hitler, and fascism wasn't what failed those societies. Fascism could work in a smaller part of our country if a homogeneous portion of society could branch off as a sovereign state.

As for people with money leaving our hypothetical Pelosi Fascist California, not necessarily. For one, she could make exceptions for Silicon Valley tycoons to keep them there. Secondly, others might pay higher taxes to get money for a high speed rail line, a green new deal, to open jail cells to throw all the conservatives in, perhaps a reality TV show on state TV showing police throwing Trumpers in jail and beating like animals to high ratings, the possibilities are endless. Lots of people would see value in that.

Eh, I don't think it'd work anywhere because the longest it seems to have lasted was in Portugal.

Being a huge fan of Terry Pratchett, I've seen fascism work in fiction. The Patrician of Ankh-Morpork, Vetinari, rules through fear and the fact everything runs smoothly. But again, it's fiction.

Very small groups of around a hundred very well could prosper under fascism. Beyond that, human nature takes over.

I will agree that the idea of one ruler being a viable option has some historical support. There have been numerous competent monarchs throughout England's history. The counter-argument to that is that while the British people generally love the royal family, they have been largely removed from the political sphere because of some truly horrible monarchs.