FBXL Social

>Any ideology that bars people from ... holding office based on their beliefs alone will bleed into fascism given enough time and power.
Don't you think a political system that doesn't bar people from holding office who hold fascist beliefs will become fascist faster?

What are the others?

What's your definition of fascism?

Because I didn't realise it just meant "when you don't have perfectly pure democracy"

Couldn't you separate all that from the core belief of wanting a nationalist form of socialism?

The dictionaries (plural) have many definitions, the first in that link being basically a bunch of different and logically separable things lumped together.

My (and I think Ned's) point was that the Nazi party had a specific economic ideology that is logically separable from the murderous and socially authoritarian parts, and we should judge each part separately.

What if they do?
Isn't it better to sacrifice some democracy to gain better protection against genocide and loss of liberty? Because I think life and liberty are definitely more important than democracy.

The first link is entirely my opinion though IIRC. The fact that someone else happened to think of it (or hear of it) separately is irrelevant. Pointing to his expression of it is much faster than writing an entire essay myself.

How? I'm talking specifically about barring such people from office, not preventing them from speaking.

But he was against all three.

Which ideas are those?

For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

Corporatism does not refer to a political system dominated by large business interests, even though the latter are commonly referred to as “corporations” in modern American vernacular and legal parlance; instead, the correct term for this theoretical system would be corporatocracy. Corporatism is not government corruption in politics or the use of bribery by corporate interest groups. The terms ‘corporatocracy’ and ‘corporatism’ are often confused due to their name and the use of corporations as organs of the state.

I'm still not sure whether @ent and/or other people in this thread fell for that misconception or not.

How would it take liberty away though?
Being able to choose a leader to force their (and by proxy, your) views on people is power, not liberty. Liberty is control over your own life, not the lives of others.

I think you're confusing two very different things: 1) people discussing politics and coming to agreement on something and 2) actually executing it and implementing it politically.
#1 should almost always be allowed for the sake of liberty (except possibly when it comes to genocide; but that's an aside). And regardless, #2 I think is acceptable to regulate because it's about the internals of the government.

The view in question would be fascism.

If I or someone else try to execute my view that you should die by attacking you, I think you are justified in self-defense, don’t you?

I don’t think that contradicts the general principle of liberty.

Likewise if a political movement decides that your kind should die or otherwise be oppressed.

I mean that if someone tries to force their view (their view being fascism) on the public, we are entitled to self-defense; by political processes if possible, but without if necessary.
replies
1
announces
0
likes
0

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism

fas·cism (făsh′ĭz′əm) n. 1a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

(Emphasis mine)

I still don’t think having a perfect democracy is worth allowing that to happen.

To be clear, I’m not in favour of suppressing fascist beliefs. Just not allowing them to have power.

Democracy isn't individualistic.

>Fascism has two components to be fascism.. 1) it must be autocratic, as meaning there is an absolute authority that cant be challenged (this may be a dictator but may take other forms)
>...
>If you enact a system of government where there there is no democratic process allowed to choose what is or is not fascist, and express that through vote, then it is autocratic in nature as it is an absolutely authority not expressed through vote
Huh?
How is a feature of a political system that doesn't allow certain political parties to have power an "absolute authority"? What do you mean by that? When I think of an "autocracy" or an "absolute authority that can't be challenged", I think of a dictatorship or other form of strong government. "Can't be challenged" to me also implies some kind of suppression of speech challenging it, which I am not implying at all.

>so they sound like they would rather people just never use that word again unless maybe in reference to Mussolini specifically.
I think that's a good idea. Let's do that.

I mean, we certainly can't agree on a definition in this thread, nor (I've noticed) anywhere.

The point I was making to @freemo was that if a candidate or party want to do sufficiently bad things (such as killing people, or preventing people from having opinions, among other things) I don’t think they should be allowed to have that power, regardless of how many other people want them to have that power, because that would be the majority oppressing and/or killing (albeit indirectly) the minority.

However, they are still allowed to hold those opinions, I just don’t think they should be trusted with power.

I don’t really care what you call it.

That's interesting. I don't live in the US so I don't know how it works there. To be fair, I don't know exactly how everything works here in the UK either. I guess I have picked up some ideas here and there from reading stuff; some right, some wrong.

I wish my school had taught civics now.

I guess it would be more necessary to do that in a country that works differently to how @volkris described.