Fascistoid subjects of the world

[hellheaven1987]

Fascism is best described as Neo-Roman Principate system, at least that was what Mussolini tried to do; so you can argue Fascism already existed in ancient time, merely evolve to catch the social development.

[DaVinci]

Fascism is nationalist authoritarianism. It is specifically related to the political ideologies of Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Since the term is frequently used thoughtlessly and out of context, I should like to offer the following contentions:

a) Any movement or person(s) committed to democracy cannot be fascist.
b) Radical Islamism is not founded on nationalism and cannot, therefore, be fascist.
c) Authoritarianism does not necessarily denote fascism (absolute monarchism was authoritarian but not fascist).
d) Left wing politics are a constituent element of fascism insofar as fascism peruses egalitarian solutions for the "in-group" (National Socialism).
e) Racism, xenophobia and bigotry do not necessarily denote fascism (each existed prior to fascism).

With post #3 to #5, we had the point under a). You might still reply to my comments there, if you like.
In regard of the apparent inseparable element "totalitarianism", i like to point also to Hannah Ahrendt, who defined the complex based on this aspect, while she didn't even use the term "Fascism" in her work, iirc.. Probably, as her focus has been the analysis of the Hitler's NS and Stalin's soviet regime, and Fascism as term has been related to Mussolini's Italy by Ahrendt.

I'll go on in this and/or further posts with b) - e). Continues (as soon as i have/take the time).

I make here still a note about the first and second sentence "Fascism is .... It is specifically ... ."
This expressed statement derives from the classical historical trial for the definition-finding of or for the term "Fascism" post WW2, that's right, as these three regimes were that "popular" and "present".
The thread is not exclusively about this theory and/or definition finding on this base, the OP makes that obvious.
The term "Fascism" or "fascist" is also with intention not used in the title nor in the OP as core-point terms.
Nonetheless, i will go with this direction of replies which goes around "Fascism", as of course, the todays fascistoid movements have something to do with the core-element/s or the term and definition/s, "Fascism".

And once more, taken from post #3

In case, the term "Fascism" and "fascistoid" leads to nothing here in this thread, but a riding-debate about the term(s), just quasi replace it with "right-radical", "right-extremist", "right-radicalism", "right-extremism" - if these terms suit some better.

@ hellheaven1987

You have a point, indeed Mussolini, as the "father" of (at the time modern) Fascism, if one wants so, didn't see Nationalism as necessary element of his doctrine, not Nationalism as we understand it. He embraces the "state" as the core of the focus with totalitarian approach, not limited to a country with native countrymen as the focus as fe. Hitler's approach was, within his NS just even the pseudo-science justification with race, namely the Germanic human, the Arian, who settled somehow in German lands. Entirely different approaches. While, as Hitler was impressed by Mussolini's doctrine, he copied/incorperated elements into the NS.

And this links fe. to epicfails no. b) in the regard of "Nationalism is inseparable from Fascism" or as he notes there "is not founded on nationalism and cannot, therefore, be fascist."
Or, as i planned the thread originally, from fascistoid subjects and movements.


Possibly it's high time to define "fascistoid" for all: The Fascism-similar properties, partial elements of Fascism or of fascist properties.
No, fascistoid and fascist is not the same. Fascism and fascistoid properties are not the same.

[athanaric]

I don't know what corpus of marxist pedagogy led you to hold early 20th century socialists in such high esteem, but there is simply no evidence of dangerously anti-democratic movements in Western Europe. Those fascistoid parties are in fact almost exclusively supported by this small percentage of "special cases", as you put it. The AfD for example practically played no role in the recent electoral behaviour of poor uneducated people, they almost always vote NPD (basically neonazist party), communists (MLPD) and socialists (Die Linke). I can source this in German on request (if i see more than prim and priggish drivel as answers).

Please do. More facts are always welcome.

[hellheaven1987]

You have a point, indeed Mussolini, as the "father" of (at the time modern) Fascism, if one wants so, didn't see Nationalism as necessary element of his doctrine, not Nationalism as we understand it. He embraces the "state" as the core of the focus with totalitarian approach, not limited to a country with native countrymen as the focus

Because Mussolini, just like ancient Roman, believed in cultural supremacy. The ancient Greek/Roman did not deny the fact that there were many different cultures and some might be interested, but ultimately the only one on top food chain was their own culture. However, since culture was not given at birth, ancient Roman/Mussolini also believed that people of less culture could see the light and "convert" to the better - in other words, everyone could be a Roman/Italian by choice. Hence, there was no need to put other less cultural group into death camp, as one day they would simply convert to the superior culture (therefore the lenient attitude towards race).

It is notable that cultural supremacy is not a new idea and French did try that before during 18th and 19th Century (CONVERT EVERYONE INTO FRENCH!!!). Oh and how can we forget about Chinese, who keeps boasting how they "assimilated" many less races into Chinese, and still plays the main role in modern Chinese policy (hence I always argue PRC is the true successor of Neo-Fascism).

[DaVinci]

Good input, hellheaven1987.

It makes a further reply to epicfails no. b) obsolet. And radical Islamism or as i called it, Islam-Fascism, was carried anyway as a theme by me, for another separate thread.
Epicfail is of course free to elaborate his point b), and i know anyway what he meant, but his approach there is just wrong.

I will now continue with his point

c) Authoritarianism does not necessarily denote fascism (absolute monarchism was authoritarian but not fascist).

A "self-go'er". Of course right. Not of much relevance.
One could just, if one wants so, trying to find out, if and where are there some elements in Monarchism (and for the matter in other pre-20th c. systems), which have to do with the Fascism-complex. Later perhaps (fe. hellheaven1987 striped the theme already with his link to the Roman Empire).

Point

d) Left wing politics are a constituent element of fascism insofar as fascism peruses egalitarian solutions for the "in-group" (National Socialism).

is interesting, of course. I think, that theme can fill books. I won't reject his notion in whole. The point (behind that) is actually complex.

Just a note with citation: "Left wing politics are ... (National Socialism)" ... kinda contrary orientations ... i hope there is awareness, that National-Socialism, and note the "-" ... not two words, it is one, example in German, it is called originally: Nationalsozialismus ... is an antithesis of Socialism, as the classical political philosophy (Marxism at least) understands Socialism with an inseparable core-element: Internationalism. Plus the core-element, the means of production are not (entirely) private owned (so far i know, there wasn't any nationalisation of private production ownership, in reality, the industrial leaders went into corporation/partnership with the NS leadership).

The ones who know enough of the real NS of the 3rd Reich know also, that the focus of that kind of Fascism was the national way, the "Volk", in this very relation, the germanic Volk embraced as "holy" and thus shall deserve the best of everything and rule about all other, one can twist this to interprete a little bit of socialism, but hard thing. The in fact socialist/social-democratic elements within the NS-time has been copied directly from the structures and ongoing undertakings of and within the Weimar Republic. There was no socialist revolution or anything like that which would parallel the social revolutionary theories, that came with the NS. Insofar, that epicfail's note sounds like almost National Socialism = Socialism or that "left politics is constituent", i reject the thesis of epicfail as wrong. There is a link but: The SA (Sturmabteilung), which derived from original parts of the German (far right wing) worker parties/groups, which was then but destroyed/murdered already 1934 by the NS leadership via the SS (Schutzstaffel) directly ordered by Hitler along quasi "kill the revolutionary scum".

While it is known, that some also (until today) see not much of a difference between Socialism and National-Socialism (or originally: Nationalsozialismus), i think that idea is quite popular in the US, and it is utterly absurd (for the lack of a better adjective).

That said, one can go further to indeed lookout, which partial elements of Fascism can be found within left politics. Maybe, one should make first the effort to define "left politics" prior to continuation. I would like to ask epicfail what he sees under this term.

While that above most likely remains as pretty controverse theme, his point

e) Racism, xenophobia and bigotry do not necessarily denote fascism (each existed prior to fascism).

can be taken as a given. Just like point c), also here one can investigate, in how far these already existing elements "prepared" those as just so-called fascist elements in the 20th c. or as increments as fascistoid, in way motives, until today.

In summary, it was shown by me, that the by epicfail mentioned contentions are either wrong or not that easy to clarify and/or cannot be maintained as irrefutable, besides that there are apparent agreements, esp. with the obvious ones. However, feel free to lay out your interpretations to my commentations.

[ioannis76]

Not really sure how it is related to the topic, but Kemal Atatürk's regime was an authoritarian one, which very often repressed the democratic rights of the Turkish citizens. Despite its statism, despotism and anti-clericalism, I wouldn't describe it as a fascist, an ideology Atatürk himself harshly condemned, due to the short instances of party-pluralism, the complete absence of militarist elements in the administrative structure and the fact that his goal concerning religious and ethnic minorities was the opposite to that of fascism or nazism. The constitution guaranteed everyone's equality, in front of the law, regardless of ethnicity or religion, while the government consistently tried to assimilate the remaining minorities, not to exclude them from society. The massacres following the failed, Kurdish reactionary uprisings, which despised the ongoing modernization, were the result of an undisciplined army, not of a policy orientated towards racial purity, especially given that the notions of expansionism and Turanism were also rejected.
Only a nationalist, whose hierarchy of priorities would prefer the artificial concept of nationhood to that humanity and democracy, would deny the early Turkish establishment's shortcomings, only due to its founder's crucial contributions towards Turkey's independence and prosperity. Which is exactly what you did, when you defended the fascist regime of Metaxas. To come closer to the topic, it is apparent that far-right extremism is capable of excusing the abolition of the society's right to elect its representatives or the great variety of tortures committed by the authorities upon dissidents, who definitely greatly appreciated these fancy, new uniforms, based on irrelevant matters about the determination of fascism (neither was Mussolini's Italy antisemitic), the clear forgery of historical reality (the Metaxas regime being the first to defeat the Axis powers) and, most importantly and the glorification of morally reprehensible and scientifically untrue principles, like militarization, nationalism, human inequality an the existence of races in homo sapiens, respectively.

You speak of a great variety of tortures, yet the link you provided speaks of "imprisoning hundreds of its members". Of course you neglect that communist party members at the time were facing prosecutions pretty much everywhere in the West, but that is ok.

the fact that his goal concerning religious and ethnic minorities was the opposite to that of fascism or nazism.

A preposterous claim given the Armenian and Greek genocides.
http://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.html

http://www.greek-genocide.net/index....-kemal-ataturk

The New York Times, 14 June 1922.

Regarding Kemal's relation to nationalism:

Kemal was an officer of the Turkish Army and founded the Turkish Nationalist Movement (the Kemalists)

To put this all down to "undisciplined troops" is a clear mockery of the victims, but understandable, if you are writing from a turkish IP (I understand that it is against turkish law to criticize Mustafa Kemal).

So, on the one hand we have a regime with genocides (Hitler himself claimed to have been inspired by Mustafa Kemal, I can bring evidence if you request it), and on the other hand a regime with imprisonments (I will accept that there must have been tortures as well) of dissidents (pretty much standard practice in the West at the time AND later (McCarthy era, for example)), as well as achievements such as the first victories over the Axis (Churchill's admission), and the "dangerous bad guys" (to simplify it) are those of the second regime. Interesting.

who definitely greatly appreciated these fancy, new uniforms

Good God, I was not referring to military uniforms, if you were talking about my previous post here, I was referring to uniforms for the workers. Until then, workers had to use their own clothes, which, when suffering wear and tear, would cost the workers money to either mend or replace them. It may sound like an insignificant cost today, but at the time it wasn't (we are talking about people who did manual work).

Regarding relevance to topic, I do believe that it is worth looking into the deeper root of fascism.

[Abdülmecid I]

You speak of a great variety of tortures, yet the link you provided speaks of "imprisoning hundreds of its members". Of course you neglect that communist party members at the time were facing prosecutions pretty much everywhere in the West, but that is ok.

Denial, again and again, despite overwhelming evidence, which includes torturing of every political dissident and the oppression of ethnic minorities. Given all the undeniable fascist elements of the regime, from the apotheosis of the Leader to the militarized youth, whose is symbol is, by the way, the fasces, I don't think there's any real point debating whether the regime of Metaxas was fascist or not, but what matters is what encourages modern men to admire such a tyranny, although that dictatorship was doubtlessly responsible for hurting their own interests and stomping their human rights.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/kemal.html

http://www.greek-genocide.net/index....-kemal-ataturk

These sites are not exactly the epitomy of objectivity, but the thread's topic is not the crimes committed by the Ottomans. Which also means that you missed the point. The vast majority of the suffering of Armenians, Greeks and all the other Anatolians took place during WWI, not during the presidency of Atatürk, which by definition could begin only after the victorious outcome of the Independence War, which ended in 1922. To put it simply, their claims are irrelevant.

So, on the one hand we have a regime with genocides (Hitler himself claimed to have been inspired by Mustafa Kemal, I can bring evidence if you request it), and on the other hand a regime with imprisonments (I will accept that there must have been tortures as well) of dissidents (pretty much standard practice in the West at the time AND later (McCarthy era, for example)), as well as achievements such as the first victories over the Axis (Churchill's admission), and the "dangerous bad guys" (to simplify it) are those of the second regime. Interesting.

I am sorry, but I never started that awkward competition between Atatürk and Metaxas, which is nothing but whataboutism, whose purpose is to distract the reader's attention from the controversial support of an openly fascist regime. Regardless of how blood-thirsty the Turkish pre-WWII government was, the fact remains that Metaxas established a fascist state, especially given the fact that I have already clearly condemned Atatürk's methods, which means that your attempt to paint my criteria as hypocritical and biased has been proven fruitless, thus far. Imaginary historical records, apocryphal quotes, similar human rights abuses in the rest of Europe (but not all) and nice, trendy uniforms for your factory soirée (but not if you were Slavophone or communist, then you would spend your days and nights at the police department, having your feet whipped by the National Security) do not change the simple fact that claiming that fascism is dead, while simultaneously cheering for a notably brutal fascist regime of the past is self-contradictory.
EDIT: Your claim about Hitler copying Atatürk for his genocidal plans has already been proven misleading numerous times, so I am not really certain why you insist on repeating it indefinitely. It is nothing more than the fallacy of being guilt by association. Hitler was referring to the victorious outcome of the Independence War, the restoration of Turkish borders, the Allied powers with imperialist designs being expelled by Anatolia and the nullification of the Treaty of Sèvres, as the path for Germany to follow, after her humiliation at Versailles. Nothing to do with Nazism, I am afraid. It is like pretending that ancient Greeks were Nazis, since the Nazi party used to admire them, too. Completely preposterous.

[Kyriakos]

Nice apologetic for kemalism and his genocides. The ever so faint "condemning" of his "shortcomings" is particularly saddening, imo. Sometimes i think this forum should just not walk into such issues, cause they offer nothing, yet do reveal a lot better left below the surface in a computer game forum.

[athanaric]

Nice apologetic for kemalism and his genocides. The ever so faint "condemning" of his "shortcomings" is particularly saddening, imo. Sometimes i think this forum should just not walk into such issues, cause they offer nothing, yet do reveal a lot better left below the surface in a computer game forum.

Many people on this planet are from the "my tribe can do no wrong, and they invented everything" school of thought. Kerdogan has even made such statements himself (claiming both points), and I guess it's also why people deny the Holocaust and any other genocide. In all fairness, many Greeks and Grecophiles on this forum also think like this (at least in the past few years).

[DaVinci]

Correct

... but the thread's topic is not the crimes committed by the Ottomans. ...

The purpose of this thread is not, to analyse in particular the gruesome crimes of the various fascist (or whatever) regimes/governments. There are already such threads, go there.
Certainly not wanted is a competition a la "my country or country's people is better than yours, because ...", which btw. (not only in my view) in itself is a sign for kinda ultra-nationalism, a trait of a fascistoid worldview.

... which is nothing but whataboutism, whose purpose is to distract the reader's attention from the controversial support of an openly fascist regime. ...

Yes, belongs to the above mentioned theme (a typical - but obvious - tactic, confused with proper argumentation).

Correct, too

Regarding relevance to topic, I do believe that it is worth looking into the deeper root of fascism.

Ioannis, as this comes from you, then why not trying this? I'm excited.


That said, as already mentioned, historical references are welcome, where they are due to make arguments more clarified and substancial.

@ All
Please don't distract the thread further, or i might feel forced to what i usually never do (never have, as of yet): Report single posts for offtopic or disruptive.
The OP and further posts make clear what the topic is about, offering the option for controverse commentation.

[ioannis76]

That said, as already mentioned, historical references are welcome, where they are due to make arguments more clarified and substancial.

I come under fire for my support of a regime. I feel obliged, in order to clarify my position, to put things in context, which very much includes historical context. It is important to give an accurate definition on what fascism is, and what it is about fascism that makes it undesirable or threatening.
You mentioned, I think, alt-right as "fascistoid". Is it, therefore a threat? Because I have heard alt-rightists being referred to as "kiddies" by more than one persons here. Are they "kiddies" or a "threat"? Because they can't very well be both.



LOL, much of the info in your link is about Metaxas's reforms. And like I said, at the time much of what the regime did was more or less acceptable, such as the anticommunist activities. It's really interesting, though, that in your text there is this conclusion:

In many respects, the administration of the police by Metaxas and Maniadakis was very successful. Reforms were effected which may be assumed to have improved its efficiency in the long term: the graduates of the new or improved colleges were, for example, to lead their organizations in late years. The regime's claims to have reduced considerably many sorts of crime have been accepted by police historians and were believed by Waterlow at the time. Some of the problems which were overcome had for many years baffled previous governments.

Admiration for a regime depends heavily on what era a regime operated. You cannot view a regime under strict modern rules. The regime of the time, achieved much for its era (such as increasing the efficiency of the police as you point out), improved the conditions for the workers, improved the economy, all of which are something much needed in today's Greece (or Europe, for that matter). It did all that, while at the same time keeping the ugliness at a minimum, IMO, compared to regimes of its own era. Sure, by today's standards, the "nastiness" level of that regime would seem cruel. If you were to compare Roman Law, for example, which accepted slavery, to modern laws, of course Roman Law would be unacceptable from a humane position. But it is still the basis upon which modern laws are set. http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/...5&context=iclr

Which brings me to the relevance between fascism and the Neoturks (and not the Ottomans).
I will use the link that you provide "Ataturk in the Nazi imagination":

This was no fading fascination. As the Nazis struggled through the 1920s, Atatürk remained Hitler’s “star in the darkness,” his inspiration for remaking Germany along nationalist, secular, totalitarian, and ethnically exclusive lines. Nor did it escape Hitler’s notice how ruthlessly Turkish governments had dealt with Armenian and Greek minorities, whom influential Nazis directly compared with German Jews. The New Turkey, or at least those aspects of it that the Nazis chose to see, became a model for Hitler’s plans and dreams in the years leading up to the invasion of Poland.

But this is exactly what I am saying, too. That much of what Hitler implemented on the Jews, was actually inspired by what Ataturk had implemented on Greeks and Armenians. Also, nationalism and totalitarianism were inspired onto Hitler, by Mustafa Kemal.
Anyway, the very link you brought on the book Ataturk in the Nazi imagination, at least in the particular link, actually makes my point for me, as the excerpt shows.

It is like pretending that ancient Greeks were Nazis, since the Nazi party used to admire them, too. Completely preposterous.

Were there practices of the ancient Greeks that inspired nazi evil practices? If so, (I don't exclude the possibility) but were the ancient Greeks of the same era as the nazis, in order to make the comparison? Because we have seen that Kemal actually inspired much of what the nazis did (eg treatment of Greeks and Armenians (your link)-treatment of Jews), and we all know that the two regimes are set pretty much in the same era (there was a 20 year difference or so), both leaders (Kemal and Hitler) were alive and adults at the same time.

Fascism is best described as Neo-Roman Principate system, at least that was what Mussolini tried to do; so you can argue Fascism already existed in ancient time, merely evolve to catch the social development.

Interesting and correct IMHO. It is interesting to note, that much of the current western civilization is actually based on the Roman Empire, much of the law is based on the Roman legal system, etc.

[Sharukinu]

Fascism is the logical answer to this rotten world order led by the degenerate Transatlantic powers. The reason why the hypocritical opponents of Fascism denounce it is because it is a threat to the status quo, and the fact that they just don't feel good about it given the violent history. They prefer indiscriminate murder to be carried out by democratic, humane, and freedom-loving drone pilots and uniformed mercenaries. It is actually this simple, sophistry notwithstanding.

[Abdülmecid I]

Ioannis, I already addressed your whataboutism, the ethnic discrimination, the political oppression, the violation of human rights, the fascism of the National Youth Organisation, the crimes and the fact that this regime co-existed with perfectly liberal democracies, like that of France, Sweden, Denmark, the US, the UK, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium and partially even Spain. The sad proliferation of fascist dictatorships which tortured their own people before WWII doesn't render any of them less fascist or despicable, in general. I suspect that we're now just debating in circles, derailing the thread with an unnecessary dick-measuring contest, so let's agree to disagree.

Nice apologetic for kemalism and his genocides. The ever so faint "condemning" of his "shortcomings" is particularly saddening, imo. Sometimes i think this forum should just not walk into such issues, cause they offer nothing, yet do reveal a lot better left below the surface in a computer game forum.

I think that it was clearly stated that neither "condemning" nor "shortcomings" could refer to events prior to 1923, so please try to read my posts more carefully, instead of blaming me for downplaying the consequences of genocides.

Fascism is the logical answer to this rotten world order led by the degenerate Transatlantic powers. The reason why the hypocritical opponents of Fascism denounce it is because it is a threat to the status quo, and the fact that they just don't feel good about it given the violent history. They prefer indiscriminate murder to be carried out by democratic, humane, and freedom-loving drone pilots and uniformed mercenaries. It is actually this simple, sophistry notwithstanding.

Again, the crimes committed by the other side do not excuse the fact that violence is openly endorsed by fascism. The reason fascism is denounced is because it goes against our modern, moral principles and offers no solution to the problems from which the lower-income masses suffer. Fascism only finds convenient scapegoats, from the communist workers and the Jewish communities to independent women and the Islamic conversion of Iran, which have nothing to do with historical reality, but are simplified enough to be easily digested by uneducated, recently disillusioned crowds desperate for easy solutions to complicated issues. After all, the most convincing argument is, in my opinion, that the majority of people admiring the fascist or nazist ideologies try really passionately to hide their beliefs, despite the undeniable evidence to the contrary and the fact that common sense dictates that someone should usually be publicly proud of his political affiliation, as long as it is not forbidden by the law. I think the reason for this paradox is they are perfectly aware that their views are unacceptable by our modern society's standards, so they are afraid of being ostracized by their fellow citizens.

[Sharukinu]

Again, the crimes committed by the other side do not excuse the fact that violence is openly endorsed by fascism.

That's not limited to fascism.

The reason fascism is denounced is because it goes against our modern, moral principles

Your "modern moral principals" are actually Western morals. Modernity as you understand it does not exist and has never existed.

and offers no solution to the problems from which the lower-income masses suffer.

Among others, National Socialist Germany before the military blunders in the USSR would disagree.

Fascism only finds convenient scapegoats, from the communist workers and the Jewish communities to independent women and the Islamic conversion of Iran, which have nothing to do with historical reality, but are simplified enough to be easily digested by uneducated, recently disillusioned crowds desperate for easy solutions to complicated issues.

Claiming that such issues have nothing to do with historical reality is simply false. What fascism typically does is identify the issue, simplify it, and smother it with popular symbolism to attract the ordinary people. National Socialism is a case in point.

After all, the most convincing argument is, in my opinion, that the majority of people admiring the fascist or nazist ideologies try really passionately to hide their beliefs, despite the undeniable evidence to the contrary and the fact that common sense dictates that someone should usually be publicly proud of his political affiliation, as long as it is not forbidden by the law. I think the reason for this paradox is they are perfectly aware that their views are unacceptable by our modern society's standards, so they are afraid of being ostracized by their fellow citizens.

You speak as though the experience of Western societies is universal. It isn't. Only in the West would a fascist/Nazi hide in the closet, and that's due to certain historical facts in addition to the prevailing attitudes of Anglophone societies and the Western societies that are under the former's heavy influence.

[ioannis76]

After all, the most convincing argument is, in my opinion, that the majority of people admiring the fascist or nazist ideologies try really passionately to hide their beliefs, despite the undeniable evidence to the contrary and the fact that common sense dictates that someone should usually be publicly proud of his political affiliation, as long as it is not forbidden by the law.

LOL, "proud" of his political affiliation? I never could undestand how someone can be proud of something he had no part in making. One can really be proud of things that this person has achieved (or at least had some role in their creation) but anyway.

as long as it is not forbidden by the law.

The icing on the cake. Isn't it leftists nowadays who have picked up the motto that if voting could change something they would make it illegal? What is legal and what is illegal is completely up to those who hold power.

France, the UK and Netherlands still had colonies, Abdul. It wouldn't hurt to read history. The US persecuted commies even after WW2, not to mention race segregation (come to think of it, that existed in Europe, as well), so let's not get into that. Again, it would not hurt to read history.

So, back to the original question. What is fascism?
You spoke of "perfectly liberal democracies" and that was very interesting, cause you either did not know (which I doubt) or you overlooked the fact that these "liberal democracies" were anything but (in current terms). What liberal democracy would still hold colonies, had limited voting rights for groups of people, had racial segregation, etc? So we must accept that the "liberal democracies" of the 1940's were not the same "liberal democracies", they evolved. Similarly, we have this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQsLjt_XwXY
"Dearborn Muslims On Welfare and they hate us"
His views on muslims are not different to mine (maybe he is even more of a hardliner than me).

I ask you, and Da Vinci (the OP), is this man in the video a fascist?

[fkizz]

So, back to the original question. What is fascism?

German militaristic fascism is... Stalin's favorite Alibi.

[Sharukinu]

LOL, "proud" of his political affiliation? I never could undestand how someone can be proud of something he had no part in making. One can really be proud of things that this person has achieved (or at least had some role in their creation) but anyway.

It's called collective pride, or collective consciousness if you will. This concept does not fit the Western mentality, given how low the Western intellectual capacity is.

[Harith]

You spoke of "perfectly liberal democracies" and that was very interesting, cause you either did not know (which I doubt) or you overlooked the fact that these "liberal democracies" were anything but (in current terms). What liberal democracy would still hold colonies, had limited voting rights for groups of people, had racial segregation, etc?

Liberal democracy allows dissent and opposition. Something that no other form of government allows. And anyway, all of the Liberal democracies are, relative to everyone else, more egalitarian, respect rule of law and human rights.

His views on muslims are not different to mine (maybe he is even more of a hardliner than me).

I ask you, and Da Vinci (the OP), is this man in the video a fascist?

I am assuming you do not view him as a fascist. So lets do this shall we? You draw the line between what you would characterize as fascist or not and we'll discuss it from there.

[ioannis76]

Liberal democracy allows dissent and opposition. Something that no other form of government allows. And anyway, all of the Liberal democracies are, relative to everyone else, more egalitarian, respect rule of law and human rights.

Oh, that. Easy piesy. You just have a government and an opposition, that actually does the same things as the government if elected in power. Seriously, the two main parties in western democracies (because this is what it comes down to, two main parties or two main coalitions) don't have ANY differences between them whatsoever. The exception was, perhaps, the US under Trump, and we all see how violent things are getting.
I see that you don't address the point that the countries discussed (the Netherlands etc) were liberal democracies FOR THEIR ERA, but could not be called that TODAY, by TODAY's standards (which is the main point I am making).

I am assuming you do not view him as a fascist. So lets do this shall we? You draw the line between what you would characterize as fascist or not and we'll discuss it from there.

Please do not assume anything, just give me your opinion, if you will. Is he a fascist or not?

[jockmcplop]

The opposition in the UK is lead by a left wing socialist who has been branded a lunatic and unelectable by the media in their relentless campaign against him. The rest of his party want to go back to doing the same thing as the tories.