frame
Howdy Debater!
Sign In Register


Wal-Mart.com USA, LLC

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Opinion on actual Fascism

Opening Argument

1Hacker01Hacker0 88 Pts
edited August 9 in Politics
I just want to know what your honest opinion is when looking at real fascism. Obviously fascism is getting thrown around a lot as a derogatory term. I myself agree with some of the things fascism has to offer, so I was just wondering if I'm not alone. Here is a basic description of what actual fascism is:

Fascism is a type of nationalism. Fascists believes that capitalism and socialism each lacks in its own way so it tries to take the good things of both capitalism and socialism. It keeps property and businesses like in capitalism, but it also tries to satisfy everyone like in socialism. Fascist governments sponsor companies to work under the government. People can also create their own businesses, but the government makes sure the business does not pose a threat to the country. So in the middle of a war, the company can't aid the enemies, like American companies in WWII (American companies supplied oil to the Nazis). The government heavily taxes large businesses, but keeps them in power so that the company can develop as well. The government also keeps a large military which it consistently uses to promote national interests. Contrary to the belief of many people, fascism can actually be democratic at rare times. It is restricted to being a representative democracy in these cases. 

Some of the reasons why I'm not pure fascist is because it is required to be a dictatorship. Even when it is democratic, it is hard to kick the dictator off his position. Propaganda is used widely, and free speech isn't encouraged, which is part of the reason why democracy can't always get rid of a bad leader. Most fascist nations in the past didn't have democracy.

Nazism is a type of fascism which uses racism. It doesn't represent all fascism. Plus it has many socialist values which traditional fascists wouldn't like.

And by the way, fascism isn't social democracy. Although my description might seem to be similar to social democracy, there is a major difference. Every job has to benefit the state in some way. So if you want to have a retail store then be prepared to have extra restrictions, so you don't inflate the money. Also large companies are required to do research for better technology. And unlike social democracy where taxes are used for healthcare, fascism uses taxes for research.

This is just a brief description of fascism. I might also be biased so make sure to do your own research. Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain, and The Roman empire are some fascist/semi-fascist countries in the past.
joecavalrynorthsouthkoreaFascism
  1. Opinion of fascism

    13 votes
    1. It is mostly good.
      15.38%
    2. It is partially good.
      15.38%
    3. It is mostly bad.
      69.23%
«1

Status: Open Debate

Arguments

  • Fascism is horrible and may have been followed by the NAZIs.
    FlashPoint
    DebateIslander and a DebateIsland.com lover. 
  • Not "may have." It has been institutionalized by the Nazis. Institutionalized racism.
  • @FlashPoint fascism supports one culture. not necessarily one race. Read my statement: "Nazism is a type of fascism which uses racism. It doesn't represent all fascism. Plus it has many socialist values which traditional fascists wouldn't like."

    Nazi stands for "national socialist". it emphasizes racism and socialism in fascism
  • Fascism implements social darwinism. Facism is built on its racism, and is holds capitalistic values. There is also a tight class structure, which many people today wouldn't be okay with. 
  • Without liberty among the people, there is disorder.
  • @FlashPoint Once again, fascism isn't built on racism. It is built on one culture. It is a type of nationalism. I agree with the tight class structure, however. It is one of the reasons I'm not pure fascist
  • The focus is around a militaristic dictatorship. Dictators will be power hungry, and take away everything from the people. There are no values to the system itself. 
  • I wouldn't call it nationalism, but rather ethnocentrism.
  • @1Hacker0 read my explanation: "Some of the reasons why I'm not pure fascist is because it is required to be a dictatorship." I already agree with you on that point.

    Fascism is a type of nationalism. Nationalism is an ideology where only one culture is supported. Like in fascism.

    Ethnocentrism is part of every country. It is part of the USA when we criticize Asian countries for eating dog meat, it is part of terrorists when they criticize the USA for letting troops into the holy land, etc. There is nothing wrong with it.
  • @1Hacker0It seems to me that Fascism is more like a socialist ideal than a capitalist one. I don't think it's necessarily tied to nationalism, anymore than socialism is.

    In communism, government outright owns all property. There is no private ownership of property. This includes factories and other resources.

    In fascism, government doesn't own the property, but they can dictate how it is used. Individuals still take the risk of starting ventures, but once successful on any level, government controls the product, it's market, and its price.

    Both fascism and communism were inspired from the same source; the teachings and philosophy of Karl Marx. Mussolini even mentioned this in his memoirs. Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. In Germany, it took on a truly evil racist turn.

    In both cases, businesses lived or died by government whim. Employees of those businesses essentially became state workers. Secret police were commonly used to keep dissidents in line and support the government by force, or face prison or worse.

  • I don't go to work to support the State.  I go to work to put a roof over my head and feed my family.  The state will always take more than they give, even if you live off them, they take your freedom or your will to thrive.
  • FascismFascism 109 Pts
    @Nightwing ;
    "seems to me that Fascism is more like a socialist ideal than a capitalist one. I don't think it's necessarily tied to nationalism, anymore than socialism is." 

    Fascism is a mix of socialism and capitalism. Some types of fascism such as Nazism are more socialist, while other fascist movements such as Brazilian integralism are more capitalist. Fascism is required to be a type of nationalism. It is part of the definition. Name one fascist movement which isn't nationalist. 

    "In communism, government outright owns all property. There is no private ownership of property. This includes factories and other resources.
    In fascism, government doesn't own the property, but they can dictate how it is used. Individuals still take the risk of starting ventures, but once successful on any level, government controls the product, it's market, and its price." 

    Sure in WW2 Nazi Germany and Fascist might have had complete control of businesses, but this not the case with all fascism. Fascism requires corporatism, not necessarily complete control of businesses. Corporatism comes in many forms. It can range from Hitler's Nazism, to Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Early fascists (not Karl Marx) pointed to the Roman Empire as what they based fascist corporatism on. They highlighted how the Romans controlled inflation by prohibiting merchants to increase the price of goods, and also prohibited anyone from creating trade beneficial to enemy empires. If the United States did this, then its own companies wouldn't have supplied Nazi Germany with oil during the early stages of war. Also with corporatism, fascism can suppress monopolies. As many people know, America consists of a few super companies which control most of the economy, by working together. Fascism doesn't allow this to happen. These companies are forced to supply the state with research and supplies for development, while new businesses aren't taxed as much so that they can develop. Early fascists  knew the importance of the benefits of free market, but also took note of its weaknesses. Many European countries have taken note of the weaknesses and started to employ corporatism as well. 

    I say early fascists specifically, because the type of fascism they promote is outdated. Fascism has developed into a broader spectrum. 

    "Both fascism and communism were inspired from the same source; the teachings and philosophy of Karl Marx. Mussolini even mentioned this in his memoirs. Hitler was inspired by Mussolini. In Germany, it took on a truly evil racist turn." 

    It took a racist turn in Italy as well. Plus Mussolini didn't even invent fascism. He merely popularized it and gave it a country, which he didn't use properly. As I have stated before, there were many fascist writers. Fascism is a mix of socialism and capitalism, which explains why Mussolini was inspired by Marx, but he also looked to capitalism, and early fascist writers. 

    "In both cases, businesses lived or died by government whim. Employees of those businesses essentially became state workers. Secret police were commonly used to keep dissidents in line and support the government by force, or face prison or worse." 

    Italian fascism was originally supposed to have free speech, but Mussolini ditched this idea because no one supported him. It was called fascism before and after this change. Fascism can have free speech. The American Fascist Movement supports free speech and democracy. Democratic fascists in Italy during WW2 were subjugated by Mussolini as well. Fascism is a broad term, which doesn't only refer to WW2 fascism. 
  • FascismFascism 109 Pts
    @Rodinon Then why live under a government at all?
  • FascismFascism 109 Pts
    @1Hacker0 There is a tight class structure in every country, whether it is fascist or not. Fascism allows for movement between classes just as much as other countries, but the difference is that it doesn't give half of the nation's wealth to the top one percent, or give tons of money to useless celebrities. 

    Look at my previous post for the refutation for: "Fascism has to be a dictatorship." 

    And to add on to what you said, unlike social democracies, fascism also employs more corporatism, authoritarianism, and nationalism. 
  • VaulkVaulk 253 Pts
    If we're talking about today..oh there's the folks that marched in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, you know the ones...with the Swastika flags.  Then there's the Ku Klux Klan, they're openly Fascist. 

    There's a great deal of argument on this topic that Fascism is somehow not built upon Racism, instead it's built on one Culture...this is ridiculous.  If you're White and you are heavily vested in White culture but your Country is under a Fascist regime and it's decided that Black Culture will be the sole Culture of the country...then what happens?  Can you be forced into adopting another Race's culture?  Race and Culture are distinctly separate it's true...but that doesn't negate the fact that your culture is heavily dependent upon your Race.  For example, there are White people who have African Culture...not many compared to White people with Irish or European Culture but they do exist...they are the minority.  So then what happens to the Majority of the different Races that don't have that culture?  Cultural values, beliefs, practices are distinct and serve as personal identities...so under a Fascist Government...certain Races just wouldn't be allowed to have their Cultural distinction?  Would they be shunned if they refused?  Would they be cleansed?

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • FascismFascism 109 Pts
    edited October 4
    @Vaulk ;
    "If we're talking about today..oh there's the folks that marched in Charlottesville, Virginia on August 12, 2017, you know the ones...with the Swastika flags.  Then there's the Ku Klux Klan, they're openly Fascist."
    If we're talking about today, there also the American fascist movement, integralism, and business corporatists. They aren't racist. 

    just to avoid future confusion: race - a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 
                                                   culture - the customs, arts, social institutions, and achievements of a particular nation, people, or other social group. 

    There are two different cultures associated with race in India: Hindus, and Muslims. There are other cultures as well, but I will compare these two. The Hindus are the majority, and are usually situated in the center and southern parts of India. The Muslims are more situated in the outer regions. There are also many Pakistani refugees who are Muslim. 

    Supporting one culture doesn't automatically support racism. Just look at India. There are many Hindu supporting laws in India, most notable the restriction of beef in the market. However, there is not much racism against the Muslims. There is more Hindus killed than Muslims by the other culture, even though the laws support Hindus. 

    India is only one country, but there are many countries which support one culture, and have no racism as a direct cause of these laws. 

    Supporting one culture, if done right, doesn't lead to racism. The ethnic group which is predominantly Hindu doesn't have a lot of racism against the Muslim ethnic groups. 

    Supporting one culture is part of nationalism: 
    nationalism - loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups 
    Nationalism isn't bad if done right. 
  • Fascism said:
    @Rodinon Then why live under a government at all?
    Because anarchy doesn't work. It quickly results in a dictatorship.

    Governments do provide services that are useful.

    They provide a way to organize a defense system. They provide a way to organize things like roads and bridges. They provide a way to control murders and thefts. They provide for record storage of vital statistics.

    A government that runs under a constitution agreed upon by the people, and does not deviate from that constitution, is a republic: the only form of government that is limited and stable. It's the type of government that made Rome great (before the dictators destroyed it). It's the type of government each State of the United States is organized under.

    Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes.


  • FascismFascism 109 Pts
    @Nightwing ;
    "Because anarchy doesn't work. It quickly results in a dictatorship.
    Governments do provide services that are useful.
    They provide a way to organize a defense system. They provide a way to organize things like roads and bridges. They provide a way to control murders and thefts. They provide for record storage of vital statistics."

    My question was rhetorical. I agree with your answer because it proves him wrong. This was what I was intending him to think about. A citizen is entitled to the state, while in turn the state is entitled to the citizen. 

    "A government that runs under a constitution agreed upon by the people, and does not deviate from that constitution, is a republic: the only form of government that is limited and stable. It's the type of government that made Rome great (before the dictators destroyed it). It's the type of government each State of the United States is organized under.
    Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree with the constitutional system. The dictatorships continued Rome into the Byzantine Empire. The dictators lasted longer the republic. The Byzantine Empire only changed its name because it lost Rome, but it still flourished with the dictatorship. 

    I have already refuted the fact that fascism can't be democratic, or republic. 

    "Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree. I just believe that this unchanging foundation should be fascism. 
  • VaulkVaulk 253 Pts
    edited October 5
    @Fascism,

    I'm afraid you're incorrect about your reference to Race.  Race is not a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language or ethnicity.  There are Black Chinese and there are Black Africans just as there are Black Spaniards and Black Brazilians...you're suggesting that your Race is also an indicator of your culture and even your ethnicity...when that's not accurate at all.

    Your Race is nothing more than the classifications of "Your" physical characteristics. 

    Let's use the picture above.  If someone were to ask you to describe this man, you'd easily be able to say that he's Black.  But you don't know his ethnicity do you?  What culture does he identify with?  What language does he speak?  What is his ancestry?  You don't know and there's no way to know by simply identifying his Race.  He IS Black, there's no denying it but he could easily be Chinese, Canadian or African...you don't know.  So the point I'm making is Race and Ethnicity are not the same thing, they are not synonymous and are mutually exclusive.  The definition of race does include that Race and Ethnicity are synonymous but I've shown that they in fact are not.  If they were then Every Black person would have one ethnicity and so would be the same for every other Race...but they don't.  

    To your point of "Supporting one culture doesn't automatically support racism"...you're right and I won't contend this.  What DOES support racism is the specific exclusion or refusal of a culture which is the result of Fascism.  Yes Fascism will support one Culture...but ONLY one culture.  So what does this mean for other cultures that AREN'T supported?  Well if your country doesn't support your culture then a natural "Us vs them" mentality ensues.  This is what opens the doors to ethnic cleansing.  The alternative is what?  The other unsupported cultures get thrown out of the country?  So now we're looking at a potential refuge crisis and that's IF the other cultural people are allowed to leave peacefully for which I've never seen an example of.  Or maybe the other cultural groups are allowed to stay and are just 2nd class citizens as their culture is in direct opposition by the Nation.  So now we're talking about consensual discrimination and human rights suppression.

    Onto your example of Hindu and Muslim.  Let's be very VERY clear on this one because this somehow is STILL a supporting argument when it's intellectually wrong.  Hindu is a religion and has absolutely, positively NOTHING to do with your Race.  Hindu is NOT a race.  I'm White, my Friend is Black, we both decide to convert to Hinduism, we're now both Hindu.  The same goes for Muslims, there is NO Muslim Race.  The idea that Muslims or Hindus are a Race of people is a stereotype and is racial prejudice because without ANY logical reasoning or knowledge...there's this idea that it's a Race of people when it's not.  This is the equivalent of saying that Mexican is a Race when every Race of people on the planet is known to be a citizen of Mexico in one part or another.

    To your point of there being a Country in existence today that has "No racism".

    Fascism said:
    @Vaulk ;
    "
    India is only one country, but there are many countries which support one culture, and have no racism as a direct cause of these laws. 

    I would like to know firstly what country you're talking about that has no racism and then I'd like to know who told you that because whoever it was deserves some serious shame for spreading that lie.  This is not one country in this world that is void of Racism and most of us seem to understand that clearly.  And to clarify, it's not possible for Hindus as a group to be Racist towards Muslims as a group...these aren't Races and the disputes between the two groups would be based purely upon religious ideology which again has NOTHING to do with Race.  This is another case in point of why Race and Ethnicity are not the same thing nor are Race and Culture.  I'd also like to know what precedence you claim as support to "Supporting one culture, if done right, doesn't lead to racism" because if you only support one culture then you must by definition oppose any other and cultural opposition at a national level has lead to some pretty horrific stuff in the past.

    For everyone else's edification, "Nationalism" is synonymous with Zealotry and fanaticism.  Play out a scenario in your mind where an entire country has extreme devotion to the opposition of a Culture of people that live in that country.  Play out a scenario in your mind where Zealots live among their opposition.  Now name me one time or place in history where the above scenarios resulted in peace between the cultures.  

    "Nationalism isn't bad if done right".  I suppose it's technically possible to be a Zealot and fanatical about your opposition to another culture of people and not be violent towards that culture of people just as it's possible for a child to live in a pedophile commune and live peacefully without problem...it's just not likely and anyone with half a mind would see the recipe for disaster.




    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Fascism said:
    @Nightwing ;
    "Because anarchy doesn't work. It quickly results in a dictatorship.
    Governments do provide services that are useful.
    They provide a way to organize a defense system. They provide a way to organize things like roads and bridges. They provide a way to control murders and thefts. They provide for record storage of vital statistics."

    My question was rhetorical. I agree with your answer because it proves him wrong. This was what I was intending him to think about. A citizen is entitled to the state, while in turn the state is entitled to the citizen. 

    "A government that runs under a constitution agreed upon by the people, and does not deviate from that constitution, is a republic: the only form of government that is limited and stable. It's the type of government that made Rome great (before the dictators destroyed it). It's the type of government each State of the United States is organized under.
    Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree with the constitutional system. The dictatorships continued Rome into the Byzantine Empire. The dictators lasted longer the republic. The Byzantine Empire only changed its name because it lost Rome, but it still flourished with the dictatorship. 

    I have already refuted the fact that fascism can't be democratic, or republic. 

    "Rule under an unchanging foundation (or at least difficult to change) gives everyone the predictability needed to plan ahead for their businesses, investments, and homes."

    I agree. I just believe that this unchanging foundation should be fascism. 
    The State is not entitled to anything. It is created by the citizen. The citizen is not entitled to the government. It is created by him.

    If you agree with the constitutional system, than you agree to a republican form of government. That's what a republic IS.

    Fascism can only exist through theft of control of property. No one will voluntarily agree to this. It must be forced upon them. That means a dictatorship or oligarchy. Neither are republics.

    There are certainly people who agree (for a short time) the promise of Utopia that fascism and socialism promise, but change their mind when they discover how unobtainable this Utopia is, and what price they are now paying for the false promise.

    Talk to anyone that escaped such systems of government. They will tell you why they will never go back.


  • FascismFascism 109 Pts
    @Nightwing
    "The State is not entitled to anything. It is created by the citizen."

    The state is entitled to it's citizens because without its citizens, it's not a state. It can't function. Sure, an immoral tyrannical government doesn't deserve citizens, but that is why we have constitutions and restrictions. If the government doesn't follow them, then the citizens can rebel. 

    "The citizen is not entitled to the government. It is created by him."

    A government is created by the people for the people. If people don't have government, there would be anarchy. They deserve governments. 

    "If you agree with the constitutional system, than you agree to a republican form of government. That's what a republic IS."

    A republic is where the government's power is derived from the people. It doesn't guarantee a constitution. There is a reason why some republics are constitutional republics, and other republics are just republics. 

    "Fascism can only exist through theft of control of property. No one will voluntarily agree to this. It must be forced upon them. That means a dictatorship or oligarchy. Neither are republics."

    Fascism uses a command economy.  A command economy is where the economy is planned. A command economy can be good if it isn't used excessively. Don't attribute a command economy with only ww2 fascist or the soviet union. It is an accepted form of economic growth in the modern world. If government intervention is kept at a low level, a command economy can work. The current accepted form of command economy is called a mixed economy, since it has low levels of government intervention. 

    Late Falangism used a mixed economy. This is a type of fascism. 

    I have already refuted that fascism can't be democratic or a republic. Your arguments that state that fascism can't be a republic or democracy don't address my arguments. 

    If someone "escaped" a command economy, then it is obvious that it was oppressive. The people who didn't need to escape a command economy even though they could (like in social democracy) means that it was a good form. Social democracy uses a mixed economy. 
  • FascismFascism 109 Pts
    @Vaulk
    I was using the dictionary definition of race:

    a group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. 

    Your definition of race is also valid. 

    I also don't think that there is no racism in India. You have only quoted one of my sentences. Here are two others:

    "However, there is not much racism against the Muslims. There is more Hindus killed than Muslims by the other culture, even though the laws support Hindus."
    "The ethnic group which is predominantly Hindu doesn't have a lot of racism against the Muslim ethnic groups."

    I made a statement with exceptions, which is: There is no racism against Muslims from Hindus, with the exception of some attacks, which are less than the attacks of the Muslims against Hindus. I stated the statement with the exception twice. The third time I only made the statement, but it is implied that the exception still applies. 

    Lastly, your definition of nationalism only applies to radical groups. 

    Nationalism - 
    patriotic feeling, principles, or efforts.
    • an extreme form of this, especially marked by a feeling of superiority over other countries.
    • advocacy of political independence for a particular country.
    As you can see, the opposition or exclusion of other cultures or nationalities only occurs in a radical form of nationalism. Normal nationalism only has support for his own country. You have accepted that if someone has support for his own culture or nationality it doesn't cause racism, as long as he doesn't oppose other cultures or nationalities. Your quote:

    "To your point of "Supporting one culture doesn't automatically support racism"...you're right and I won't contend this.  What DOES support racism is the specific exclusion or refusal of a culture which is the result of Fascism." 

    I used India's example of nationalism which excludes Muslims, but I never said I support it. 
  • VaulkVaulk 253 Pts
    @Fascism

    You know I don't get to say this alot and I'm being really liberal with that statement, I don't really ever get to say this except once in a blue moon but while our positions may differ, you make excellent points and I appreciate the way you construct your argument.  One: Because while we disagree on many of the points you're not using the typical deceptive tactics of misdirection to twist out a conclusion.  And two: Because you've successfully addressed the points and made a valid attempt at refuting them instead of ignoring potential losses or missed points.

    That being said, you're right concerning the definition of Race.  The dictionary (And I'm not sure why) contends that Race is the same thing as an ethnic group.  For the purpose of legal documentation I'm certain this is mostly correct but in the context of one race versus another, racial disparity, racial inequality, racial diversity ect ect, they are not the same at all.

    And again, there can be no Racism against Muslims unless you're fully prepared to offer the argument that all Muslims are one Race of people.  Keep in mind that a Muslim is simply a Human Being that practices Islam within the doctrine of the Quran.  There is no official documentation or certification require in order to be a Muslim, it's simply the reciting of the Shahada or "Testimony of Faith"...that's it.  So unless reciting this Shahada somehow changes your Race then you can easily see how it's not logically sound to say that Muslims face Racism in any shape or form.  The term "Racism" in our society has disingenuously replaced the words Prejudice, Bias, Discrimination, Hate, Bigotry and Intolerance and somehow now means all or some of them, whichever ones apply.  The only reason "Racism" has taken this new role is because of the severity of its connotation, it's because when people hear the word "Racism" the purest image of racism that Americans conjure up to associate with the term is "Nazi" or "Hitler", both of which are generally held to be the worst examples of Humanity.  The reason we use "Racism" to describe natural bias or simple discrimination is because it's actually been adopted by our culture as a complete and horrible Misnomer. 

    Example: There's nothing wrong with saying "I'd rather be a Baptist than a Catholic".  This statement is indicative of discrimination, specifically Religious discrimination...because you're making your stance clear that you have a preference of one over the other and reject one over the other.  You'd also be eluding to your bias in Religious preference if you admitted to knowing little or nothing about Catholicism.  Well in today's society, you have be careful with whom you say this around for fear of being cast down as a "Racist".  ...Seriously.  Something as small as liking one group over the other can label you as a Racist...do you think that's ethical?  Now if I said: "I don't really think I could ever practice Catholicism because of what happened during the Crusades and besides, I'm a Baptist".  This is a simple example of Prejudice, because unless you've actually studied the Crusades then you'd be speaking from ignorance (Prejudice), it would be simple Discrimination; because you'd be admitting preference of one over the over without justification and you'd be indicating your bias; because your choice of Baptist doctrine was based on prior establishment.  Now you're a super, duper, ultra-mega Hitler Racist!  You see where this is going?

    As intellectuals we need to put the foot down on the brakes hard when it comes to this kind of behavior.  I can't see any point of mislabeling racism other than to unfairly vilify someone or something.  This is dangerous logic that we're talking about and I only say that because it really does seem to be sweeping our Country.  People all over are slinging the word "Racist" with no forethought as to what they're even talking about.  Are you intolerant of Islam?  You're a Racist!  Do you think the statistics concerning racial disparity in crime are accurate?  You're a Racist!  Do you support BLM?  Well if you're White then it doesn't matter...you're DOUBLE Racist!  We need to put a stop to the misuse of this word.

    Apologies for the extent of that, probably should find another topic for that one but I really can't crush that whole "Race baiting" ideology enough.

    As far as Nationalism goes, you've stated that you don't support India's example of Nationalism because it excludes Muslims but you've also stated that:

    Fascism said:

    Supporting one culture is part of nationalism: 
    nationalism - loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially :a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
    If you support Nationalism, and by your own admission "Part of Nationalism is "Supporting One culture"", then by your own statement you support opposing and excluding all other cultures within the Nationalist body.  You see how it's not possible to support just one culture without specifically opposing all others?  I mean I suppose you could technically just tolerate the other cultures without supporting them but from a National standpoint, if the vast majority of the country refuses to support a minority Culture within its borders...what do you honestly think will happen to that culture?  I would think you'd only have to look at history to see what happens to cultures when the entire nation they live within turns their back on them.  From a history standpoint...it's usually not very pretty.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • Classical Fascism isn't rascist. Legitimately it is only the system of nationalism centralized around goverment authority. Mussolini cited race "as a sentiment, not a reality." There argument over.
  • Why is race even part of this discussion. I thought it was on actual fascism and not some dude accusing us of causes not found before 1938 Italy. Citing is as racist is almost as ignorant as actual national socialism the party of >National Socialist M Germany. Nobody would have called it fascist Germany. Look up the vaterlandische front of Austria. That should help show you the differences.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch